The Transsexual Empire was well received in mainstream media upon its publication, with psychiatrist
Thomas Szasz commenting that "[the book] has rightly seized on transsexualism as an emblem of modern society's unremitting—though increasingly concealed—
antifeminism." In a 1980 review, the philosopher
Sarah Hoagland called it a "fecund discussion of patriarchal deception". However, Raymond's views on transgender people have been criticized by some
LGBT and feminist writers as
transphobic, and constituting
hate speech against transgender people. In 1980, lesbian trans feminist
Carol Riddell wrote the first feminist critique of the book, a pamphlet titled
Divided Sisterhood: A Critical Review of Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire, which became heavily cited in
trans studies. In it, Riddell builds on the earlier work of trans feminists and argues the book ran counter to the emphasis placed upon subjectivity in feminist consciousness-raising, criticized its portrayal of gender identity clinics as an empire rather than institutions marginalized by the medical patriarchy which force transsexuals to conform to gender roles and suffer, and stated the book is "dangerous to transsexuals because it does not treat us as human beings at all, merely as the tools of a theory."
The Transsexual Empire included sections on
Sandy Stone, a trans woman who had worked as a sound engineer for
Olivia Records, and Christy Barsky, accusing both of creating divisiveness in
women's spaces. These writings have been criticized as personal attacks on these individuals; In 1987, Stone wrote "
The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto", a foundational text of
transgender studies, in response to
The Transsexual Empire.
Natalie Washington called
The Transsexual Empire a "book [...] so influential on modern anti-trans movements, in which [Raymond] suggests 'the problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence.'" ==See also==