Chapter 7 is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Like earlier in the book, hooks only speaks in terms of the gender binary without any discussion of trans and NB identities, which imo really undercuts the point she’s trying to make about reclaiming masculinity and “male bodies” by literally defining “male being” as “of the human body that has a penis”. Like I understand her broad point but idk if she is simply leaving out queer identities (apart from a few mentions of gay men) to make the book more stomachable for cishet men and women who may be new to feminist ideas, or if she simply doesn’t have good insight into how queer people fit into this picture. Either way it did not vibe right with me at all.

I think we should give her more credit about this oversight. This book is 20 year old at this point so trans/NB identities were much less visible and understood. So based on the time and cultural at that point it makes sense that this definition is date because it is dated. But we can take what is useful and discard the rest.

Moreover, those who have redefined their own gender already understand what gender means to them. Those of us who are cis have made this decision conscientiously or more likely unexamined gender at all. So it makes sense to focus on a cis audience since the majority haven’t thought about gender at all. Those who are gender nonconforming have thought deeply about gender than most. Moreover, those who are gender non-conforming should give their own experience instead of being talk at by those who are not. As someone who is Cis-Het (like bell hooks) I wouldn’t feel comfortable talking about trans/NB identities and I think she feels the same way.

That being said removing the part about having a Penis from the definition should be done for a modern audience.