x + y

One thing that really bothers me when reading is when authors define new terms for things that have perfectly good terms already. It feels very elitist -- actually, scratch that, deciding that your language is better than all existing language made by people who actually study the field for a living and therefore is the only language that should be used is very ingressive.

I think. That would require me to know what ingressive meant. Cheng insists loudly that ingressive doesn't just mean "masculine coded" but she's very inconsistent about what it does mean. For instance, standing up after every talk to aggressively ask questions of the presenter is congressive (the opposite), but being confident is ingressive. But she later clarifies that deserved confidence is congressive.

Ultimately, I don't think Cheng really has anything new to say about gender. It may be an interesting and non-threatening foray for people with no prior exposure to feminism and gender studies, and I'm sure Cheng is a very good mathematician, but in the future I'll stick to math books by mathematicians and gender books by experts in those fields.