Question: The question of weather a person's gender identity is "necessary and universal" is a great one to ask when the answer always shows up differently. But this raises an open question regarding the legality of it as her previous arguments were relating to the rights we have in a democracy. If gender identity is open ended and emergent instead of being fixed doesn't that make it harder for legal institutions to accommodate it? or is the point that the institutions need to adopt more changes to accommodate more and increasing fluid gender identities?

Evidence: This line that serves a precursor to the author's thinking, supports her argument. It defends the argument that gender is not something that she "invented" but instead is something you become out of lived experience and knowledge. It also is a great way in which the author connects previous feminist work with their own work and proves that her thinking is absolutely not new and has already existed before.

Point of Interest/ Criticism : Butler's comparison of discomfort with pronoun changes with how people learned to talk about other races differently suggests that linguistic discomfort in both of these situations is a normal and part of the process change. But this isn't how we usually define our past progress with race because comparing both struggles is a gross oversimplification of each of the struggles. In my opinion, it is impossible to equate these two struggles exactly and is just trying to use a more familiar example of linguistic change to make an unfamiliar example less threatening.

Statement of interest: This way of defining being performative, "I declare you man and wife" is a great way of helping all types of people including critics understand how it works. It takes out the false understanding that you could only perform as a certain gender or something for yourself and introduces the idea of performing as an act that has real and material consequences. it clarifies an important concept of her work that many people tend to misread.

Sub- Argument: The author draws a clean line in the distinction between sex and gender and categorizes them using biology and societal understanding respectively. This clear distinction acknowledges the critics views on how biology creates a distinction among us naturally but also makes room for gender's more flexible traits that let people mix up their gender expressions and present however they want.

Main Argument: Butler's stance in this line is clearly meant to take the argument from an argument about personal beliefs into a political debate. The arguments against being equated to an attack against democracy turns up the stakes on this debate. In my opinion, the author seems to have done this to connect the argument to questions of freedom and bodily anatomy that most of the time people have undisputable views on.

Main Argument: These lines by Stockton set up the base thesis or theme for the rest of the article by explaining to us the difference between the assigned sex at birth and the gender of the baby. the author uses the words "get inside" the child to represent how the inevitable socialization of the assigned gender will affect the child in the future. These themes of how when a new baby is born and immediately the sex and the gender of the baby fuse into one is further talked about throughout the article.

Evidence: The five sex-layers that the author talks about provides us with genuine biological evidence on why using just the external genitalia to categorize newborns into one of two genders simply doesn't work. the information provided here about intersex people also shows us how many discrepancies can occur simply between the five bodily layers of sex. The author uses this as the base for supporting her arguments against those who believe that biology itself separates us into a binary and disproves them by instead explaining how society in fact was the creator of this binary instead of biology.

Evidence/ Statement of Interest: This comment by the author certainly made me doubt my knowledge, because like many others, I was also under the false assumption that intersex people only made up a small fraction of our population. It provides solid evidence as to why intersex people are not outliers but instead they are a common human variation.

Critical Observation: These lines introduce the intersectionality of the struggling of trans kids and children of color. The whole ordeal shows us the lack of consideration the medical community had towards trans identifying individuals, specifically kids and how this only became worse when it came to children of color. the term used to talk about them, "difficult" was used to treat them as less than their white counterparts and deny them care and equal rights just like many other sections of society has treated them.

Sub- Argument: This is an interesting way to understand the relationship between sex and gender, because it does hold true to some account. Early medical professionals confused about the intricacies of sex along with their lack of understanding of the five layers of sex might've found themselves in need of something that is more black and white and easier to categorize humans into. The gender binary being looked at from this point of view, in my opinion, helps us prove that it is a societal construct rather than a general truth.

Questions: Gender being an everchanging concept is certainly true and the author frames this as something more poetic rather than a proper category. This leaves the question of weather gender is a fixed and natural societal category or weather it is a fluid spectrum that shouldn't be categorized? The ending of the article feels like an intentional openness that I would like to question because doesn't defining and arguing for certain definitions lead us towards answers in a more efficient way rather than leaving everything open to interpretation?