It is always better to ask then to make an assumption.
Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're missing something.
Whether or not we continue to enforce a universal conception of human rights at moments of outrage and incomprehension, precisely when we think that others have taken themselves out of the human community as we know it, is a test of our very humanity.
I think we have to accept a wide variety of positions on gender. Some want to be gender-free, but others want to be free really to be a gender that is crucial to who they are.
I think we need a politics that allows us to risk what is intelligible. To be maybe slightly unintelligible, too be slightly "illisible". To take the risk of suggesting that the human form might take another form.
So there might be a kind of collective effort that allows for those risks to be taken, pose a certain danger but not a suicidal one.
Maybe one of the jobs of theory or philosophy is to elevate principles that seem impossible, or that have the status of the impossible, to stand by them and will them, even when it looks highly unlikely that they'll ever be realised. But that's ok, it's a service.
The company later went broke, and of course all blame was directed at the lawyers. Not once did I hear any talk that maybe a trace of mismanagement could in any way have contributed to the bankruptcy.
. I suppose we could ask the same question of Jesus. God sent Him to be the Messiah of Israel and King of Israel; why did He fail the first time around and get crucified?"
If being human requires freedom, then enslavement to the cares of this world is dehumanizing.
God continues to speak through what He has spoken.