As We Interpret Ourselves Differently,

Until We Learn That Other Lives Are Equally Grievable And Have An Equal Demand On Us To Be Grieved - Especially The Ones That We've Helped To Eliminate - I'm Not Sure We'll Really Be On The Way To Overcoming The Problem Of Dehumanization.

The Real Question Is How Do You Survive At The Same Time You Pose Those Risks? Because You Need To Survive. And It Seems To Me That You Survive In Community Or In Solidarity, With Others Who Are Taking The Risk With You.

My Sense Is That We May Not Need The Language Of Innateness Or Genetics To Understand That We Are All Ethically Bound To Recognize Another Person's Declared Or Enacted Sense Of Sex And/or Gender. We Do Not Have To Agree Upon The "origins" Of That Sense Of Self To Agree That It Is Ethically Obligatory To Support And Recognize Sexed And Gendered Modes Of Being That Are Crucial To A Person's Well-being.

I Don't Think There's Any Way That War Can Have A Place In Peace. I Think That Peace Is The Active And Difficult Resistance To The Temptation Of War; It Is The Prerogative And The Obligation Of The Injured. Peace Is Something That Has To Be Vigilantly Maintained; It Is A Vigilance, And It Involves Temptation, And It Does Not Mean We As Human Beings Are Not Aggressive. This Is A Mistaken Way Of Understanding Non-violence.

Love Is Not A State, A Feeling, A Disposition, But An Exchange, Uneven, Fraught With History, With Ghosts, With Longings That Are More Or Less Legible To Those Who Try To See One Another With Their Own Faulty Vision.