hi!!! hope you're doing well!!

out of curiosity, do you like books by Terry Pratchett or John Scalzi? I put Muir next to them on the shelf in my head

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but if you mean the ages of the protagonists, then no, that doesn't change for the next novel. Though the other two books are much more somber, the tone and style are pretty consistently Muir throughout both of them as well.

I've picked up new information each reread as I've knit together the information from all the POVs. I love that, but if that kind of thing isn't fun for readers they probably won't like the series

oh I should also say that these books are like nesting dolls. the way I went through them was to read the first, second, then reread the first, second, then when the third came out I read that then reread the first, second, and third, and then lately I've done a total reread again.

I'm curious as to why you didn't actively love the first book--was it the type of humor? the heavily referential style?--because if it was either of those things, yeah I wouldn't invest in the rest of the series. hope that helps!

so a) the next books in the series are nothing like the first but b) I have heard from others who did not like the first book that the series was just not for them. the first book is widely considered the easiest to breeze through--a total blast, while the others are more somber.

YES I am a superfan and could talk about it for hours

this post made me put on the first ep and I am LOVING it!!! it's so good, I love how goofy and serious it is at the same time (my heart breaks for min!)

✍️ that was gonna be my next question haha! (meaning "do you have some other theorists whose work you think does a better job of capturing these nuances?") thanks for the rec, you preemptively answered it :)

this concept was totally foreign to me bc so much of LGBT activist work has been centered around trying to prove that we are allowed to exist, so maybe I will see some of whipping girl in that vein. it was so freeing to be introduced to the concept that we don't have to prove ourselves

having since learned about medical gatekeeping around trans health, that's making some dots click. if I ever do a reread I'll keep an eye out for that! I believe it was a contrapoints video that first introduced the concept of not having to "justify" that being gay or trans is okay to me.

huh, I've been out of the game so long that I hadn't even considered the bio essentialist stuff, because I don't think I even was aware of bio essentialism at the time. she wrote that in 2004 I believe, so for me it's just pretty much the first text that I learned about transfeminism from

this also isn't to knock serano, I love her work and she might have evolved her analysis since writing whipping girl also, and I do think there is some truth to femininity being degraded overall. it's just also celebrated and unlocks doors in a way that I think is hard for women to see sometimes

this is me reading your post and assuming you're responding to the claim that "(bigoted) men hate gnc men bc they hate women and by hating them they are treating them like women" by pointing out that they're... not. is that right?

person being looked at, is a universal negative. it seems so obvious at times, but I think for some people, learning that the exact same trait that in a cis woman that will be celebrated (because it's feminine) will lead to harassment for a cis man is a "wow" moment

yes! based on what you've shared of your academic experience, I assume you've read whipping girl, and that is one part of serano's analysis that I've always sort've been ??? about, because part of what makes bigotry so confusing is that I don't think "femininity" itself, divorced from the--