When in 2017 Hillary Clinton used the phrase “the future is female” commentators in far-right-wing media deplored her for “alien[ating] half of the human race” (Wilhelm 2017). The phrase, as Heather Wilhelm says, is attributed by the New York Times to a slogan on T-shirts designed and sold in a feminist bookshop in 1975. It is not difficult to imagine that the title of Ciara Cremin's book reviewed here is one likely to attract similar bellicose attention in right-wing circles. What may be harder to imagine is that the book may also attract the ire of some who style themselves as leftist, “gender critical feminists,” or more accurately: TERFs. TERFs in England where I live prefer to be called “gender critical feminists.” They claim that their “feminism” is politically left wing and, quite bizarrely, not antitrans. There is considerable evidence, however, that establishes their connections in Europe with far-right Christian groups globally who oppose women's rights to abortion, for example (Datta 2021). Inviting criticism from a potential confluence of the far right and supposedly leftist feminists suggests to me a book that may well be worth reading!The Future Is Feminine provides a theoretically astute and far-ranging critique of masculinity and the masculine ego in late capitalism. Far-right commentators who disliked Hillary Clinton's “sloganeering” are likely to see in the title (I doubt many will read the actual book) as an attack on men; it is not. Gender critical “feminists” may be offended, however, by the questioning of the “realness” of sex/gender and that the writer is a trans woman. In doing so both the far right and so-called leftist commentators will misread the book.Cremin provides an astute analysis of how certain types of masculinity and male ego formations have proved toxic in a patriarchal and androcentric society. She argues that there are three types of masculinity, which she describes as reactive/aggravated masculinities (RAMs), avoidant/restrictive masculinities (ARMs), and reflective/experimental masculinities (REMs). RAMs, those angry, white “alpha” males like Trump suffer from toxic masculinity at one end of a spectrum opposed by the REMs. At the other end, she offers Prince as an example of a person who was playful with his masculinity. ARMs come between the two extremes and adjust or “calibrate” their masculinity according to dynamic, changing social and cultural mores and sensibilities. ARMs in the late 2010s increasingly calibrated themselves against a backdrop of toxic political figures like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Putin at one extreme and minorities at the other.The analysis moves from a Marxist analysis of our society as a toxic androcentric one to a discussion of how our individual ego formation may help ground our gender identity. In so doing she moves from, and between, Marx to Freud and on to Lacan and Deleuze and Guattari. This is far reaching in its coverage. But Cremin does it deftly, and the Marxist analysis and grounding helps differentiate this text from Judith Butler's early work on gender performativity (1990, 1993) and desire (1987). She conveys the otherwise disparate, dense, and different theories clearly, all the while offering examples drawn from popular culture to illustrate her arguments. Cremin writes fluently: what could easily have been a very dense, theory-laden discussion is instead delivered with aplomb.Gender critical “feminists” will take exception to the focus on types of masculinity rather than men, or trans people, as the problem of a patriarchal society. Cremin does not locate the ills of our society within biological sex but in ego formation. Late in the book she specifically turns to gender critical “feminists” and discusses how they are also part of the problem. Furthermore, she considers how her own experiences of being a transgender woman reflexively inform her analysis (and particularly her discussion) of REMs. Her lived experience as a trans woman is particularly valuable for discussions of how we may extend or challenge binaristic notions of sex/gender. In this analysis, gender critical “feminists” are neither feminists nor feminine but are people whose intolerance repeats a toxic masculinity. Trans people increase the potential scope of REMs while gender critical “feminists” are aligned with RAMs.And here I confess is where I find the book problematic. Cremin talks about trans women and, in particular, her own experiences as a trans woman. She is aware of her own situatedness regarding class, race, and ethnicity; Cremin is careful not to use her experience to colonize other cultures. Her analysis of transgender people is, however, focused on trans women. Although she mentions trans men and nonbinary people she does not develop that discussion but instead carefully places them outside the scope of her analysis and this book. How do I, as a nonbinary person, relate to this RAMs-ARMs-REMs spectrum? I do not regard myself as either male or female, and I do not performatively reiterate gender (Butler 1990, 1993). I lie outside both her RAMs-REMs spectrum and Butler's heterosexual matrix.Gayle Rubin (1984) famously argued that we are increasingly punished by a heteronormative society the more we diverge from its norms. If the RAMs-REMs spectrum is dynamic and involves an internalized, calibrative mechanism then how does it relate to those outside it? Will it attempt to assimilate me and punish me for the temerity of my gender transgression? Is it a totalizing system that is a utopia for some but an unavoidable hell for others? How severely will we be punished for gender transgressions in a post-Trump world where the ARMs calibrate toward the RAMs? What of a trans man whose ego may have formed in ways that Freud did not consider but is nonetheless still male and masculine? Cremin focuses on explaining how masculinities function for those in a patriarchal society but not those of us who are either excluded from it or may have had a very different but still masculine ego formation. Her utopia may be feminine, but what about other utopias (Muñoz 2009) and other egos? Bracha Ettinger's (2006) concept of the “matrixial” may offer helpful insights into ego formation that are not reliant on a phallic structure.Despite my criticisms of it I'd happily recommend this book. I really do hope that Cremin now writes a follow-up text that considers how those of us who are nonbinary or are trans men may relate to her spectrum. The future may be feminine for some, but let us make it one for all.