The claims only work if the ideas separating the actual biology and social constructs are defined.

The fact we know that testosterone and estrogen do very specific things shows that there are behaviors (being heterosexual) and physical traits that naturally occur in the most naturally occurring genders/sexes. It’s precisely why transgender people take hormone replacement drugs. They want to fully embody what the feminine/masculine hormones do to the body.

I also find it odd that the word gender has been usurped to be defined as how one identifies instead of acknowledging that gender comes from the same root as generate/genitals/progeny. It’s all about the role one would take in procreation should they be so inclined. Gender ROLES, however, are most definitely societally constructed and can change. Women can hold the door open for men and men can be stay at home dads. I’m all aboard the gender-role busting train for the most part. My son likes pink and blue. By daughter plays in the mud while wearing her Elsa dress.

But those are the performativities Butler spoke of.

I know my argument is semantic, but I feel like there are better words to describe what we’re talking about. Butler chose to be They/Them because of her assertions that being called girl/boy is usurping the individual from generating their own identity. But it’s okay to accept that until one can decipher whatever it is they’re feeling, being labeled as boy/girl — because that’s the most naturally occurring thing to happen in our species — isn’t harmful. As long as we’re supportive of people and respectful and kind, that should be what matters, I suppose.

Direct response to “children should be seen and not heard.” I know a ton of people who got sent away to “Excelsior” which was the school for “the bad kids”, but when not being trained to be a drone and ridiculed for not understanding chemistry or basic math, they were the kindest people. Loyal to a fault. Genuinely creative and above all, hopeful.

But what else are kids supposed to fee when they don’t fit in? Angry is a word that fits, imo.

So, instead of telling them to shut up and comply, let’s realize kids are not made to be formed. They are under our care and we keep fucking them up because “it is what it is” as the article states.

I think his statement at the end is really poignant. Feed that anger at the system by doing something about it. And that starts at home. And in our communities at schools.

It’s an interesting thought experiment. Why I would say to kill all pandas is because I’m almost convinced that Pandas are a human creation. Also, even if they aren’t, they’re going extinct; whether by us or otherwise. And if they are meant to go extinct then they should be let to do so. This experiment would highly accelerate that, but still.

Also, the experiment is hypothetical and mostly silly, so my answer is allowed to be also. I don’t put much stock in pandas. They’re cool looking but they’re kinda dumb.

I think the magnitude of effect there will be is based on proximity to the subject that dies which might actually average out to there being no clear utilitarian choice.

And if you were to start narrowing down criteria for which human dies than it’s no longer random. It’s selective. And that is not good.