I can't wait to find out what there is. I assume there isn't much, though, as it seems Quine addresses it all in a single essay. Will it include feminine body comportment, mobility and spatiality?

Only if those nouns are a value of a variable. ;)

The "Throwing like a girl" one sounds interesting. I used to have a hill I would go out to and read, and a phenomenon I noticed is that, for some bizarre reason, a pair, boyfriend and girlfriend, would often come to the grassy area beneath the hill and throw a baseball around, or the boyfriend would be teaching the girlfriend how to throw one. It never struck me just how different young men and women were when they threw things before. Even I, who had never done any sports that required throwing things in my life, intuitively understood that throwing the ball the way the girls did was just somehow wrong, that I would never do it that way. Whenever this happens, the girls' throw would be a subject of gentle humor for both members of the couple, but to me it seemed more eerie than funny.

I took a quick look at it, and it seems to be predicated on a significant distinction between our bodies and ourselves. Thus, references to what "my body" does or doesn't do, and how it impacts "me." But I merely glanced at it. It's interesting, though, to note the different ways men throw. We Americans, perhaps because we play and/or watch baseball and football, seem to me to throw differently than British men, for example (at least as shown hurling hand grenades in WWII movies).

I would like to switch my vote from the Anscombe to the Marion Young, since there is a tie here.

Point, step, throw: the basics taught during Little League practice to boys and boys alone. That's one reason girls don't throw right.

It's Quine ahead even with discoii's change of vote - any last votes to wring out?

I still haven't read December's, but I vote for Quine. Parfit would be my second choice.

Quine.

I'm so glad the interesting paper got chosen over all that other boring crap! Quine, oh boy~ /s

If we want to get even deeper than 'what there is', we should just read some Heidegger after this Quine: 'on what is is'. :B