Yeah, no, it's a great question. I mean, so one thing to say right away is I think everyone acknowledges that there can be pretty significant health and medical reasons to want to know your genetic lineage. So you could you know, if you don't know that your donor conceived, you might think that you're prone to certain genetic conditions, because your social parents or one of them has, but you're not because you're not genetically related to one of your parents. Or it could be that you are prone to a certain genetic condition that's passed down through the genes, but you have no idea because you either you don't know that your donor conceived, or maybe you do, but you don't know your health, your health history. So that's really important. I tend to move past that quite quickly in the book, because I think that though, it's important, it's not getting at what interests I think, many, many people that are interested in this kind of information donor conceived or not, which is that so the the idea that you hear a lot is that knowing who your genetic progenitors are, and knowing your genetic parents are is really important to understanding yourself to identity formation to knowing your place in the world. So I focus mostly on that rationale. And I'm with you, I think it's an intelligible desire. I think many people have it, I think it can be a really important part of identity construction and the story that you tell about yourself. So I'm on board there. There's a position which I argue against, which is sort of most famously advocated for by David Velleman, which says, well, actually, it's true that people are interested in knowing this. But that's a little bit like saying people are interested in drinking water, which is true. But saying, oh, we should give people water because they're interested in it seems to be missing the main point, which is that you really need water. There's a really good reason why people are interested in water, you absolutely need it to divorce. Now Bellamy doesn't think that the need for genetic knowledge, as I call it is like the need for water. But I think he thinks it's not so far away in the sense that it's a sort of a fundamental good, and that a life without it is severely diminished. Even though one could flourish in many other respects. I'm inclined to think that that overplays the hand? Well, I think he overplayed his hand. I think it overplays the importance of genetic knowledge because I'm inclined to think two things. One is that we have choices about how we understand ourselves, that we are that that the the task of constructing your identity or telling a story about yourself is not purely epistemic, it's not just it's not merely a task of discovery. It's also a task of construction, deciding what matters to you and what doesn't. And I think there are many people donor conceived and not who construct views of themselves and understand their place in the world without putting any particular emphasis on their genetic lineage. So I think I think that shows that it needed to play the role development thinks it does. And then relatedly, I think it's well worth asking about why we have the interests that we have. And this is true, just any interest, right? We're all social creatures were raised in particular times, and places that have particular values and cultures and institutions. And they inform who we are, in some ways, in ways that I think are very healthy and productive. But in other ways, it can be very pernicious. So the other thing I tried to do is sort of take a critical stance on this desire to know and wonder to what extent it's a function of what the philosopher Charlotte would calls bio normativity, or bio normative prejudice, which is the idea that, you know, proper family is constituted through genetic relations, that the platonic ideal of the family is a man and a woman with children that are genetically related to them. And that who we are is a base in a really fundamental way, a matter of the genes. And that's very common thought and our world. And if you grow up in that Millia, it's no surprise if you discover that you're missing something, and he even putting it in terms of missing I think is already stacking the deck a certain way, but that other people have something that you don't, no surprise that you would feel like you are really missing something important. So I tried to steer between the velum interview on the one hand, which says like, look, this is just fundamentally important, it's closer to to meeting water than then than it is to something totally optional. I try to steer between that and the view that says this interest is in fact, pernicious. It reflects bio normative prejudice that we would bet that if we dispensed with If we find that the interest just disappeared altogether, and my view is, is that no it can, it's an intelligible interest, it can be a healthy interest. And I don't think it would disappear if we if we somehow could snap our fingers and be rid of bio normativity. Though maybe it wouldn't be as common and maybe it wouldn't be felt as strongly. But you know, this is a miracle conjecture. Who knows?