Alright. I guess I'm writing an essay today. I understand why this book is so highly rated. It was ambitious and engaging and came across as progressive and well-researched... at first. But once I got to the topics I was already familiar with, its flaws started standing out. And that made me question everything I had read in the earlier chapters. (1) This book does not meaningfully address the very central role racism and slavery-era experimentation played in shaping modern gynecology. For example, the author refers to Anarcha as one of James Marion Sims's "patients", in desperate need of his help. But Anarcha was never a patient. She was enslaved. And Sims was not just another gynecologist. He is *the* most infamous gynecologist in history for his repeated surgical experimentation without anesthesia on enslaved Black women. When the author does acknowledge Sims's brutally racist practices, she writes: "But he *did* ultimately operate on Lucy, Betsy, and Anarcha, and he *did* ultimately figure out how to fix [a urinary problem all other doctors historically dismissed].” Is this meant to suggest that the outcome justifies the means? She also gives him the benefit of the doubt, writing: "It is entirely possible that [Sims's] willingness to perform experimental surgery on enslaved women, repeatedly and without anesthesia, stemmed from the predominant wisdom of the time that [Black women] wouldn't feel it." Let's be clear: the evidence of their suffering would have been immediate and undeniable. That was not a collective misunderstanding. It was deliberate, cruel exertion of power. (2) The author writes: "In many cases and in many ways, the men who shaped reproductive and sexual medicine were good. Or at least genuinely believed they meant well. There was Horatio Storer, for instance." She goes on to praise Storer’s contributions to gynaecological education. She writes that he was a passionate advocate for women’s health. But upon a quick Google search, you’ll discover Horatio Storer is best known as *the* leader of the Physician’s Crusade Against Abortion, and that he is considered largely responsible for the increase in laws against abortion in the late 1800s. The gynecological education he pioneered was about the moral and physical problems of abortion. If that's not enough, his anti-abortion efforts were specifically focused on white women, because he was concerned about the "future destiny of the nation," and fed into broader eugenics movements. Again, the author does briefly mention Storer's association to anti-abortion activism, but doesn't describe the extent of his role, and ultimately introduced him as one of the "good men". The author is notably silent about the topic of abortion throughout the rest of the book, despite its clear relevance to women's health and autonomy. (3) Transphobia out of nowhere in chapter 10? Beyond the confusing language she uses, did she suggest that trans boys surely transitioned to escape misogynistic stereotypes? Did I interpret that correctly? What I do know for sure is that this segment has nothing to do with the historical dismissal of trans patients, is not gender-affirming, and is not supported by evidence. Trans patients are otherwise excluded from this book. (4) The author introduces POTS as "also known as Grinch Syndrome". But this is an outdated, inaccurate, and widely rejected term among patients and clinicians. It was coined by a doctor who believed POTS was associated to smaller hearts, caused by deconditioning and could be fixed by exercise. This doctor and his theories were quickly discredited, over 10 years before the publishing of this book. This could have been a good opportunity for the author to call out the harmful "exercise will fix you" rhetoric too often directed at women. (5) One thing I feel specifically qualified to call out -- the author states in chapter 11 that endometriosis "occurs in pelvic areas". This was already an outdated understanding of the disease at the time of this writing. Endometriosis is a systemic, whole-body inflammatory condition, and has been documented throughout the entire body. Framing it as a pelvic condition perpetuates the harmful myths that can delay diagnosis and lead to serious complications (e.g. lung collapse with thoracic endometriosis). This book had a lot of good, but what the author leaves unsaid, unexamined, or inaccurate, is difficult to overlook. Especially given her background as a Harvard-educated oncologist. I had higher expectations.