History is getting the re-write that it so desperately needs with books like this. Gender Pioneers is not only for all the people who need to see themselves in history but also for all the people who claim "ALL THIS GENDER STUFF IS JUST SO DANG NEW." Like, no, Aunt Linda, sit down and read this please.

While I loved reading stories that dated back as little as a decade ago to centuries, I did feel like some of the language in the biographies could be problematic. I wasn't sure whether the intent was to portray the biography in the language of the person's time or not, but I'll give you a few examples of the wording I found unfavorable and why:

"She was certainly gender fluid and can be considered as transgender as it was possible to be in her time."
Why I find it problematic:
Being transgender, even today, is a spectrum. You can do as little as socially transition (ex. name and pronouns), or do as much as get every surgery available. In between and still outside of those is a huge spectrum of valid transgender expression. Now, I can *maybe* understand the intent of this sentence being that she was from a different time and therefore would have had to be careful with how she presented her transition, however that's not fully how it came across and the impact, to me, seemed to say that in today's terms she wouldn't be considered "transgender enough."

"...whilst still wearing female clothes."
Why I find it problematic:
I know it's essentially impossible at the moment to get rid of the binary completely BUT sentences like this play into the binary. We could easily edit this sentence to say "..whilst still wearing clothes that were typically reserved for people who identify as female." Or some such and other. And here's the thing, is that nit picky? Probably. But if we change more sentences like that outside of books about gender (think largescale like fiction, other nonfiction, visual media, etc, etc, etc.) maybe we could finally move away from clothes being associated with one gender or the other.

"However, Mary did eventually discover that Charles was female and reported him, which led to his arrest and trial in Taunton."
Why I find it problematic:
If you know anything about gender/transgender terminology this one should be a no-brainer but here we go. In this bio we are learning about Charles Hamilton. And while Charles' pronouns are being respected, his gender is not! An easy edit for this sentence: "However, Mary did eventually discover that Charles had male genitalia, and reported him..." OR "Mary did eventually discover that Charles was assigned female at birth, and reported him..." Either one would remind us that Charles is transgender while respecting the gender he identifies as.

"They said that they were female at birth."
Why I find it problematic:
This one I can maybe let slide, especially if those were in fact Chevalier's words. However, if they were, I feel like they should be in quotes. And if not, again a simple edit would include saying this person was assigned female at birth.

In addition to these problematic wordings, we were also introduced to different people with excellent wording, mostly including the terms "assigned female/male/intersex at birth." So I know the author had it in them to use language like that.

I also want to give a caveat to this entire review that I am a cishet white woman, so I cannot possibly ever fully understand or speak to the transgender experience. These are my thoughts from having transgender and non-binary relatives and friends, learning from multiple creators and educators, and reading whatever I can find on the subject of gender. Maybe my opinions of this book are off-base with the authors particular experience, I'm not sure. All I can speak to is what I've learned as a cis person.

Overall, I think the book comes at an important time in our collective history and I really did enjoy reading of all the people and appreciate the thorough research that went into it!