\ by Michael Bronski

\ Reviews

• 
  Carmen

  I don't know what I was expecting from this book, but it wasn't what I got. The fact that I can't find an opening quote to put up here is indicative of that fact.
  
  This book has a lot of problems.
  
  1.) It's dull.
  
  2.) It's basic. This may be a starting point for people who are ignorant of anything about or anyone in the LGBT+ community, but the information here will be old hat - and occasionally VERY old hat - to people familiar with LGBT+ issues.
  
  I would say, "This is a good starter book for adolescents or sheltered ignorant straight adults to start learning about the issues and realities surrounding the LGBT+ community" but it's so fucking boring that I would never say that.
  
  It's very basic knowledge that is commonly known to most people.
  
  3.) It's outdated. A lot of the research cited is outdated. A lot of the stereotypes and prejudices explored here are old. Old, old, old. Not to say that prejudices and assumptions don't still exist about queer folk - of course, they do - but the ones in here are some '60s shit. Which is interesting if you are into the history of being queer in America, but not very relevant to today's society.
  
  4.) The authors don't really explain - and possibly don't really understand - what it is to be bisexual.
  
  5.) The transgender sections are outdated and also ignore key issues - like the fact that gender reassignment surgery and / or putting your transgender child on puberty blockers etc. etc. cost a lot of money. It's just not a possibility for a lot of transgender people who are poor or transgender kids who are in poor or lower income families.
  
  6.) The authors label a chapter "Myth 12: People of Color Are More Homophobic Than White People" but they do not mean PoC, they mean black people because this whole chapter ONLY focuses and talks about black people and specifically African-American ideas and attitudes towards queer people as allegedly shown by voting patterns.
  
  7.) Speaking of race, it was also weird that the authors would - when discussing an experiment in which people are asked to look at pictures of people and guess whether they are gay or not - say something like Neither did racial stereotypes of, for example, Asian men as effeminate and, thus, gay, or of black men as masculine and, thus, straight. [affect people's ideas of who was gay] Are you... Were they only using white people as subjects for this experiment?!?!
  
  8.) It's also strange to me when the authors talk as if Joan of Arc was a transgender person or when they cite women who dressed as men in order to do things like, I don't know, save their lives or go on a sea voyage or escape from slavery or etc. etc. in the past - which is obviously borne out of necessity, not any kind of sexual or gender identity motivations. I mean,... women were killed and hated and raped*, it only made sense that women might often dress as men to escape marriage, sexual slavery, and being shunted into no job, or boring and/or non-physical work. I don't really see how that corresponds to being a transgender individual.
  
  
  Are there any positives?
  
  Of course.
  
  -They make some good points, even though a lot of those points are well known.
  
  -The page on Cynthia Nixon and her instance that being a lesbian was a choice for her and the backlash she received was fascinating.
  
  -Sometimes the book raises and discusses questions like Is the rape of women by men a hate crime? which are interesting and make you think.
  
  -Their takedown on the idea that same-sex marriage is a threat to opposite-sex marriage is good, and their points about lesbian sex and lesbian fetishization by straight men are also good. Nothing new, but good.
  
  
  Tl;dr - I expected more from this book. Not only that, I expected it to be more interesting. But it's not completely without merit IMO.
  
  *still are!
• 
  Rose

  Initial reaction: I haz a soapbox, hear me roar.
  
  (Translation: This review is too much for me to pen at 3 A.M. in the morning or thereabouts. This will be a long review, but my overarching statement was that this was not researched or presented well for the arguments it sets up. I may need to go through the text a second time to get every point of offense I can get from this text. I had so many issues on the level of generalized, global assertions, transient arguments, outright outlandish claims, and unsupported, inconclusive summaries.
  
  I don't think this was a very good assessment of GLBT issues nor for debunking the myths that were presented in this text. I will concede that there were some spots of construction, but overall - what a disappointment. I expected much more from it.)
  
  Full review:
  
  I have no doubt that many people who pick up this book looking for a work that articulately and accurately dispels many myths about the perceptions of GLBT life, individuals, and offers intriguing, meaningful reflections on sexual orientation will be sorely disappointed.
  
  I know I was, and I consider myself a GLBT ally. I am also a woman of color, and many of the arguments in here did address people of color, so I figured - "Yesss, a text that covers minority groups with intelligent expansions, let's do this."
  
  Or so I thought.
  
  I'm trying to figure how three Ph.D individuals offered such a disjointed, unorganized, and even grossly offensive text in some measures. I'm blown away really trying to reflect because it was so underwhelming and by the measure that it did NOT do what it promised it would do. I'm willing to concede that the idea behind this text was great, and the introduction was well written, but the actual citations given in the body of the book were very difficult to follow, and the assertions I'll admit made me want to throw up my hands for comparison and stereotype, as well as tangents that were frequently taken when expounding.
  
  The long and short of what this text comprises is 21 common myths that are attributed to GLBT life and lifestyles, and the three authors who grouped together for this text made an aim to debunk these respective myths. The problem was...I didn't see much debunking in this book at all.
  
  Let me first list all of the 21 Myths that are given in this respective book just so you guys can have an idea of what the book proposes.
  
  Myth 1: You Can Tell Who’s Gay Just by Looking
  Myth 2: About 10 Percent of People Are Gay or Lesbian
  Myth 3: All Transgender People Have Sex-Reassignment
  Myth 4: Sexual Abuse Causes Homosexuality
  Myth 5: Most Homophobes Are Repressed Homosexuals
  Myth 6: Transgender People Are Mentally Ill
  Myth 7: Homosexuals Are Born That Way
  Myth 8: LGBT Parents Are Bad for Children
  Myth 9: Same-Sex Marriage Harms Traditional Marriage
  Myth 10: All Religions Condemn Homosexuality
  Myth 11: Gay Rights Infringe on Religious Liberty
  Myth 12: People of Color Are More Homophobic Than White People
  Myth 13: Lesbians Do Not Have Real Sex
  Myth 14: All Bisexual Men Are Actually Gay; All Bisexual Women Are Actually Straight
  Myth 15: Transgender People Are Gay
  Myth 16: There’s No Such Thing as a Gay or Trans Child
  Myth 17: Positive Visibility in the Media Increases Tolerance and Acceptance of LGBT People
  Myth 18: Coming Out Today Is Easier Than Ever Before
  Myth 19: Antidiscrimination Laws in the United States Protect LGBT People
  Myth 20: Hate Crime Laws Prevent Violence against LGBT People
  Myth 21: Getting Tested on a Regular Basis Helps Prevent the Spread of HIV
  
  Quite many of these are very serious stereotypes and myths so I expected them to be treated with thorough investigation and expansion. If I'm referencing a text that did GLBT myth debunking very well, reading John Corvino's "What's Wrong With Homosexuality" and the way it debunked many stereotypes on the basis of social, religious, among other stereotypes I thought were brilliant and personally evocative. So, after reading that among other GLBT narratives that were academic, insightful, and for some personally evocative, I expect so much from this narrative.
  
  The introduction of this book was fine. It actually made me anticipate what the book was going to present and I thought it would be a mature expansion on each of the myths that were covered in this respective text.
  
  I had problems with the expansion from the very first Myth debunking. Especially when I read a few lines like this:
  
  When a gay man walks down the street, he does so like gay men do. When a lesbian laughs at a joke, she is laughing like lesbians do. The individual is seen as inseparable from the group identity.
  
  or this:
  
  No matter who we are, we might act differently around a white person (or a person we think is white) than a black person (or a person we think is black). This is also true for someone we identify as a woman rather than a man.
  
  Act differently how? This wasn't followed up and I'm (at this point) side-eyeing the heck out of my screen.
  
  The context is that the myth is exploring the measure of people's "gaydar." This puzzled me because the long and the short of what I'm thinking on this topic is "You CANNOT judge a person's sexuality by the way they look. Nor should you." Trying to frame the argument seriously around a "gaydar" is not only disingenuous, but it's also really...stereotypical (and isn't this book about breaking those stereotypes?). The chapter does eventually say that people are mistaken on judging people's sexuality based on looks, but it's a bit meandering in its focus and narrative both.
  
  It's not that I don't understand that we (as people in general) give off sexual cues and have variant factors about our person and personality that attract us to different people, but the narrative should've been a little more apt to saying that versus trying to segment this by factors of gender or race or orientation. There were some interesting factual tidbits given about GLBT men and women serving in the military and the histories on how people discriminated against those hiding their sexuality (based on factors of appearance), but considering the presentation is so disjointed that it jumps from one measures to the next without transition - it was difficult to follow.
  
  But I thought "Maybe I'm being too critical and should just read on and see what they say. Maybe they might come back to it later in greater detail, because surely the text can't be this juvenile." But overall, the first myth debunking was a fail because it didn't really "debunk" or refute the claim in a way that made it easy to understand why it was a myth.
  
  I did read on in this book for a while and appreciated the presentation of some aspects including transgendered living, the history of the term "homophobia", history of GLBT identities being labeled under disorders and the complications and destructive assumptions associated with that, among other measures. I also appreciated the recognition that GLBT individuals are of different races, religions, and respective backgrounds. But I was a bit shocked by how little research or citation some of these measures had - it made it difficult to not only determine who this book was written for, but also thoroughly vetting out some of the myths themselves for larger food for thought. Then the narrative started taking tangents again to the point that I wasn't following the arguments easily, it would talk about one topic and then transition to another without good form. If the individual sections had dividing points where the narrative were allowed to expand upon those specific factual tidbits, it may have made the narrative easier to follow.
  
  I was really horrified by the assertions in this book made about the death of Matthew Shepard. It wasn't presented in a constructive manner at all, even for what they probably intended to present it as. The way they *tried* to frame the argument was that Matthew Shepard's death remained a mystery to the public as to why it happened. That's what they were going for, but it had this condescending tone over the measure rather than an unbiased presentation. The whole measure that the public outcry over his death was "not based on criminology or logic, but emotion" was so off the mark, I don't know how anyone could pickup this book and not see the offense in that. The way this book presents it makes it seem like the response in the GLBT spectrum for awareness and campaigning in the aftermath of his death was moot, if not unsubstantiated.
  
  Or even rage this assertion:
  
  "Even if there had been a state or federal hate crime law in place, it is also highly likely it would not have prevented the murder."
  
  ...I don't know if I can even dignify that with a response. I wanted to throw the book down at that point (had it not been a digital copy), because it's such an odd assertion of logic. I'm beyond livid at this trivialization of a complex and sensitive matter. With very little to no research or resources cited at that.
  
  I also had trouble with the debunking of the last myth which had to do with HIV testing and the prevention of spreading HIV - but it was so awkwardly worded and jumpy in assertion that on one hand, it seemed like they were denouncing the importance of testing, and on the other hand saying it was important.
  
  Not recommended. There are far better texts on GLBT living and debunking myths, and this is not a good resource for the measure because not only do they lack sensitivity or research to inform on the matter, but it's meandering, unfocused, and unnecessarily convoluted. Not illuminating or aptly informed of its subject matter at all.
  
  Overall score: 1/5 stars.
  
  Note: I received this as an ARC from Edelweiss, from the publisher.
• 
  Tara Spears

  I am an author of LGBT fiction, and received a copy of this book through the first reads program here on Goodreads.
  
  I was very excited to receive this book and set right to reading. Immediately I was disappointed. Almost everything in this book can be found on wikipedia, yes, you heard right, wikipedia.
  
  Where this could have been a fabulous guide to the general public, it failed miserably. It reads like an overblown, and under-researched thesis. So sad. I was hoping this would be a book I could recommend to parents of LGBTQ children, but it is not. The technical information, although accurate in some cases, would only confuse the average parent looking for honest answers to their questions. What a shame to fail in that respect.
  
  I also noticed in several instances the myth was never actually put to rest, rather going round, and round, and never actually answering the real question.
  
  In Myth 2 this book only quotes Kinsey's reports, and in all actuality the percentage is higher according to more recent studies. (Closer to 20 percent.) And if you want to get really technical; 30 percent of the earth's population is genetically different. That makes three of every ten a minority, genetically speaking of course. (which has nothing to do with homosexuality-- only trying to justify my rant.)
  
  Myth 7 rubbed me and several of my gay friends (Yes, I read it to them.) the wrong way. Not to mention this book never actually "busted the myth". Instead they quoted an actress, and listed a lot of supporting research showing gay men are in fact physically different than hetro males. How does this prove gays are a product of environment rather than being born gay? Enlighten me, please?
  
  These are just two instances that irked me. The rest of the book contained outdated, and in a few instances, misquoted research.
  
  Maybe I hoped for too much here. I feel robbed of what could have been a groundbreaking book, but instead made me angry. I gave it two stars because it is well written, and for someone on the lazy side looking for research material it might prove worthy in that respect. Yet, I would never quote this book myself.
• 
  Greg

  Just a few pages in, this book felt outdated. So I closed the book and studied the title: "You Can Tell Just By Looking AND 20 Other Myths.." and I thought, "No, you can't tell by looking, that's not a myth at all." One chapter is titled "Homosexuals are Born That Way" and sites several works/studies, the most recent from 1991! I didn't find the term "epigenetics" anywhere in this book (that's the study of the effect of surroundings, even in the womb, on specific genes/combination of genes...but I'm not a geneticist.) Anita Bryant's famous quote is here: "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children: therefore, they must recruit our children." The authors do say she was wrong about the recruitment part, but don't say what else is wrong with Bryant's quote. Of COURSE homosexuals CAN biologically reproduce children! If you ask me, it's way, way too easy for just anybody to produce children and homosexuals have been getting married and having children...forever. In 2013, perhaps this book seemed relevant. It does not seem so, to me, today.
• 
  Sarah

  My goal was to read and review this book. But I have to confess that this the first book I’ve ever reviewed without finishing. Each chapter presents a myth and then debunks it, and I came in hesitant after reading a sample chapter. So I read the introduction then skipped right to the chapter about bisexual people.
  
  The chapter, titled “All Bisexual Men Are Really Gay, All Bisexual Women Are Really Straight,” was painful. It was incredibly cissexist and full of talk about gender binaries. There was no mention of the massive overlap between the Bs and Ts or even an basic understanding that non-binary or genderqueer bisexual people exist at all.
  
  Moreover in an attempt to bust these myths, the authors play right into other ones. They explain bisexuality in a way that sounds like bisexuals are half-gay and half-straight instead of it’s own sexual orientation that operates differently than monosexuality. There is no discussion of monosexism at all and biphobia is barely touched upon. There is no mention of the vast inequalities between bisexual people and their monosexual (gay and straight) contemporaries such as the vastly increased rates of emotional and physical abuse or poor mental health. In doing so it perpetrates another myth — that our primary problem as bisexuals is just people being rude to us, and not the structural problems in heterosexual society and LGBT communities that privilege monosexuality.
  
  As though we can be shoved into one little chapter that is vague as hell then effectively excluded from the rest of the book.
  
  Michael Bronski, Ann Pellegrini, Michael Amico are academics in LGBT/Queer Studies and related fields at East Coast colleges. And from what I can find on their CVs, none of them has ever studied bisexuality. The only citation for this chapter was an article in TIME from 1974. Yep, 1974. They don’t think anything has changed on this topic in almost FORTY years?? They are academics and they cannot be bothered to do any research on the topic of bisexuality? I know it’s a bit hard to find good bi resources, but come on. Looking up the Journal of Bisexuality in Taylor&Francis Online isn’t rocket surgery. At the very least they could have approached members of the bisexual community to vet this chapter if they were determined to peddle this crap.
  
  The end result is an exasperating, eye rolling, and disappointing. I skimmed the chapter on “Myth 3: All Transgender People Have Sex-Reassignment Surgery” but it just made me uncomfortable. If you’re talking about that topic and don’t mention anywhere that many people cannot afford surgery, I think you’re missing the point by a wide margin. So I just gave up on the whole thing. It was so uncomfortably cissexist, so monosexist, and just so out of touch that I’d rather use it to throw at something than to read. It seems like it’s come out of a time machine from, well, 1974.
  
  Maybe if you had an incredibly conservative grandmother who had never met a gay person or ever seen one on tv this would be a good starting place for a conversation. But I certainly wouldn’t give it to anyone you know hoping that they’ll learn more about bisexuality than they would in five minutes on Google.
  
  From my blog at
  bisexual-books.tumblr.com
• 
  Tom

  (nb: I received a review copy of this book from the publisher via Edelweiss)
  
  Until recently, I worked for a company with a large percentage of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered (LGBT) employees. They were supervisors, floor employees, executives—literally, there were LGBT people at every level and in every department. The ones I knew showed up every day, worked hard, were friendly and kind, and were invested in our company’s success.
  
  And any one of them could have been fired on the spot for being LGBT. Goodbye. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200, and leave your ID with the
  guard.
  
  Myth #19, in this fascinating glimpse into LGBT issues, is “Anti-Discrimination Laws in the United States Protect LGBT People.” Some states have enacted such laws, but not Florida, where my company is.
  
  I am not homosexual, nor have I ever been. However, I have had a number of very close LGBT friends—I’ve worked in more LGBT-friendly industries than most people have—and I like to think I have a pretty good grasp on what’s real and what’s myth concerning LGBT persons.
  
  Turns out, I’m not quite as informed as I thought.
  
  The 21 Myths in this book deal with all manner of topics faced by LGBT’s, from fallacies regarding how they came to be LGBT in the first place, to how different religions discriminate (or don’t) against them, even how there is—as I mentioned—no federal law protecting their rights.
  
  “You Can Tell Just by Looking” takes on each myth individually, and explains in clear language why these myths exist, and how they can be overcome.
  
  One fact I hadn’t considered before, is that there hasn’t always been peace in the LGBT ranks. The L’s and G’s have mostly worked together for decades, but there was some resistance to adding “Bisexual” to their lobbying group. Same with Transgender—I mean, that’s a completely different situation, right?
  
  That’s how many of the L’s, G’s, and B’s saw things. So this big group has had its share of internecine struggles. Also, how big a group is it? Myth #2 is that “About 10 Percent of People Are Gay or Lesbian.”
  
  There are great insights in this book. The authors draw from a variety of sources, and write in a clear, economical style. Most of all, this isn’t a book designed to turn people gay. (If anything, I think reading some of the hardships LGBT’s face might be a deterrent.) It’s designed to dispel myths and facilitate understanding, but also to put the LGBT experience into sociological context. There has been a wealth of scholarly research into LGBT people and how they fit into society, and yet we’re less likely to hear enlightened discourse than some idiot saying, “Look! That guy’s as queer as a football bat.”
  
  Speaking of which...As for Myth #1, “You Can Tell Who’s Gay Just By Looking”? Watch Rock Hudson in “Giant,” and tell me he “looked gay.” Not a damn chance.
  
  Highly Recommended.
  
• 
  Stephie Williams

  This book explores the misinformation that maybe harming the LGBT community. It delves into problems that occur when people, including LGBT individuals themselves believe things that just aren't so. So, it covers myths that other people have and myths that are belief by some in the LGBT community. More importantly they use these myths to explore real world problems.
  
  I have a few comments on pieces of texts from the book. Page numbers are in brackets [] from the Beacon Press paperback edition of 2013.
  
  [47] The authors actually use the term "young sissies." I found that to be very demeaning way of referring to young boys that appear more feminine than their peers. Sissy can be used in a non-derogatory manner, but speak of "pathologizing" them is not it.
  
  [48] Speaking on gender dysphoria they state that these individuals "may want medical interventions to change their bodies—this is called transitioning." This is only partially true. While many transgender persons choose a medical route, most from my experience begin their transitioning by dressing in a gender appropriate manner. Some have no access to medical treatment either by hormones or surgery, or for whatever other reason. They are still transitioning.
  
  [145] In response to people thinking with more "positive images" they say, "If we insist on speaking complicated truths, and countering lies, about LGBT people, we can make a positive change in how media represents LGBT people and their lives . . ." Based on a feminist quote about having "complex and compelling ones" instead of just "positive images." I feel the need in my own case. I am a mature transgender woman and it pains me that besides Caitlyn Jenner the images I see are younger and prettier, and I feel this does not represents me and others like me. We can not all be Jazz or even Caitlyn, who has gained a lot of help in her presentation. Well there are the rest of us.
  
  My three star rating is based mainly on not enough transgender topics, even though I am a lesbian too. But the issues they present are real and in the most part informative and the analysis seems sound.
  
  If you are interested in the issues that face the LGBT community this book would be a good read. If your not you should be.
• 
  Anna (Bananas)

  Many of the myths addressed in this book are no-brainers (well, in my opinion) and raise the question: who is the intended audience for this book? "Lesbians Do Not Have Real Sex." Of course they do. "All Bisexual Men are Actually Gay; All Bisexual Women are Actually Straight." No...they're just bisexual. "LGBT Parents are Bad for Children." No, bad, abusive, uncaring parents are bad for children.
  
  Other myths are less cut and dry. "All Religions Condemn Homosexuality." Hmm, do they? "Homosexuals are Born That Way." This point is still hotly debated by both straight and queer people. "There's No Such Thing as a Gay or Trans Child." Well, when do gender and sexual identity form?
  
  A strength of this book is that certain "myths" will stand out to different people and therefore it can appeal to a vast array of perspectives. As a queer person I found value in it and I would assume people outside the community can learn from it also. Even points that I found obvious were expanded upon jn a way that more fully explained queer culture and what LGBT people face.
  
  Of particular interest to me was the section on the lack of full protections for queer people in the US. As a straight-passing, cis person I'm well aware that I experience certain privileges that other queer people don't enjoy. It's a reminder that we have much further to go legally in making queer people full citizens with equal rights as anyone else in the US.
• 
  Dontaná

  Doing a book tour or a book walk essentially means reading the first 50-100 pages to get a feel for how the book is laid out, how arguments are made and supported. The arguments made in this book could be way more compelling. It is not particularly hard to follow. I cannot, however, overlook the lack of non-white LGBT myths and rebuttal. It does have good historical information and it presents the science well. I found it a tad difficult to decipher if the myth in question was being proven or refuted when such information was presented, but thay may be more of a personal problem than one inherent in the material.
• 
  Jen Keyer

  I think this is for teens and people who don't have a whole lot of LGBT experience. I think it's also a book that starts discussions but besides that I don't think it was that great of a book. I wish it had more on bisexuality and transgender populations because they are misunderstood populations. I also wish they would have had some on gender nonconformity. But that is just me. I think they didn't put more of those issue in because they didn't have a lot of experience. I really like that they didn't try to tackle issues they didn't know about.
• 
  Stephen Byron

  This book is an excellent read, it takes apart myths such as the old myth that gay people have "gaydar" and you can tell if a person is gay or not just by appearances; the book also has sections for those who are transgender and lesbian, such as the chapters that deal with the myth that all transgender people are gay or the other myth that lesbians do not have real sex,this book tackles many areas and is a must read....
• 
  Arin Brutlag

  I'll be honest--I ragequit this book. This book is far too new to ignore nonbinary identities, and that's only one of the reasons why I stopped. The writing is dry, the arguments and research are ill-presented, and sometimes, I wasn't even sure what the authors wanted me to learn.
• 
  Maggie

  Good for people who are new (and I mean brand spanking new) to queer theory. But if you have any familiarity with the subject at hand it’ll be underwhelming.
• 
  Hannah

  Alright folks welcome to the 4857th installment of Hannah Expects Better
  
  Highlights of this book:
  - Good balance between accessible and academic/sociological (in my opinion; it's subjective, I know)
  - Recognizes race and class and mostly gender
  - Not only debunks anti-LGBT myths but challenges some pro-LGBT myths that are usually used in misguided attempts to promote acceptance (e.g., "we're all the same")
  - Myth 12: People of Color Are More Homophobic Than White People, I just want to copy this whole chapter and keep it in my pocket because I'm SO TIRED of hearing this, DO YOU HEAR ME MACKLEMORE
  - Calls out Dan Savage, giving me hope for a world in which he is not glorified
  
  Disasters:
  - Pretty much sucks at the B and the T (the chapter titles for these groups were so promising but wow what a disappointment)
  - Frequently uses "LGB" and "gay" in the same sentence, contradicting the chapter intended to tell us that bisexual people are not, in fact, gay. Examples:
  

  "What is the connection between whether or not LGB people are born gay and whether they should be protected from discrimination?"

  (great main points in this chapter btw, I hate the strategy of "born this way")
  

  "Other LGB people would say they do not care how or why they came to be gay - they are gay and that is fine."

  except when they're fucking bi because you just said B!!!!!! ahhhhh
  
  - In Myth 3: All Transgender People Have Sex-Reassignment Surgery, "biological sex" is explicitly equated to "gender assigned at birth." not even your SEX assigned at birth is necessarily your biological sex because our categorization of sex is so ridiculously arbitrary. this would be a good time to mention intersex and nonbinary folks but WHATEVER
  - The citation choices are weird and lacking and I would expect better from professors at Yale, Harvard, and NYU
  
  "It was okay" sums it up perfectly for me, so 2 stars. Maybe 2.5 because the main points are great, it's just the execution.
• 
  Maddison Wood

  This book is boring. I understand that it's supposed to be informative, but it's not written in a formal tone so there was definitely room for the authors to be more personal, insert humor, give anecdotes, anything to make this book less boring for fuck's sake. My other main issue not just with this book but with most books about LGBT rights is that the LGBT community changes as a cultural entity so quickly and so often that any book written before RIGHT NOW seems outdated and simplistic. This seems like an impossible problem to fix, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading books about LGBT issues.
  
  The reason why I'm giving this book three stars instead of two is because a) it's the only piece of media I've ever consumed that asserts that lesbians can have sex with men and still be lesbians, and I think that's really cool, b) I actually did learn a thing or two, especially in regards to antidiscrimination laws and what constitutes hate crime. Even though this book was written in 2012, it's still true today that there is not a federal antidiscrimination law in place to protect LGBT people. Maybe most people knew that, but I certainly didn't.
  
  I think this book would be good for people who know literally nothing about the LGBT community in the United States, but I still wouldn't recommend it simply because of how dull it is.
• 
  Mark Schlatter

  The good stuff: This is not a book that shies away from issues surrounding the LGBT community. From the 10% figure to the origins of homophobia to the idea that transgender means mentally ill, the authors are more than willing to explore the myths and explain how the truth is (usually) much more complex. There's also a good amount of history (legal and cultural) in each section.
  
  The bad stuff: It's dry and somewhat pedantic. You can tell it was written by three academics --- there is a repeated emphasis on the social construction of gender and sexuality in almost every chapter. Moreover, the writing style favors explanation over example, leading to a fairly colorless prose. I liked the concept of the book, but it was tough to get through.
• 
  Tweller83

  I didn't finish this book. Despite the good reviews, I found this title to be lacking in real research. The quote that made me stop reading was this quote, "A growing body of contemporary scientific research suggests that sexual desire--both gay and straight--may be related to brain structure. The most widely publicized such study is Simon LeVay's 1991 study of the hpothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland." 1991 is not contemporary research, it is almost 25 years old! Very disappointing! I'm convinced this could have been a great book. I don't think this was well researched and I won't be recommending it to any students.
• 
  Heather

  A great overview for tackling common myths about the LGBT community, including myths perpetuated by those for and against LGBT rights. I enjoyed the format of this book, which allows the reader to pick and choose what sections to read. You can read the book all the way through, or you can go directly to a topic that interests you. As the writers point out in the introduction, this book gives readers enough information to dispute the myths during a dinner conversation (so to speak). The reason I'm attributing 4 stars to this book is that in some sections I was left feeling as though the authors did not fully dismantle the myth in question.
• 
  Michelle

  The collection of essays gives great insight into surprisingly intricate issues of LGBT life and community. However, I feel like some of them were intentionally complicating issues, but as I am not actually LGBT myself, I cannot speak for the potential complications of the issues they present. It was an interesting read, but I feel like it didn't really answer a lot of the myths, just basically said, "Hey, this isn't what you think! Here's how it's actually super-complicated. Bye!"
• 
  Barbara Gregorich

  I wanted to like this book better than I did. The authors all sound humane, intelligent, and reasonable. The problem is that every chapter in the book is full of general statements which often include statistics, but which almost never include examples. I wanted some human interest stories, some people to relate to, but they aren't present in this book. Too many generalizations, not enough examples.
• 
  Norelle

  some interesting points,but the book felt a little too technical at times.I agree with other reviewers who said this is what you find in wikepedia.That isn't a turn off however, as I think people would be more likely to read this as a library discovery...rather than sifting through the internet to look up answer as to all the myths!
• 
  Mackenzie

  An interesting read exploring some of the false ideas that people have concerning people of queer identities. A lot of the material may seem like common sense once it is read, but still good for anyone to look at, though a couple of "myths" are downright silly. Do some people actually think that testing for STIs prevents them?
• 
  Brie Porter

  Reads like a shrug to the apparently bleak existence of the LGBT community. The chapters on transgender experience are especially lacking. Myth 15, "Transgender People Are Gay" was particularity disappointing, since there's so much interesting nuance to explore in the intersection between identity and sexuality.
• 
  Rachel

  This was really a mixed bag of essays. Some of them I could totally get behind, and some of them made me audibly groan. That's on top of calling Cynthia Nixon a lesbian instead of a bisexual for the authors' own argument. I'll leave it at that.
• 
  Ann Riley

  Apparently this book was written for those who are either not LGBT or are newly arrived on the scene. I've been out for 30 years and all of this is 'common knowledge'; nothing new or revolutionary. I only read about half.
• 
  Lisa

  I agree with reviewers who say some of the chapters needed to be elaborated on, but it made me think.