-------
-
-Three high-level issues to address—
- * Are stereotypes part of the meaning of a word, and is that bad?
- * Reply to "So lesbians aren't women, nyah nyah"
- * Trying to remove the discrete stuff from the definition leaves you with only stereotypes!!
- * gender identity as cognitive illusion
-
-Maybe play up the symmetry—
-A thing that trans activists get wrong: "lesbians aren't women" reductio
-
-A thing that gender-criticals get wrong: yes, "stereotypes" are part of the concept; it couldn't actually be otherwise
-
-(Let's [not play dumb about the significance of intersex conditions](https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-chromosome-variants-are-not-their) today.)
-
-/2019/Dec/more-schelling/
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i2dfY65JciebF3CAo/empty-labels
-
-> you can _select_ a sample from a different multivariate distribution to match a sample from another distribution along one or a few given dimensions, the samples are going to differ in the variables that you didn't select
-
- * our brains are good at using the same word to represent absolute differences and low-effect-size stereotypes; it kind of has to be this way, but can result in puzzles and paradoxes if you don't know what's going on
- * the paradoxes go away when you stop down and just think about the high-dimensional probability distribution
-
-### One example: why lesbians are women (do ... do I even need to explain this?)
-
- * when you point out masculine behavior of AGP TW as evidence for them being male, people will say, "Ah, but lesbians are masculine, too; are you saying that lesbians aren't women???"
- * reply: we want the word "women" to refer to the actually-biological-female cluster, which is discretely identifiable, but overlaps with the male cluster if you look at a chosen subspace of individual psychology variables
- * maybe in some contexts you might want to talk about "masculine people" that includes prototypical men and butch lesbians
- * sketch out a toy model with numbers
-
-How I put it in the comments—
-
-http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Mar/point-man/#isso-171
-
-> our brains are good at using a single concept to simultaneously represent discrete differences (genitals, chromosomes) and mere statistical differences (of various effect sizes) that have a lot of overlap—basically, stereotypes.
-
-> (Such that if you only know someone's sex and nothing else about them, your expectations are going to come out of a probability distribution centered on stereotypes, but this doesn't doom us to an oppressive caste system as long as you can update on individuating information: outliers of various degrees along various dimensions merely require a slightly longer message to describe rather than getting shot.)
-
-> People who are sympathetic to people who wish they could change sex imagine that they can safely delete the discrete differences from the concept-definition—but if you do that, then, as you describe, there's nothing left for the concept to attach to, except the things we know how to change (people with currently estrogen-dominant hormone systems?), and stereotypes. But people can't say out loud that they're trying to re-anchor the concepts onto smaller-effect-size stereotypes, because they haven't forgotten that the previous iteration of the ideology held sexism is bad. So we end up with a huge amount of doublethink and dissembling,
-