Scan barcode
A review by averyt121
x+y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender by Eugenia Cheng
2.0
I was incredibly frustrated with this book. I was hoping for something that would give me objective, mathematical ammunition to discuss the subjectivity of gender, critique the gender binary, go into the nuance of gender versus sex- I was instead given a vocabulary lesson in new two words that aren’t given direct and full-fledged definitions.
The author creates two new vocabulary words that she prescribes as the cure to gender inequality. “Congressive” and “ingressive” are established as the central thesis of addressing societal strife, but I spent the book lacking a concrete concept for each that didn’t just align with the much simpler, already existing dichotomy of either masculine/feminine or individualistic/collective.
The author states that these new words will create a blank slate for peoples’ understanding of gender and open their minds to an unbiased discussion of gender expectations, but fails to recognize that these words align too closely with already existing, loaded concepts. We do not exist in a vacuum and introducing these new concepts will not suddenly erase the bias already present in those learning the new words or open them up to new ideas about eliminating sexism.
It is fine to create new words to discuss sexism and gender, but focusing on finding new words to erase the context and assumptions of those that would otherwise doubt your argument is essentially tone policing. This is catering to those that do not want to listen to the argument while not even proving that doing so would even be beneficial to the cause overall. To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the entire argument. Why should these new words actually convince people of the necessity to change when they mean things that everyone already associates with gender or political ideology?
The author creates two new vocabulary words that she prescribes as the cure to gender inequality. “Congressive” and “ingressive” are established as the central thesis of addressing societal strife, but I spent the book lacking a concrete concept for each that didn’t just align with the much simpler, already existing dichotomy of either masculine/feminine or individualistic/collective.
The author states that these new words will create a blank slate for peoples’ understanding of gender and open their minds to an unbiased discussion of gender expectations, but fails to recognize that these words align too closely with already existing, loaded concepts. We do not exist in a vacuum and introducing these new concepts will not suddenly erase the bias already present in those learning the new words or open them up to new ideas about eliminating sexism.
It is fine to create new words to discuss sexism and gender, but focusing on finding new words to erase the context and assumptions of those that would otherwise doubt your argument is essentially tone policing. This is catering to those that do not want to listen to the argument while not even proving that doing so would even be beneficial to the cause overall. To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the entire argument. Why should these new words actually convince people of the necessity to change when they mean things that everyone already associates with gender or political ideology?