What do you think?
Rate this book
A Short History of Queer Women
Queer women have always existed – let’s put them back in the history books
No, they weren’t ‘just friends’!
Queer women have been written out of history since, well, forever. ‘But historians famously care about women!’, said no one. From Anne Bonny and Mary Read who sailed the seas together disguised as pirates, to US football captain Megan Rapinoe declaring ‘You can’t win a championship without gays on your team’, via countless literary salons and tuxedos, A Short History of Queer Women sets the record straight on women who have loved other women through the ages.
Who says lesbians can’t be funny?
No, they weren’t ‘just friends’!
Queer women have been written out of history since, well, forever. ‘But historians famously care about women!’, said no one. From Anne Bonny and Mary Read who sailed the seas together disguised as pirates, to US football captain Megan Rapinoe declaring ‘You can’t win a championship without gays on your team’, via countless literary salons and tuxedos, A Short History of Queer Women sets the record straight on women who have loved other women through the ages.
Who says lesbians can’t be funny?
208 pages, Paperback
First published June 5, 2024
401 people are currently reading
3671 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 721 reviews
October 7, 2022
CWs: transphobia
Galley provided by publisher
I debated whether to write this review of A Short History of Queer Women once I finished it. It’s a book I have very mixed feelings about and I’m still not entirely sure that I have my thoughts straight on it, but I’ll give it a go.
Firstly, the positive(s?) because, despite my later reservations, I do have positive things (or, really, one positive thing) to say about this book. It covers a vast span of history and, as such, touches on a lot of people, and eras of history in more general at times. This is a major reason why I went with a 2-star review at least initially (by the time you read this, I might have reconsidered): it’s very informative and, as a starting point, gave me a lot of names to research (and a lot of other sources to read too). It didn’t just touch upon the more famous names, but plenty more lesser known ones too. (I have, by the way, listed them all at the end of this review in the spoiler tags, so if you want to know who to look up, but you don’t want to read this book, then they’re there.)
So, now for the negatives, of which I had two issues really, one of which somewhat larger than the other. Let me get the latter out of the way quickly then: this is a book that took a quite flippant tone. That’s not necessarily an issue per se, probably more your mileage may vary. I think why it didn’t work for me was that it continued throughout the book. Think of the phrase “because of course lesbians didn’t exist back then”, say it to yourself in as sarcastic a tone as you can: that’s how the whole of this book sounded. Even when talking about cases of lesbophobic and transphobic violence.
The second issue I have is the bigger one, namely the decision detailed at the start of the book which I shall lay out here in the author’s own words:
This is then much later followed up by this:
Now, of course, there is a valid point being made here: we cannot really apply modern terminology to past figures, in part because they would not have had nearly the same understandings of sexuality and gender as we do now. That doesn’t mean that we do away with the concepts entirely, though. Just because they don’t have the same understanding doesn’t mean they lacked any understanding, conscious or otherwise. But going in depth into this would be beyond the scope of this review by far. (For a very interesting, more academic, discussion about usage of modern terminology to describe past figures, I’d direct you to the Bad Gays podcast, specifically the latter half of the episode about James I of England.)
However.
The book then goes on to apply the words lesbian, queer, bisexual and so forth to a litany of women (and non-women, but I’ll come back to that part of this argument). So here’s point one in two parts: one, how can you say this is somehow not superimposing your beliefs? Arguably, any choice here involves some superimposition of beliefs, so let’s not pretend otherwise. Two, if you’re going to not use modern terminology when it comes to gender identity, you surely ought also not to when it comes to sexual identity. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This superimposition of beliefs aspect comes back to haunt us later, combined with the certain tongue-in-cheekness of the tone. I’m adding this point here mostly because it’s the order it showed up in the twitter thread I ended up making as I got progressively more frustrated, but it is related. This is partly where the tone tipped over into bad for me, in the following line:
To me, this reads as barely veiled transphobia. Of course, we can use today’s gender theory to attempt to understand (likely, admittedly, a futile task), but what we can also do is develop an understanding of gender in the societies we’re researching (or dig up someone who has already done so, because undoubtedly there’s already research here), and use that to inform our analyses. I get it, this is not an academic text, this is popular history, but that doesn’t mean your readers are incapable of following more academic thoughts. I think that’s part of what frustrated me about this book: a lack of real analysis.
But I’ve momentarily digressed here. We were discussing the author’s decision to call all of the people who feature in this book women. These are not what you might call ambiguous examples. There are individuals who dressed as men, who lived and married as men, and who were punished for it. (There is an example of someone who wore a leather dildo (outside of sex), for crying out loud. What exactly strikes you as cis woman about that?) Loehr even decides that Radclyffe Hall, despite noting that “Radclyffe identified as male and almost always wore men’s attire”, is going to be included in this book as a woman. Even if you’re going to stop short of using trans terminology to describe them, you can at least admit that they’re not cis women as we understand those terms in a modern world (and therefore, should either not be part of this book, or the remit of this book should be expanded). Some use of modern terminology is inescapable in a book like this, but it’s interesting to see what the author chooses on a more selective basis.
Given Loehr’s propensity for labelling AFAB non-women as women, you might be wondering about the reverse: does she recognise the existence of trans women in the past? The answer would be no, at least not up until the Stonewall riots, when she brings up Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. Perhaps this is unsurprising.
This is where I think this book falls short. I don’t think you can purport to write a “short history of queer women” and neglect an analysis of gender within that. No, we don’t know how these people might have identified, whether they thought of themselves as women or not, whether they even had the words to express not-womanhood—we are likely never to know, unless they wrote about it (although I maintain we might make educated guesses, such as those individuals who elected to live as men). But even in writing such a book, we are subconsciously imposing our modern ideas of gender onto it, whether we mean to or not. To act like we might remove the concept of it entirely defeats the point. Can lesbianism itself, for example, not have a dimension of gender, as much as it does sexuality?
Let me wrap up here then (not least because this is starting to feel less like a book review and more like an essay) and leave you with this, the list of names mentioned in the book and one final point. If the job of a nonfiction book is to make you think, this has certainly done that.
Galley provided by publisher
I debated whether to write this review of A Short History of Queer Women once I finished it. It’s a book I have very mixed feelings about and I’m still not entirely sure that I have my thoughts straight on it, but I’ll give it a go.
Firstly, the positive(s?) because, despite my later reservations, I do have positive things (or, really, one positive thing) to say about this book. It covers a vast span of history and, as such, touches on a lot of people, and eras of history in more general at times. This is a major reason why I went with a 2-star review at least initially (by the time you read this, I might have reconsidered): it’s very informative and, as a starting point, gave me a lot of names to research (and a lot of other sources to read too). It didn’t just touch upon the more famous names, but plenty more lesser known ones too. (I have, by the way, listed them all at the end of this review in the spoiler tags, so if you want to know who to look up, but you don’t want to read this book, then they’re there.)
So, now for the negatives, of which I had two issues really, one of which somewhat larger than the other. Let me get the latter out of the way quickly then: this is a book that took a quite flippant tone. That’s not necessarily an issue per se, probably more your mileage may vary. I think why it didn’t work for me was that it continued throughout the book. Think of the phrase “because of course lesbians didn’t exist back then”, say it to yourself in as sarcastic a tone as you can: that’s how the whole of this book sounded. Even when talking about cases of lesbophobic and transphobic violence.
The second issue I have is the bigger one, namely the decision detailed at the start of the book which I shall lay out here in the author’s own words:
As this is a history book, I am dealing with people who are no longer alive and cannot tell us how they identify. There are many reasons women in the past opted out of womanhood—some would certainly have been trans, others were simply trying to live and love as best they could. But to avoid superimposing my own beliefs—and for utmost narrative clarity—I choose to refer to them how history has generally referred to them: by their birth sex. And, as we know, the past is not always indicative of the future, so please feel free to get out your red pen and edit the pronouns as you see fit and according to your understanding of them.
This is then much later followed up by this:
Sure, lesbianism as a ‘concept’ did not exist in the past, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to refer to certain women. (...) We must also remember that gender theory is a modern tradition, and that applying it to a society that did not function as such is just, well… (...) a bit daft.
Now, of course, there is a valid point being made here: we cannot really apply modern terminology to past figures, in part because they would not have had nearly the same understandings of sexuality and gender as we do now. That doesn’t mean that we do away with the concepts entirely, though. Just because they don’t have the same understanding doesn’t mean they lacked any understanding, conscious or otherwise. But going in depth into this would be beyond the scope of this review by far. (For a very interesting, more academic, discussion about usage of modern terminology to describe past figures, I’d direct you to the Bad Gays podcast, specifically the latter half of the episode about James I of England.)
However.
The book then goes on to apply the words lesbian, queer, bisexual and so forth to a litany of women (and non-women, but I’ll come back to that part of this argument). So here’s point one in two parts: one, how can you say this is somehow not superimposing your beliefs? Arguably, any choice here involves some superimposition of beliefs, so let’s not pretend otherwise. Two, if you’re going to not use modern terminology when it comes to gender identity, you surely ought also not to when it comes to sexual identity. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This superimposition of beliefs aspect comes back to haunt us later, combined with the certain tongue-in-cheekness of the tone. I’m adding this point here mostly because it’s the order it showed up in the twitter thread I ended up making as I got progressively more frustrated, but it is related. This is partly where the tone tipped over into bad for me, in the following line:
It’s confusing to try to superimpose gender theory, as it’s taught today, on a society that didn’t operate as such. Also, I can’t be arsed.
To me, this reads as barely veiled transphobia. Of course, we can use today’s gender theory to attempt to understand (likely, admittedly, a futile task), but what we can also do is develop an understanding of gender in the societies we’re researching (or dig up someone who has already done so, because undoubtedly there’s already research here), and use that to inform our analyses. I get it, this is not an academic text, this is popular history, but that doesn’t mean your readers are incapable of following more academic thoughts. I think that’s part of what frustrated me about this book: a lack of real analysis.
But I’ve momentarily digressed here. We were discussing the author’s decision to call all of the people who feature in this book women. These are not what you might call ambiguous examples. There are individuals who dressed as men, who lived and married as men, and who were punished for it. (There is an example of someone who wore a leather dildo (outside of sex), for crying out loud. What exactly strikes you as cis woman about that?) Loehr even decides that Radclyffe Hall, despite noting that “Radclyffe identified as male and almost always wore men’s attire”, is going to be included in this book as a woman. Even if you’re going to stop short of using trans terminology to describe them, you can at least admit that they’re not cis women as we understand those terms in a modern world (and therefore, should either not be part of this book, or the remit of this book should be expanded). Some use of modern terminology is inescapable in a book like this, but it’s interesting to see what the author chooses on a more selective basis.
Given Loehr’s propensity for labelling AFAB non-women as women, you might be wondering about the reverse: does she recognise the existence of trans women in the past? The answer would be no, at least not up until the Stonewall riots, when she brings up Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. Perhaps this is unsurprising.
This is where I think this book falls short. I don’t think you can purport to write a “short history of queer women” and neglect an analysis of gender within that. No, we don’t know how these people might have identified, whether they thought of themselves as women or not, whether they even had the words to express not-womanhood—we are likely never to know, unless they wrote about it (although I maintain we might make educated guesses, such as those individuals who elected to live as men). But even in writing such a book, we are subconsciously imposing our modern ideas of gender onto it, whether we mean to or not. To act like we might remove the concept of it entirely defeats the point. Can lesbianism itself, for example, not have a dimension of gender, as much as it does sexuality?
Let me wrap up here then (not least because this is starting to feel less like a book review and more like an essay) and leave you with this, the list of names mentioned in the book and one final point. If the job of a nonfiction book is to make you think, this has certainly done that.
October 12, 2022
I don't think I have ever read a book which I hated as much as this one. The writing is so extremely childish and I think this book would be 100 pages shorter when all the so-called "funny" comments by the author were removed. All that sarcasm I swear, i just want to read a non-fiction book about queer women history, please tone it down. The last sentence of this book literally is: "Right, I need to get laid." Are you fucking kidding me?! I can't take this seriously.
And don't even get me started on the non-existence of references. How is it even possible to write a non-fiction book and just don't mention one single source? I have literally no idea if the stuff I just read is legitimate, because there is no way I can check her sources. I mean, she added a confusing 2,5 page in which she suggests sources that could be interesting for more information but how difficult is it to just add fucking footnotes at the end of your stupid sentences.
Furthermore, she is just assuming people's sexuality and suggesting people are queer "because she thinks they look that way". For example: "May I politely suggest that Princess Anne knows what a lesbian is? I mean, she owns a mirror. Am I insinuating that Princess Anne is a lesbian? Maybe. In a family that size, someone is bound to be gay, and it's either the woman who looks like a lesbian or the man who looks gay *cough* Prince Edward." (Loehr, 2022, p. 188) Did you notice? I added a reference after my quote. Maybe she can learn from that. I literally screamed when I read that sentence. How can you even write this down. This is just terrible. Don't recommend it.
And don't even get me started on the non-existence of references. How is it even possible to write a non-fiction book and just don't mention one single source? I have literally no idea if the stuff I just read is legitimate, because there is no way I can check her sources. I mean, she added a confusing 2,5 page in which she suggests sources that could be interesting for more information but how difficult is it to just add fucking footnotes at the end of your stupid sentences.
Furthermore, she is just assuming people's sexuality and suggesting people are queer "because she thinks they look that way". For example: "May I politely suggest that Princess Anne knows what a lesbian is? I mean, she owns a mirror. Am I insinuating that Princess Anne is a lesbian? Maybe. In a family that size, someone is bound to be gay, and it's either the woman who looks like a lesbian or the man who looks gay *cough* Prince Edward." (Loehr, 2022, p. 188) Did you notice? I added a reference after my quote. Maybe she can learn from that. I literally screamed when I read that sentence. How can you even write this down. This is just terrible. Don't recommend it.
October 9, 2022
The one positive thing I can say about this book is that it mentions a whole lot of women, some of which very little-known, so it's useful for any further research.
Otherwise the language is awfully shallow, the sarcasm falls short and there are a whole lot of transphobic comments.
Otherwise the language is awfully shallow, the sarcasm falls short and there are a whole lot of transphobic comments.
July 15, 2025
i keep seeing that this book is getting a lot of hate for the humorous tone, millennial jokes, lots of swearing, and endless comments about having sex. i invite everyone to lighten up!!!
i had the pleasure of meeting Kirsty in person for a pride event Max Minerva’s hosted last month— and i can confirm she is just as lively, and funny as she is in the book. I really enjoyed reading this book as I found it was a great introduction to queer history and it was told in an accessible and entertaining way. I think hearing Kirsty talk about her intentions with the book really helped to shape my reading experience before I went into the book, not thinking it would cover the vast history of queer women’s lives, but rather would be a small selection of certain stories which Kirsty has been researching since her MA. Without having much space, she aimed to tell intersectional stories to show queer women have always been around.
At the queer women event Kirsty explained that queer history has always been painful, traumatic, and sad. Recognising everything those who came before us accomplished and lived through to get to where we are today, she explained that she wanted to hone in on queer joy, and the glimpses of happy moments in these queer women’s lives. I don’t think her humour was insensitive, having known what she was trying to do. and I also like her conversational tone, I often feel that history and non-fiction books can be very inaccessible. Writing with an ‘academic’ voice to educate people on a sad and tragic history does not sound like a very compelling read. I think the tone of the text brilliantly captured what Kirsty is like herself, and I can’t wait to see where her next book leads.
i had the pleasure of meeting Kirsty in person for a pride event Max Minerva’s hosted last month— and i can confirm she is just as lively, and funny as she is in the book. I really enjoyed reading this book as I found it was a great introduction to queer history and it was told in an accessible and entertaining way. I think hearing Kirsty talk about her intentions with the book really helped to shape my reading experience before I went into the book, not thinking it would cover the vast history of queer women’s lives, but rather would be a small selection of certain stories which Kirsty has been researching since her MA. Without having much space, she aimed to tell intersectional stories to show queer women have always been around.
At the queer women event Kirsty explained that queer history has always been painful, traumatic, and sad. Recognising everything those who came before us accomplished and lived through to get to where we are today, she explained that she wanted to hone in on queer joy, and the glimpses of happy moments in these queer women’s lives. I don’t think her humour was insensitive, having known what she was trying to do. and I also like her conversational tone, I often feel that history and non-fiction books can be very inaccessible. Writing with an ‘academic’ voice to educate people on a sad and tragic history does not sound like a very compelling read. I think the tone of the text brilliantly captured what Kirsty is like herself, and I can’t wait to see where her next book leads.
January 7, 2023
I enjoyed the humour in lots of this and it was a nice, easy read, but some parts came off ignorant and privileged and, ironically, a bit offensive. Also, I know this is meant to be a funny commentary on lesbian history, but last time I checked it was possible to be funny and also use references. Please please please learn to reference, especially if you’re writing non-fiction! I have no clue if any of this is accurate or not as I can’t check the sources, and it’s so annoying!
May 16, 2023
A Short History of Queer Women is definitely going to end up on my list of most disappointing reads of 2023 and I'm so sad about that.
I was so excited to learn a little more about queer women throughout history and the cover alone had me so hyped for this book but unfortunately it failed to meet those expectations.
Loehr attempts to infuse a comedic tone throughout the book and it's quite frankly extremely bizarre. I can see what she was aiming for but it was very poorly executed to the point that it just made certain parts confusing. Honestly not one attempt at comedy was remotely funny - but I guess humour is subjective.
However, the biggest issue with this book is that there are ZERO REFERENCES! Not one piece of information has a source cited nor is there an actual reference list at the end (only a further reading list, which is not the same thing) and I'm sorry but that is absolutely appalling or something proclaiming to be a history book.
There was more than one instance where I tried to google some information given and could find no record of it at all online - of course, it's very possible this information was found in some non-digitised queer archive but I guess we'll never know since she didn't provide any references. As someone who comes from an academic background, It is honestly impossible for me to believe any of the information given in this book because who the hell knows where it came from and if it's true?
This lack of references worked very poorly with the aforementioned 'humourous' style of writing, as at times it made it confusing if something was just an odd attempt to be humourous or something based in fact. For example, Loehr would write little 'humourous' dialogues between the historical figures she was talking about, all very modern and obviously not a verbatim conversation but because of the lack of references there were times I couldn't tell if she'd just entirely made it up to be funny or if it was based on real reports of an actual conversation that she just reworded to be funny. Either way, I have zero ideas why you'd do this in a HISTORY book because all it does is serves to muddle queer history for the reader.
There were a few interesting bits of information but again I failed to even fully enjoy those bits because ?? is it even true or did she just pull this info out of thin air - and yes, of course, I can do my own research but A. a few times I tried and found zero to corroborate what she was saying and B. That defeats the purpose of this book, I wanted to read it to learn not to serve as Google inspiration.
As my first foray into learning about queer female history, this book was a flop, I'd advice anyone who wants to learn more about this topic to try literally any other book than this one - and specifically one written by an actual reputable academic or similar who understands the value and importance of REFERENCING.
Sorry but I'm actually so offended a history book without references even got published, you can't even get away with not referencing in high school these days.
Covers cute as hell though and we should all support Jennifer Prince's sapphic amazing art - especially since she's not even thanked or promoted in the book at all - yay for queer women supporting queer women I guess!
I was so excited to learn a little more about queer women throughout history and the cover alone had me so hyped for this book but unfortunately it failed to meet those expectations.
Loehr attempts to infuse a comedic tone throughout the book and it's quite frankly extremely bizarre. I can see what she was aiming for but it was very poorly executed to the point that it just made certain parts confusing. Honestly not one attempt at comedy was remotely funny - but I guess humour is subjective.
However, the biggest issue with this book is that there are ZERO REFERENCES! Not one piece of information has a source cited nor is there an actual reference list at the end (only a further reading list, which is not the same thing) and I'm sorry but that is absolutely appalling or something proclaiming to be a history book.
There was more than one instance where I tried to google some information given and could find no record of it at all online - of course, it's very possible this information was found in some non-digitised queer archive but I guess we'll never know since she didn't provide any references. As someone who comes from an academic background, It is honestly impossible for me to believe any of the information given in this book because who the hell knows where it came from and if it's true?
This lack of references worked very poorly with the aforementioned 'humourous' style of writing, as at times it made it confusing if something was just an odd attempt to be humourous or something based in fact. For example, Loehr would write little 'humourous' dialogues between the historical figures she was talking about, all very modern and obviously not a verbatim conversation but because of the lack of references there were times I couldn't tell if she'd just entirely made it up to be funny or if it was based on real reports of an actual conversation that she just reworded to be funny. Either way, I have zero ideas why you'd do this in a HISTORY book because all it does is serves to muddle queer history for the reader.
There were a few interesting bits of information but again I failed to even fully enjoy those bits because ?? is it even true or did she just pull this info out of thin air - and yes, of course, I can do my own research but A. a few times I tried and found zero to corroborate what she was saying and B. That defeats the purpose of this book, I wanted to read it to learn not to serve as Google inspiration.
As my first foray into learning about queer female history, this book was a flop, I'd advice anyone who wants to learn more about this topic to try literally any other book than this one - and specifically one written by an actual reputable academic or similar who understands the value and importance of REFERENCING.
Sorry but I'm actually so offended a history book without references even got published, you can't even get away with not referencing in high school these days.
Covers cute as hell though and we should all support Jennifer Prince's sapphic amazing art - especially since she's not even thanked or promoted in the book at all - yay for queer women supporting queer women I guess!
June 22, 2023
Light-hearted, shallow, and fun. I didn't approach this as a serious or academic book, so I wasn't surprised or bothered by the flippant, coarse language or heavy sarcasm. I appreciated being introduced to some queer women / AFAB activists I hadn't heard of before, especially those from additionally marginalised communities and therefore approaching feminism and lesbian issues with a more intersectional perspective. I acknowledge the author could have adopted a more trans-inclusive approach (choosing not to apply modern gender discourse to historic figures, but confidently identifying historic figures with modern terms for different sexual orientations felt a little at odds with itself).
This short and jokey book has prompted me to read up on some of these figures and to seek out some of the more serious books referenced at the end to deepen my understanding of their contribution to queer movements and history.
This short and jokey book has prompted me to read up on some of these figures and to seek out some of the more serious books referenced at the end to deepen my understanding of their contribution to queer movements and history.
April 14, 2023
I loved this! It was super easy to read, and I found it really funny, too.
Despite being a pretty short book, it spans a lot of history and women, some you probably already know, and some you probably don't. It gives you enough information but isn't overwhelming (like I said, it mentions a lot of women, go lesbians!)
I really loved the tone and humour. It was light and sarcastic, which is my type of humour. It's a very British type of humour, and I've seen some reviews not like it, but YMMV.
I highly recommend this! It was great!
Despite being a pretty short book, it spans a lot of history and women, some you probably already know, and some you probably don't. It gives you enough information but isn't overwhelming (like I said, it mentions a lot of women, go lesbians!)
I really loved the tone and humour. It was light and sarcastic, which is my type of humour. It's a very British type of humour, and I've seen some reviews not like it, but YMMV.
I highly recommend this! It was great!
February 19, 2024
Okay, fine, I give up. DNF at about 40% because I refuse to torture myself any further. This could have been such a great book. I mean, look at that cover! And queer women in history? That sounds like everything I would ever want.
But the writing is simply horrendous. Imagine a chronically online and slightly pissed off 16-year old, but in 2012, writing a history project they are not actually interested in. That's the exact tone in which this entire book is written. Sarcasm and jokes certainly have a place in non-fiction books, and a casual talking voice is lovely and accessible, but this was just way, way, way too much. There is not a single serious line in this book, so I ask the author, how I supposed to take anything she says seriously? There's no way of telling what is actually real and what she's making up as a sarcastic little joke.
And sources? Non-existant. Perhaps it's the academic in me, but how can you possibly write a non-fiction book without referencing your source material? Did Kristy Loehr even use any source material? She certainly mentions a lot of letters and biographies in passing, so I'm assuming she read those while working on this book? Then again, I would truly not be surprised if she didn't actually read any of those historical books and letters, and she just gathered all the information she used from some Twitter and Tumblr posts.
Anyway. This was my little rant on how terribly disappointing and frankly ridiculous this book was. And that's not even touching upon the very valid concerns of transphobia and hypocricy that other reviewers have mentioned. If you're thinking of giving this book a go because of it's lovely cover and premise, don't bother.
But the writing is simply horrendous. Imagine a chronically online and slightly pissed off 16-year old, but in 2012, writing a history project they are not actually interested in. That's the exact tone in which this entire book is written. Sarcasm and jokes certainly have a place in non-fiction books, and a casual talking voice is lovely and accessible, but this was just way, way, way too much. There is not a single serious line in this book, so I ask the author, how I supposed to take anything she says seriously? There's no way of telling what is actually real and what she's making up as a sarcastic little joke.
And sources? Non-existant. Perhaps it's the academic in me, but how can you possibly write a non-fiction book without referencing your source material? Did Kristy Loehr even use any source material? She certainly mentions a lot of letters and biographies in passing, so I'm assuming she read those while working on this book? Then again, I would truly not be surprised if she didn't actually read any of those historical books and letters, and she just gathered all the information she used from some Twitter and Tumblr posts.
Anyway. This was my little rant on how terribly disappointing and frankly ridiculous this book was. And that's not even touching upon the very valid concerns of transphobia and hypocricy that other reviewers have mentioned. If you're thinking of giving this book a go because of it's lovely cover and premise, don't bother.
July 8, 2024
Don’t judge a book by its cover (the cover is really good)
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
April 25, 2025
A short, fun and very sarcastic look at the history of queer women.
And that is QUEER—Loehr is pretty intersectional with her snapshots of women throughout history, which I greatly appreciated.
Anywho, a fun read for lesbian visibility week. I kinda wished I'd listened to the audiobook alongside my wife (who, unlike me, is a lesbian).
And that is QUEER—Loehr is pretty intersectional with her snapshots of women throughout history, which I greatly appreciated.
Anywho, a fun read for lesbian visibility week. I kinda wished I'd listened to the audiobook alongside my wife (who, unlike me, is a lesbian).
April 20, 2025
Ich halte es ein bisschen für einen Stretch, dieses Buch als Sachbuch zu bezeichnen, denn es gibt keine konkreten Quellenangaben (nur am Ende ein paar Seiten mit Empfehlungen zu weiterführender Literatur) und gleich am Anfang einen Disclaimer, dass sich hier Fakt und Fiktion vermischen könnten.
Außerdem ist der Tonfall extrem flapsig und bemüht witzig/sarkastisch, was sich für mich schon nach den ersten fünfzig Seiten erschöpft hatte. VOR ALLEM, wenn sich dieser Tonfall sogar bei Schilderungen über die Nazi-Zeit, Spekulationen über Anne Franks Sexualität und Verbrechen aus der Zeit der Sklaverei fortsetzt.
Was ich trotzdem gut fand: die überall sichtbare Intersektionalität von Loehrs Feminismus, die leichte Zugänglichkeit des Textes und Hervorhebung von wirklich weniger bekannten Menschen aus der früheren und späteren Vergangenheit.
Trotzdem würde ich dieses Buch keinesfalls als wichtige Lektüre bezeichnen, man kann es in einem Rutsch lesen und sich mitnehmen was man möchte, aber ich hoffe wirklich nicht, dass so dermaßen unwissenschaftliche „Sachbücher“ ein Ding werden.
Außerdem ist der Tonfall extrem flapsig und bemüht witzig/sarkastisch, was sich für mich schon nach den ersten fünfzig Seiten erschöpft hatte. VOR ALLEM, wenn sich dieser Tonfall sogar bei Schilderungen über die Nazi-Zeit, Spekulationen über Anne Franks Sexualität und Verbrechen aus der Zeit der Sklaverei fortsetzt.
Was ich trotzdem gut fand: die überall sichtbare Intersektionalität von Loehrs Feminismus, die leichte Zugänglichkeit des Textes und Hervorhebung von wirklich weniger bekannten Menschen aus der früheren und späteren Vergangenheit.
Trotzdem würde ich dieses Buch keinesfalls als wichtige Lektüre bezeichnen, man kann es in einem Rutsch lesen und sich mitnehmen was man möchte, aber ich hoffe wirklich nicht, dass so dermaßen unwissenschaftliche „Sachbücher“ ein Ding werden.
January 8, 2023
I found the humour a little too flippant at times. But aside from that this is still an entertaining and informative little book which thankfully seems aware of the gaps it had to leave to keep to its short form while still trying to sweep up centuries of erasure.
June 1, 2024
Millennial humour, trans erasure, no referencing, poorly constructed. Such a shame as this should have been a fun little book but a white woman in her late 30s rehashing Friends style humour about Sappho ain't the one for me
November 6, 2023
whoever gave this book anything less than 5 starts is js a hater. what do you mean the book that says ‘delightfully filthy guide’ on the front is funny? 😱😱 the way the book is able to condense years and years of historical lesbian figures into under 200 pages was amazing, plus, it was just so enthralling it was hard to put it down. laugh a little guys ❤️ live, laugh, lesbian
oh and to the people complaining about it not having sources, touch some grass.
oh and to the people complaining about it not having sources, touch some grass.
February 9, 2025
C'est vraiment dommage parce que le livre est hyper intéressant mais en fait le ton humoristique devient très vite lourd, ça m'a vraiment gâché l'expérience de lecture. C'est un humour que je ne saurais qualifier autrement que d'humour de millenial et je compte pas le nombre de fois où j'ai littéralement soufflé de cringe, c'était vraiment pénible ☠️
Ce qui est cool c'est que l'autrice évoque de nombreuses figures lesbiennes et queers à travers l'histoire, dont beaucoup peu connues. C'était passionnant mais finalement le livre aurait été beaucoup mieux sans les remarques humoristiques foireuses. Après ça c'est mon ressenti personnel, il y a sûrement des gens que ce livre fait rire.
Mais ce qui est fou c'est que ça se voit qu'il y a eu un travail de recherche phénoménal pour écrire ce livre, et pourtant rien n'est sourcé. Et je sais que c'est pas censé être un livre sérieux de recherche historique mais ça m'a posé problème dans ma lecture parce que vu que l'autrice ajoute énormément d'éléments comiques j'étais constamment en train de me demander dans quelle mesure ce que je lisais était vrai, ou si la réalité avait été justement un peu déformée ou exagérée dans un but humoristique.
L'avantage c'est que ce livre se lit vite et balaye de manière assez complète l'histoire lesbienne. Ça peut être un bon point de départ pour ensuite faire des recherches plus approfondies sur les personnes évoquées dans le livre. Après si vous voulez vraiment vous renseigner sur l'histoire lesbienne je vous conseille pas spécialement ce livre à part si vous êtes capables d'endurer le cringe.
Ce qui est cool c'est que l'autrice évoque de nombreuses figures lesbiennes et queers à travers l'histoire, dont beaucoup peu connues. C'était passionnant mais finalement le livre aurait été beaucoup mieux sans les remarques humoristiques foireuses. Après ça c'est mon ressenti personnel, il y a sûrement des gens que ce livre fait rire.
Mais ce qui est fou c'est que ça se voit qu'il y a eu un travail de recherche phénoménal pour écrire ce livre, et pourtant rien n'est sourcé. Et je sais que c'est pas censé être un livre sérieux de recherche historique mais ça m'a posé problème dans ma lecture parce que vu que l'autrice ajoute énormément d'éléments comiques j'étais constamment en train de me demander dans quelle mesure ce que je lisais était vrai, ou si la réalité avait été justement un peu déformée ou exagérée dans un but humoristique.
L'avantage c'est que ce livre se lit vite et balaye de manière assez complète l'histoire lesbienne. Ça peut être un bon point de départ pour ensuite faire des recherches plus approfondies sur les personnes évoquées dans le livre. Après si vous voulez vraiment vous renseigner sur l'histoire lesbienne je vous conseille pas spécialement ce livre à part si vous êtes capables d'endurer le cringe.
January 21, 2023
This is a great little guide for the queers to learn about the vast history of queer women. Not bogged down by tedious facts, this book encourages you to venture on a pursuit of knowledge by providing the reader with a basis of information on a large array of queer women, both known and unknown, and their notable movements and personal experience.
July 23, 2023
This read like a tumblr post in the worst way possible
June 11, 2023
This is not an academic analysis of queer history, and it’s not trying to be. While I wish that more evidence was provided to back up claims, I really appreciate how many women are mentioned in this book. It serves as a great starting point for further research. Also, it’s hilarious.
January 30, 2024
While I was listening to the first few chapters, I drafted my review of this book in my head: "This is fun!" While the sarcastic, quippy tone of this book didn't work for a lot of readers, I didn't mind it, particularly because I have a hard time being engaged in works of history that are written with super academic language. Should she have cited her sources? Probably. But reading this as pop history and not taking it *too* seriously was fun--at first.
Then, the deeper I got into the book, the more I realized that "short history" means "only mentioning women of color, non-Western (non-American, really) women, non-lesbian queer women, and trans people very sparingly in the last 20% of the book." Obviously the book couldn't contain every single queer woman ever, and I really appreciate the fact that Loehr introduced me to over half of the queer people in this book for the first time. However, I think there was room to travel around the world a bit, discuss queer identities that are not just lesbian, and, most prevalently, recognize the existence of trans people.
Seriously, Loehr chooses to refer to every single queer person according to their birth sex, including those who lived, dressed, married, and were seen as men. She doesn't mention trans women a single time, nor does she mention nonbinary or gender-nonconforming identities. Loehr writes that it is "daft" to apply our modern notions of gender to ages past, yet the entire book comprises her application of modern ideas of sexuality and the corresponding vocabulary to the historical figures she writes of. IMO, both are equally valid, and Loehr should have at least recognized the possibility that, although they may not have identified as such, some of the queer people she discussed would be considered trans by our understanding of gender today.
I wish I could have enjoyed this book more, and I hate giving LGBTQ+ lit 2 stars, but the exclusivity was so loud.
Then, the deeper I got into the book, the more I realized that "short history" means "only mentioning women of color, non-Western (non-American, really) women, non-lesbian queer women, and trans people very sparingly in the last 20% of the book." Obviously the book couldn't contain every single queer woman ever, and I really appreciate the fact that Loehr introduced me to over half of the queer people in this book for the first time. However, I think there was room to travel around the world a bit, discuss queer identities that are not just lesbian, and, most prevalently, recognize the existence of trans people.
Seriously, Loehr chooses to refer to every single queer person according to their birth sex, including those who lived, dressed, married, and were seen as men. She doesn't mention trans women a single time, nor does she mention nonbinary or gender-nonconforming identities. Loehr writes that it is "daft" to apply our modern notions of gender to ages past, yet the entire book comprises her application of modern ideas of sexuality and the corresponding vocabulary to the historical figures she writes of. IMO, both are equally valid, and Loehr should have at least recognized the possibility that, although they may not have identified as such, some of the queer people she discussed would be considered trans by our understanding of gender today.
I wish I could have enjoyed this book more, and I hate giving LGBTQ+ lit 2 stars, but the exclusivity was so loud.
April 30, 2023
[DNF @ 25%]
I usually don't give a rating to non fiction books, much less if I don't finish them. I picked up this as an audiobook expecting some examples of lesbianism through history.
Instead, I got a sassy (see, annoying) audiobook narrator, sarcasm filled remarks against men that just didn't hit and a whole lot of transphobic comments. At first they were just comments about genitalia preferences, which I found icky but tried to brush aside. Sadly, eventually they became full on transphobia.
How can you talk about a very clear case of a transgender man, say he lived his life like a man and then finish off by claiming he "chose to be burried as a woman by confessing to a nun on his deathbed"? Do you hear yourself?
If I could I'd give this book negative stars. There's no space for TERFs in the community.
I usually don't give a rating to non fiction books, much less if I don't finish them. I picked up this as an audiobook expecting some examples of lesbianism through history.
Instead, I got a sassy (see, annoying) audiobook narrator, sarcasm filled remarks against men that just didn't hit and a whole lot of transphobic comments. At first they were just comments about genitalia preferences, which I found icky but tried to brush aside. Sadly, eventually they became full on transphobia.
How can you talk about a very clear case of a transgender man, say he lived his life like a man and then finish off by claiming he "chose to be burried as a woman by confessing to a nun on his deathbed"? Do you hear yourself?
If I could I'd give this book negative stars. There's no space for TERFs in the community.
February 3, 2025
I appreciate the goal of this book and I definitely learned something new about the history of queer women. Although... she was trying to tell stories about so many women that I feel like lost a lot of depth she could've had if she focused on less people. Also, mixing so much speculative history with real history can really start to blur the lines. There were funny moments, but sometimes the jokes came off a bit millennial (sorry). I would've liked a little more focus on queer women in general, rather then pretty much only lesbians (although that's super important too!!). I feel like I'm being mean, I still got enjoyment from reading this tho.
February 22, 2023
short, funny, and gives you just enough information on each person for you to continue your own research on them if you’re interested
July 8, 2023
Very gay and educational would recommend
June 18, 2023
basically the premise of this book is that historians have been erasing lesbians through history and we're here to fix that up BUT then the writer says she's going to follow the historians for trans people and talk about them by their birth gender... There's even a story about a trans man and then at the end she backfires and decides to say he (the author writes "she/he") was a woman.
Also, where are the trans women? there's a lot of full story about cis white queer women, does the writer even know trans lesbians exist im not sure. there's also not much about black queer women either. its always very short and not well handed. marsha johnson only got around five lines about her death. tbh it's clear the writers only wanted to talk about (white) lesbians issue so when she talks about a black woman, she goes with some blank statements about how racism is bad but doesn't expand much on their stories. How can you talk about queer women history without trans and black women...?
And total other subject but, can we show a little of empathy in regards of the genocide of the jewish people during world was ii? I mean, yes, the nazis didn't like gaypeople but writing that anne frank was "loving breasts" is just inappropriate. Anne (and her family) went into hiding and died because she was jewish, not because she might have maybe liked girls and downsizing that she was jewish because the author wants to fantasize about her being a lesbian is just disgusting and offensive.
Next to the rest it's not as bad but the book has no sources which makes it hard to figure out how much is accurate and how much is made-up, and the writer's sarcastic tone was annoying and depending the story felt insensitive (the "oh i bet they didn't teach you at school about anne frank's sexuality", and i thought the tone for the few black stories weren't right especially when she talks about the great granddaughter of a slave and a slaver.)
This book is NOT about queer women history. It's mostly about fantasizing about the sexuality of certain female figures, a little of transphobia, insensitivity towards jewish and black stories and a narrator who is painfully unfunny and keep repeating "who says lesbians aren't funny" isn't what gonna make me laugh.
Also, where are the trans women? there's a lot of full story about cis white queer women, does the writer even know trans lesbians exist im not sure. there's also not much about black queer women either. its always very short and not well handed. marsha johnson only got around five lines about her death. tbh it's clear the writers only wanted to talk about (white) lesbians issue so when she talks about a black woman, she goes with some blank statements about how racism is bad but doesn't expand much on their stories. How can you talk about queer women history without trans and black women...?
And total other subject but, can we show a little of empathy in regards of the genocide of the jewish people during world was ii? I mean, yes, the nazis didn't like gaypeople but writing that anne frank was "loving breasts" is just inappropriate. Anne (and her family) went into hiding and died because she was jewish, not because she might have maybe liked girls and downsizing that she was jewish because the author wants to fantasize about her being a lesbian is just disgusting and offensive.
Next to the rest it's not as bad but the book has no sources which makes it hard to figure out how much is accurate and how much is made-up, and the writer's sarcastic tone was annoying and depending the story felt insensitive (the "oh i bet they didn't teach you at school about anne frank's sexuality", and i thought the tone for the few black stories weren't right especially when she talks about the great granddaughter of a slave and a slaver.)
This book is NOT about queer women history. It's mostly about fantasizing about the sexuality of certain female figures, a little of transphobia, insensitivity towards jewish and black stories and a narrator who is painfully unfunny and keep repeating "who says lesbians aren't funny" isn't what gonna make me laugh.
January 11, 2023
I don’t easily give books one star only, but this one deserved it. First of all, yikes… Secondly, I don’t feel like a book about queer women history could be any worse, right when we needed a book like this to highlight women and sapphic love. The entire book was written in such a way that I felt like all the stories were bullshit. There was so much sarcasm and unnecessary remarks that it took me a lot of effort to find small paragraphs that were written without that idiocy. There were no sources, so it felt like someone made up a story and just handed them to me as if they were true. Like you guessed it, that made me question the entire books. I recognized some passages from actually sourced books so I could sense that some chapters were partially “correct” but there is noway of checking whether the rest is. One of the things that personally really bothered me is the highlight on sex / getting boned / getting laid / whatever term the author uses. For me, sapphic love is pure and kind and loving and this book, besides mentioning jokingly (demeaningly?) that queer women wrote each other cute poetries, was quite focussed upon the rest. I paid €15 for it so I wanted to finish it, but that’s all the positive things I can say about it.
May 25, 2024
Dnf at 30% & 1 star bc the trans erasure here is just gross. I'd also expect more bi, pan, ace & trans women's history from a book claiming to be about "queer women" but its mainly about lesbians while grouping trans men under the category of lesbians (apparently there's a foreword by the author in the English version defending this focus on agab bc ~history~ which unfortunately was absent in the german version or I would have quit sooner). You can't write a history on queer women while erasing such important parts of our history and forcibly claiming others! It also didn't really offer anything new or interesting to me im the first third that I've read and so if you know anything about queer history already I'm not sure how many interesting things you'll find here. Plus I really disliked the writing style and the quips in here, they are boring and mainly just variations on 'lol she was a lesbo for sure!!!! Girl Best Friends Eating PussPuss! JustLesboThings! Haha lesbians! Girl-Licker uh Liker ;)', it just kept distracting me because of how annoying it was.
August 27, 2024
Dat dit zogenaamde “korte geschiedenisboek” een enorm gebrek aan voetnoten had (er waren er geen) was voor mij nog het minst teleurstellend. De schrijver stelt dan wel terecht dat termen als “lesbian” en “queer” zeer moderne termen zijn, en niet bestonden in de tijd van de besproken vrouwen, maar vervolgens blijft zij al deze vrouwen labelen als lesbiennes (en stateert zij dit als feitelijke informatie). Dit geeft mij meteen het idee dat deze schrijver van een zogenaamd “geschiedenisboek” graag maar oppervlakkig kennis neemt aan het onderwerp van seksuele identiteit, en dit boek vooral gebruikt om haar persoonlijke overtuigingen te superponeren op vrouwen die gewoon deden wat ze deden.
Ik zou eens terug willen gaan in de tijd, de in dit boek genoemde vrouwen willen opzoeken, en ze vertellen dat zij, volgens mevrouw Loehr, lesbiennes zijn. Ik geloof dat ze zich een bult lachen.
Ik zou eens terug willen gaan in de tijd, de in dit boek genoemde vrouwen willen opzoeken, en ze vertellen dat zij, volgens mevrouw Loehr, lesbiennes zijn. Ik geloof dat ze zich een bult lachen.
May 30, 2023
Hallå alla reviews på denna bok är så seriösa. Detta var en jättekul liten pocket sized guide till många bortglömda lesbiska kvinnor i historien. Den är skriven i en väldigt lättsam ton och avslutar med att referera till mer ingående facklitteratur om det är det man vill ha. Enda varningen är att författaren är lite millenial-esque i sitt skrivande. Men rekommenderar verkligen.
Om man dock inte har nån koll alls på queer historia och vill lära sig kronologiskt och ingående så är det inte denna bok du ska läsa för det syftet.
Om man dock inte har nån koll alls på queer historia och vill lära sig kronologiskt och ingående så är det inte denna bok du ska läsa för det syftet.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 721 reviews