there are two passages that briefly reference the experiences of trans people (warning there is some outdated and cissexist language)
fairly early on in the book is a quote from a trans woman which is situated in the context of many similar experiences of cis women who internalize gendered norms and preform worse at certain tasks due to these norms:
The more I was treated as a woman, the more woman I became. I adapted willy-nilly. If I was assumed to be incompetent at reversing cars, or opening bottles, oddly incompetent I found myself becoming. If a case was thought too heavy for me, inexplicably I found it so myself.
-Jan Morris, a male-to-female transsexual [sic] describing her posttransition experiences in her autobiography, Conundrum (1987).
the trans woman’s experience is presented as a woman’s experience (and it’s in a trans woman’s own words from her autobiography), among cis women’s experiences. Note that this chapter is called We Think, Therefore You Are and presents many studies where cis women internalize beliefs about their capabilities as women and preform poorly on tasks assumed to be male in society. The author is not implying this trans woman’s gender is any more constructed than that of the cis women’s. Her point is that our ideas about gender are constructed by society and internalized by cis and trans women alike.
Don’t believe me? Her passage on trans men’s experiences makes it more obvious:
Ben Barres is a professor of neurobiology at Stanford University, and a female-to-male transsexual [sic]. In an article in Nature he recalls that “[s]hortly after I changed sex, a faculty member was heard to say ‘Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s.” Similar stories cropped up in a recent interview study of twenty-nine female-to-male transsexuals [sic]. Kritsen Schilt, a Research Fellow at Houstin’s Rice University, interviewed the men about their work experiences both before and after their transition… Her study reveals that many immediately enjoyed greater recognition and respect. Thomas, an attorney, related how a college praised the boss for getting rid of Susan, whom he regarded as incompetent. He then added that the “new guy,” Thomas, was “just delightful”–not realizing, of course, that Thomas and Susan were one and the same. Roger, in retain found that now that he is a man [sic] people bypass his female boss and beeline straight to him with their questions. Paul, continuing his work in secondary education, suddenly found himself being continually called upon in meetings to offer his newly valuable opinions. And several blue-collar workers reported that work is a great deal easier since the transitions.
As Barres rightly acknowledges, anecdotes are not data. But these insights form the experiences of people who have lived on both sides of the gender divide [sic] offer an intriguing glimpse into the possibility that a person’s talents in the workplace are easier to recognize when that person is male [emphasis mine]. Empirical research points to that same conclusion.“
The author states, explicitly, that the point of this section on trans men’s experiences is to illustrate that men’s talents are more recognized. The author is using the experiences of trans men as male experiences. The examples are useful to the author because she sees the transitions as highlighting the disparity between how trans men were treated when their coworkers saw them as women and when they saw them as men.
The book’s treatment of trans people is of course far from perfect. The language about becoming a man and formerly being a woman (or even the trans woman’s own words about becoming a woman) is obviously problematic and wrong, as many of us can recognize, as it false in like cis normative idea that you only become another gender if you transition (and this is of course harmful to trans women who are seen as having male privilege before transition). Further there was a statement earlier about how women would do better in the work place if they disguised themselves as men and then it says some people have had that experience (i.e. trans men), which is obviously problematic. And there’s the language about trans men "living on both sides of the divide.”
But the book refers to the trans men as men and uses them as an example for how men are treated better than women in society it literally explicitly states this: “[trans men] offer an intriguing glimpse into the possibility that a person’s talents in the workplace are easier to recognize when that person is male. THAT PERSON IS MALE. Terfs cannot deny that. That’s what the text says. Not seen as male, not pretending to be male. MALE. And the author refers to these men as men. Although it slips into cissexist language and conception of transition every once in a while, it in no way implies trans identities are invalid. In fact, these experiences are presented to support the author’s argument that gender is socially constructed and that a trans woman has the experiences of a woman and a trans man the experiences of a man despite "biology” which the book seeks to debunk
idk how terfs turned that into the book lampooning or invalidating trans identites
these are the only two mention of trans people in the entire book