This book says absolutely nothing new or cohesive about gender, but also has some genuinely interesting sections on art and politics, which constitute, along with the genuinely excellent writing, the entirety of my rating. As for the actual concept of the book? It contradicts itself more often than it makes a coherent point. It's difficult to actually engage with a book when its central thesis (everyone is female and everyone hates it) is so flatly drawn and isn't constructed with evidence or weight to back it up. Throwing around controversial surrounding statements and just letting them linger is easy; anyone can do it. Constructing a central thesis to get your teeth into and stoke proper agreement / disagreement is not, and this book doesn't even attempt to do it.

Chu redefines the word 'female' as 'any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make way for the desires of another,' but never actually states why. Simply redefining recognisable words and concepts does not a provocation make. Fine, from now on I'll be defining 'male' as 'a specific brand of probiotic yogurt which rhymes with Bactivia.' It makes about as much sense.

Chu also attempts to engage with Freud and suggests that as well as penis envy, we all have pussy envy, which forms the basis of gender transition. This conceit might work - at a real push - for arguments about trans womanhood, but trans men? Non-binary people? They may as well not exist. They don't get a single look-in in this text. Chu's concept of gender transition is always towards femininity. It's just spurious and half baked.

Accordingly, it's not as controversial as it thinks it is and tries to be - any book in 2019 which seriously builds on Freud's idea of castration fear and penis envy is going to be doing a lot of rehashing, to say the least - but once every, say, 30 pages, there's something to chew over. Usually, it leaves a bad taste, but it's almost a relief after the blandness of the rest of it. I think I agreed with approximately two sentences in the book, actively disagreed with maybe five, and passively read the remainder. It's just too clearly a bit to take seriously.

I would read a novel by Andrea Long Chu, or a book about art, or even a critical engagement with another text, because her writing is engaging and clear, but gender theory and being provocative are, alas, not as much her forté as she thinks (see her recent-ish op-ed about transition outcomes, or her super edgy biphobic tweets of yesteryear.)

Oh, and sissy porn started on Tumblr in 2013? Please.