Wasn't it? "Royal blood" === "superior genes", "common blood" === "inferior genes", etc. Other than switching to modern faux-scientific vocabulary, I'm not seeing a real distinction.
> If you think there is one single fundamental essence that makes you you more than anything else, you’re at risk.
Pretty bad take right at the end. We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths? I have red hair and take pain very well[1], but I cannot speak to that being a strength in life because it's wrong to do so? There are other non-extreme examples of biological differences being strengths but that example alone dissolves the flippant conclusion.
> We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths?
No, you misread the sentence.
They put two "you"s in it because your red hair and pain tolerance do not make you "you" any more than your daily decisions about how to live your life. It's got nothing to do with "better" or "stronger".
Their argument is that, when you try to make value judgements on human life using some mystical single element, you are failing at the first hurdle. Just like MLK said, judge men based on the content of their character, not on the basis of their skin.
You construed that as "Be ashamed of your biological strengths." Just kinda weird.
