Mostly I agree with this article, and I think it's powerful. One difference, though: I'm transgender, and the line I highlighted confuses me. That is, that "humans are completely distracted by our genitals," particularly in the sense that "we're wasting our time fighting over simple courtesies like 'they/them'." I note that the "debating our genitals" quip is repeated later in the article.

I understand the pun: Corporations are referred to by the pronoun "it," and we-and-our-genitals are going to live in the ass-crack of whatever ecological niche the corporations spare or else we'll just have to live up some corporation's butt. OK. Apart from the pun, I'm struggling to understand the substance of this comment as well as its slant. Do you want everyone to simply respect trans people, or do you want trans people to simply stop resisting transphobia?

As I understand from your series of recent articles, our human project can't be to stop climate change (which you say is impossible to do) but perhaps only to reduce the suffering of the mass extinction we're in. I believe learning to resist transphobia does reduce suffering, not only for trans people but for everyone, because it's aligned with learning to resist other corporate interests. We — trans people — have a piece of the answer (or the recognition that there is no answer). We embody and enact a different way of being and un-being. If we invent a new word or use an old word in a new way, we make that effort and take that risk to say something we believe is important. I don't think it is a distraction. We're making human meaning. We, too, are networked in the relationships on this planet, and the messages we weave become part of the point.