Right. I honestly didn’t see anything philosophical at all in the interview at all. It’s a political piece, not an academic exploration.

An idea is presented but there is no actual argument present in this interview. There are many “shoulds” “coulds” and “woulds” and it’s mainly a lengthy statement of controversial social justice-esque talking points without presence of any real supporting arguments.

Has anyone read her book? Does it contain any content that supports her claims at all? The only useful or interesting part of the dialogue was the raising of epistemological questions asking how do we know what it means to be a man/woman etc. which she didn’t answer or explore more, disappointingly so.

For someone so decorated and from prestigious institutions, I expected a lot more. It just reads as political feminist ideological fluff.