Thank you.

Shu Lea’s telling me to be short, but that we are discussing these things. I think this is the most important thing. Nothing can be solved in one vote. It’s voted, fine. It’s lost, OK. If it’s next time, whatever. Let’s keep talking about it.

I think it’s an issue of avoiding discrimination and changing the conditions that give access to citizenship. Those can be discussed. I think it’s a very good thing that they’re...

We know what globally within this patriarchal heterosexual regime means to be female, no matter that some people decide to be female otherwise. When you are assigned female at birth, this is the reality.

For instance, what I think myself, when we’re having debates on feminism, for instance, is that we are operating already a kind of discrimination as soon as we assign gender at birth. That’s the way in which we’re saying, "Male or female. Therefore if it’s female, let’s throw it to ...

I think as long as we have are still defining citizenship in terms of having access to marriage, then we need to say anybody can have access to marriage. Otherwise, we have to abolish marriage. If we are not doing that, then we agree that the state can discriminate.

When you’re in prison, you have absolutely no rights. You’re really stripped of all your rights. Is this even legal? Maybe not. What are the conditions that grant full citizenship in a certain society?

This is what we...I mean I think that if we have citizens that are allowed to get married and some that are not allowed to get married because of different reasons -- it can be because they are like homosexual, transsexual but also because they are like, let’s say, as ...

At the same time, there can be a debate that has to do with the reform within the law to create more spaces of full citizenship and avoid violence of the state of state violence and state discrimination.

While some of the most radical, let’s say, critical thinkers within gender, we’re discussing like how to change the paradigm and how to change the framework as long as defining how many genders we will be assigning or maybe no gender.

I think this is the most radical thing to do. As long as we’re not ready to have that debate, meanwhile, if you want, as a kind of tactical or strategic politics, we can also get into debates of more reform in terms of the law, which also can be...both ...

I think that it’s impossible to discriminate by law. This is what we’re talking about when...I mean as much as I have been saying before that myself, I think the most radical thing to do would be abolishing the gender assignment at birth.

For instance, in a certain society, being human means having the right to get married and to celebrate your marriage with your family and give a big banquet and this part of a social ritual. If you’re not able to do that, therefore you’re kind of excluded out of what ...

For me, it’s interesting to think about. A very basic issue is who is allowed to be a full citizen in a given society. Therefore, as long as we keep positions of a subaltern citizenship, like basically, I would say bodies because as long as not full citizenship has been ...

Yeah. Maybe a way of asking to both questions at the same time. I understand the worries of the person who spoke before in the sense that I also went through the debate, for instance, in Europe, in France, in Spain, or in other places. I heard also the complaints ...

We can barely listen. Can you maybe use the mic or use the...?

...talking about cooperation, without letting you speak for two hours, I think is too much.

Before I thought there was a question. Someone that had a question there. Just in case, after you’ve been waiting for so long...

We need to use this possibility of multiple connection for something other than for consumption or production. This is the moment of planetary revolution, for me. I hope that some of you can join us.

To start look at them as all of them being an element within a complex technology. Basically, is a question a little bit like what Audrey was speaking about before when she was speaking about how many different either machines or instruments can connect, or cables can be connected to ...

There’s nothing to sustain at this point. For me, it has to be a language of transition, of transitioning from this model of economy, production, and planetary destruction into something else. This can only be done collectively. For that, we need to stop looking at bodies, human or not human, ...

We cannot continue producing, consuming, trashing the world, destroying the environment. We immediately need to invent other technologies of living together that might not be directly turned into consumption and production. Therefore, that’s my big question. Another language that is not the language, even, of sustainability. To sustain what?

Is that no one before in history, we have been globally so ready as for a global, planetary revolution, never before. Now, we could do it. My question is the opposite to yours. My question is why we don’t do it? Why we’re not cooperating like crazy altogether. Saying, "Hey ...

When you’re elaborating a project, they always tell you, "No, no, you have to do it much slower because people are so stupid, they will understand nothing." You’re like, "What people are you talking about? These people are a hundred times more sophisticated than ever before." Therefore, I think that ...

We are the first global generation who have access in a major way to knowledge, whatever this is, and technologies compared to, let’s say, the generation of our parents or our grandparents. The problem is that we keep looking at society in a very condescending way, like, "Oh, these people, ...

I mean, I’m from Spain. I grew up in the ’80s, so immediately after the dictatorship in Spain. I kind of have the same experience of basically coming from martial law into something else. My experience is that we are the first global generation, and in the sense even if ...

Whereas basically what I see with today much more than even if I think about...

Otherwise if there’s no question for the time begin, I wanted to say that I would fully avoid using the notion of the masses because basically this is a notion that implies that there is a look from the point of view of the state and there is something that ...

In your life, maybe not.

Like this.

Yeah.

No, it’s not working.

You have a mic on the seat.

Yeah. Yeah maybe you can...because I think it’s fantastic to have the interface, for instance, for you to be able to have some inscription on the wall but if you’re here, then you can even more actively talk to us or talk to us...

Then, what is more worrying me about this question, and sometimes, I wish we could have discussions with how would you translate a metaphor that should be around maybe here, oh you’re there. OK, great.

I would say that, yes, for me, freedom has to do precisely with the expansion of the possibilities of thinking, change, and transformation much more than with acquired something that we already know what it is.

For instance, to go back to the example of transitioning, when I was a child, for myself, I couldn’t even think about gender freedom because there was no framework in which being free in terms of gender could be thought. It was just like a total impossibility.

I think that freedom has to be invented. We don’t even know what it is to be free. I think that’s the radical problem is that we only know freedom within the limits of a very already constrained set of actions.

No, I agree with you that freedom is not something that is there as an object that we get, right. It’s like suddenly, OK, we have something that we have to obtain that is freedom.

You realize that the language that we are using to define what progress will be within the next 30 years, or 20 years if we’re thinking about 2030, has to be critically and extremely quickly revised if we don’t want to promote something that I would call necropolitics, which is ...

Exactly. As a philosopher, you have to take some responsibility.

When you’re doing poetry, you can have a moment of just not caring too much.

I’m saying this because, as much as I want to fully agree with your good sense [laughs] that it is valid to bring Kant within these conversations because of those goals. I want to agree to those good goals with, "Why not?" As much as I want to do that, ...

From that point on, immediately there are a series of consequences of that location, whereas we know that cartographies are also politically constructed.

Even in the art world today we’ll keep talking about the global south. I’m like, "What is this global south?" The south is everywhere and it’s nowhere. It’s a colonial notion. I refuse to keep talking about the global south as if, for instance, Taiwan would be within the global ...

We need to collectively search for a new grammar to speak even beyond the binary, not only in the sense of the binary male, female, homosexual, heterosexual or even the binary code, but also the east and the west, these notions, the north and the south, do not mean anything ...

Therefore, from that point on, your whole life and sexuality will be the object of surveillance. This is for the public health, in benefit of the public health. What does it mean to keep using the notion of health? The same with poverty, or progress, or advancement, or transparency, those ...

For me, I would say that we need a new grammar. What health means today is being defined in very normative terms. I’m going to give you a very basic example. If you think about being HIV positive in Taiwan today, this is almost a crime. If you are HIV ...

To go back to the discussion that we had today, in the beginning, is that, are we able to think, even, about what is a good life beyond the standards of neo-liberal capitalism? Maybe, I don’t know. At least, to tell you the truth, in the West, my doubts are ...

Extremely nationalist and extremely based on ideas of identity, blood, soil, territory. Even though, totally, I hear you, Audrey, and I would love to share your utopian language. When I see myself, that finishing up poverty in the world is a goal, I would say, "Well, yes." What do we ...