“A is not the same after I’ve chosen B—after I’ve chosen B, A is measured by the standards which made me choose B. In other words, the reasons we make a choice do not preexist our choice: we only know the reasons why we chose A (or B) once we made the choice. Let’s take a decision in fighting the pandemic when we confront a choice between A and B: A prioritizes the economy, B prioritizes health. Advocates of A claim that, if we choose B, we may first save some lives but, in the long term, the costs to the economy will generate more poverty and even more health problems. (The problem with this reasoning is that it automatically assumes that the same economic system will persist.) Advocates of B claim that, if we choose A, not only there will be more suffering and more deaths, but due to the prolonged health crisis, even the economy will suffer more in the long term. There is no neutral way to compare the two options, so, maybe, after making a choice (say, of B), the solution is to look at B itself from the imagined standpoint of A—in our case, how prioritizing health appears from the standpoint of economy. This brings us to the true problem: since, obviously, the existing economic system cannot stomach such prioritizing of health, how should we change our economic life so that we can avoid the debilitating dilemma “lives or economy”? And the same goes for sexual difference: for a man it is not enough just to take women’s side—he should ask himself: how do I choose to be a man so that, as a man, I can avoid oppressing women?”