“A Discourse is a sort of ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (7). I agree with Gee here because I believe in his concept of discourses and how they can  provide you with an identity. I could use this in my paper as a point where Gee and I agree, considering there are many points I don’t agree with Gee.

“Gee’s argument suggests a dangerous kind of determinism as flagrant that are espoused by geneticists” (547). I agree with Delpit because I believe that Gee’s belief that you have to be born into a discourse to benefit from it is false and reminds me of segregation. I can use this concept because it will help me argue against mushfake techniques. I can speak of my opinion on how entering a discourse does not necessarily mean you are mushfake. I can use this quote to exemplify how Gee’s theory does not look at people as individuals, but as groups.

“‘Mushfake’, resistance, and meta-knowledge: this seems to me like a good combination for successful students and successful social change” (13). I disagree with  mushfake and resistance because I believe that those are just building blocks of learning, but I agree with meta-knowledge because I only believe that meta-knowledge can help you in a discourse. This would be helpful in my paper because it represents my overall claim which I hope to express in this paper. 

“Alternatively, this fact began to baffle or else bemuse and then infuriate my students” (365). I agree with this quote because I can see why it would seem strange to not learn an aspect of your life.  I also agree with this quote because I can not imagine how infuriating it is to have to adapt you speech just to fit into societal roles. I could use this in my argument against resistance. As I believe you do not need to adapt to all forms of a discourse to be considered in it.