In response to Angel's commentary on my essay, I elaborate on 3 primary points that she highlights. I extend her discussion of the convergence between feminist/antimedicalization critiques of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and clinical/experimental psychiatric research with regard to gender essentialism; I engage with her claim that feminist critiques of psychiatry have been stymied by their jettisoning of Freudian interpretation and their vilification of psychoanalysis (including in regards to their reluctance to consider psychogenic etiological explanations for gendered desire disparities); and I respond to her call to take seriously women's individual sexual suffering. I discuss psychoanalytic investigations of low desire and gendered sexual trauma outside of Freudian Oedipality and beyond reductive biological tropes, focusing instead on how feminine subjectivities and populations are formed as a result of bodies, psyches, relations, and power coming together in complicated ways. I conclude by considering some possibilities for honoring this complexity.