I agree with Kajsa Ekis Ekman in the starting points.

I really think that the rampant idea that physical sex is a social construct deserves a harsh examination.

I really think the support from politicians and authorities around this in many ways separate idea deserves to be questioned.

And I think the increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses and gender reassignment treatments in underage patients deserves a continued critical debate. 

But unfortunately, Ekman

has not written a book that makes all this important in a good way. 

She is best when she attacks the thesis that gender is socially constructed, an idea put forward by the American academic Judith Butler in the book Gender Struggle 1990.

The thesis has since spread through academic feminism and been popularized in combative queer and transfeminism.

Now, according to Ekman, this theory is causing catastrophic damage to the very heart of feminism, to the concrete political struggle for equality.

Here, Ekman points to the serious consequences of what she calls the "new view of gender".

How should it be possible to map inequality - when the mere use of the term woman is met with bitter opposition or scornful dismissal?

When the reality of gender is undermined

, there is a strange shift towards regarding gender roles as more real.

Gender is what you want to see yourself as - and all too often mossy stereotypes are used as a yardstick (if the child wants to please or assert themselves, play with dolls or cars). 

Ekman defends a classic feminist analysis: gender is nature but it only says something about how reproduction works, everything else is culture and politics.

Nature says nothing about who should have a higher salary and who should take care of the unpaid homework.

I think she is doing exactly the right thing, but I think she could have done it without giving the trans movement such a central role in the drama. 

On the whole, the main line of the book,

I would like to say that Ekman simply ends up wrong.

She argues that everything - the destabilization of the gender categories, the rhetoric surrounding the concept of gender identity, the transrevolution, healthcare and drug capitalism - that all this is part of a patriarchy's counter-offensive against the victories of women's struggle.

The woman must be pushed back and this must be done by eradicating the woman as a category, as a social and political subject.

Here I mean that Ekman in his effort to follow the Marxist drawing builds an overly large construction of too disparate parts. 

With the trans movement as an incomprehensible tool, a linguistic war is being waged against women, Ekman says and continues: "This war is not the result of a conscious conspiracy - it is an organic process that restores lost power." 

The patriarchy thus acts

on overall autopilot to restore its power.

Arguments for that interpretation?

Yes, that's how it looks for Ekman, then her political equation is solved. 

However, my most serious objection to Ekman's book is not that it is unreliable in the presentation of facts.

She is so fulfilled by the great story she sees, that she closes her eyes to certain contradictory facts, gives misleading descriptions of others and uses outdated quotes when the current ones do not give the right effect. 

Ekman claims, among other things, that the diagnosis of gender incongruence among children has a "main focus" on gender roles, such as the choice of games and toys.

The WHO's diagnostic manual, which is used all over the world, would thus claim that the trance condition is above all "about not behaving in accordance with the gender role", according to Ekman. 

This is not true.

The WHO lists a number of criteria for the permit.

Last in line are behaviors that are typical of the opposite sex.

But it is especially emphasized that this alone is not the basis for the diagnosis. 

This can not be called "main focus" on gender role behaviors.

Not at all.

Such a discovery erodes my confidence in the whole book.