I do think Haraway could have written it in a much more approachable way. The manifesto is using cyborg as a symbol of boundary transgression. So many binary relations are broken down, that of human and animal, men and women, organism and machine, physical and non-physical, reality and culture, the mortal and immortal, because a cyborg could be both. Overall this piece of writing causes more anxiety in me than elation. When the boundaries between human and animal, organism and machine, mortal and immortal all been broken down, what would befall humanities? What changes would it bring to literature writing/studies? It’s been normally agreed that literature is about human conditions, but what becomes literature when human beings in its original sense, which is dismantled by the cyborg myth, won’t exist? The piece is also an attack against traditional feminist position. The idea of a cyborg is supposed to dissolve differences and hierarchies based on gender, race. What about age and class? Wouldn't cyborgs become most efficient capitalist war machines, colonial instruments? Isn’t the concept of “cyborg” itself a hegemonic idea that exclude those who don’t have access to technology? In China, people without a smart phone can’t book a taxi, order takeouts, make a payment in certain business areas, or even enter any public space during the pandemic control period. What about those women, who haven’t gained equal status as a human being in the Enlightenment sense, suddenly being forced into a posthuman era? Isn’t this a violent erasing of the oppression and struggles those women have suffered and endured? Isn’t this breaking down of boundaries often the cause rather than the way out of our sense of dislocation and identity crises?