Packed full of information, Caroline Criado Perez has created a compendium to fill in the gaps of data bias.

The information itself is important and often emotionally compelling, even if not especially surprising. The presentation of the information was lacking, as the breadth of topics covered means many issues were addressed only superficially.

Criado-Perez has a laser-focus on gender which made things lack further reflection and connection to things like class, race, queerness, disability, etc. I appreciated when the author widened the lens and included information from non-Western countries.

The most glaring issue was the book's lack of inclusion of gender nonconformity. Although Perez wasn't outright transphobic, the book ignores transgender, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming people to the point that it feels very intentional. The author leans heavily on binary ideas of gender: genitalia, chromosomes, and biological differences between people to put them into clear "man" and "woman" boxes. I could easily see a lot of information in this book being used in trans-exclusionary arguments, and though that's not necessarily the author's fault, including trans, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming people without question would certainly mitigate the damage. Even just a small language change could have helped make it feel more inclusive.

Especially concerning to me was the afterword which talked about bathrooms, in which the author brings up an example of women in refugee camps being assaulted as an argument against gender neutral bathrooms. It felt shoehorned in and felt like the author used the trauma of marginalized women to further an agenda.

ETA: Upon further research, the author has had some problematic trans-exclusionary opinions in the past that she has since "retracted" (read: quietly deleted and not addressed), so do with that information what you will.

Beyond that, it was clear that the author hasn't fully deconstructed past liberal feminism. I felt frustrated that the author seemed to be asking "How can we change the existing toxic systems to include women better" and not "How can we deconstruct the systems that allow these discrepancies to happen". I felt this more especially during chapters discussing work and labor.

Perez focused a lot on optics rather than actual liberation, which made some information feel much less important than others. The example I have most recently in mind is in the final chapter, where she talks about women being represented in congresses/parliaments using the example of South Korea, who, while they have minimum requirements of percentage of women in congress, have a lot of issues with misogyny and anti-feminism. Yes, obviously women being in positions of power is important but some information (like this example) lacked context and deconstruction, which ties back into the "how can we make the existing system work better" issue I had.

Overall the negatives outweigh the positives for me, I don't feel like I left with a lot of new information and felt more annoyed and disappointed than anything.