This critique is fairly dismissive of trans (transgender, transvestite, transsexual) identities, arguing that the girls in the film are emasculated gay men who are harming womanhood by mimicking white femininity. This particular essay is one that is critiqued quite a lot in later trans literature, because it completely avoids even contemplating the possibility that the people in the film are being their authentic selves, and not just men play-acting at womanhood while reproducing harmful patriarchal/colonial stereotypes.

She goes so far as to quote lesbian separatist Marilyn Frye: "It is a casual and cynical mockery of women, for whom femininity is the trapping of oppression, but it is also a kind of play, a toying with that which is taboo., .What gay male affectation of femininity seems to be is a serious sport in which men may exercise their power and control over the feminine, much as in other sports...But the mastery of the feminine is not feminine. It is masculine..."

This idea that transfeminine people are actually dominating women and making mockery of womanhood while invading women's spaces is a classic of gender critical feminism, and one that Janice Raymond really ran with at the time as well. In Bodies That Matter, Butler even mentions the way that hooks' use of Frye here echoes Raymond' anti-trans thought: "In her provocative review of Paris Is Burning, bell hooks criticized some productions of gay male drag as misogynist, and here she allied herself in part with feminist theorists such as Marilyn Frye and Janice Raymond."

This isn't to argue that there may not be some merit in investigating the potential for misogyny in drag, however Paris Is Burning has an eclectic group of transfeminine people who live many types of gendered lives, including those living as women full time, and in that review hooks lumps them right in as misogynists mocking femininity by their existence, and even calls Venus him/her despite her living full time as a woman. It's a very cissexist view on the subject matter from someone trying to make the lived experiences of transfeminine people be about how cis women are harmed.

This part especially stands out: " the film was a graphic documentary portrait of the way in which colonized black people (in this case black gay brothers, some of whom were drag queens) worship at the throne of whiteness, even when such worship demands that we live in perpetual self-hate, steal, lie, go hungry, and even die in its pursuit"

This is the ultimate dismissal of the lived realities of transfeminine people. She reduces them all to "black gay brothers," even the ones living full time as women (and ignoring that a large portion of the people involved are Latinx, not Black), and considers that their alienation from society, their poverty, and their dysphoria are all products of the choice to mock womanhood as a result of white supremacism. When we see the transfeminine people in the film discuss the hardship they've faced, the abuse, the discrimination, the poverty, the loss of home lives, where they form houses with each other in queer communities for survival, to dismiss that as purely "worship at the throne of whiteness" and not a desperate attempt to carve out an authentic life is absolutely out of touch.

Edit: not to say that there isn't some interesting investigation to be had into the nature of an educated white lesbian coming into these spaces as interlocutor, but the general trend of hooks' review is completely off the mark