+(In general, an honest "sucks to be you" from someone whose political incentives lead them to oppose your goals, is _much_ less cruel than the opponent distorting your position to make you look bad to their followers.)
+
+All this having been said, Yudkowsky _is_ indeed correct to note that "when different people with firm attachments have _different_ firm attachments [...] we can't make them all be protocol". It's possible for observers to disagree about what sex category they see someone as belonging to, and it would be awkward at best for different speakers in a conversation to use different pronouns to refer to the same subject.
+
+As it happens, I think this _is_ an important consideration in favor of self-identity pronouns! [When different parties disagree about what category something belongs to, but want to coordinate to use the _same_ category, one strategy is for everyone to defer to the judgement of some trusted authority.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests) For example, in a tight-knit community with hierarchical leadership, the community leaders would be positioned to be such an authority: you could imagine living in a _shtetl_ where your gender transition was only recognized by your neighbors after the local rabbi gave his blessing. In recent Western Society, medical and bureaucratic gatekeeping of transition treatments serves or served this function: though the details depend on your local subculture or jurisdiction, it's generally a lot harder to socially transition if you can't find a licensed doctor to affirm that you're geniunely transsexual.
+
+As a firm supporter of the transhumanist right to [morphological freedom](https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom), I think gatekeeping is bad; adults should be able to access body-modification treatments on the basis of informed consent.
+
+
+
+
+
+In the case of a person's social sex category ("gender"), there's no obvious way to break the symmetry among third parties who have an opinion about the matter—
+
+
+
+I wrote about this argument in an earlier post, ["Self-Identity Is a Schelling Point"](/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/).
+
+
+
+
+[TODO: "Can't imagine a sympathetic protagonist"—lies, imagine a rape victim]
+
+[TODO: I need the correct answer]
+
+[TODO:
+ * "If there were unspeakable arguments against, we couldn't talk about them"—okay, then you and your rationalists are frauds
+ * I know none of this matters (If any professional alignment researchers wasting time reading this instead of figuring out how to save the world, get back to work!!), but one would have thought that the _general_ skills of correct argument would matter for saving the world.
+a rationality community that can't think about this stuff, but can get existential risk stuff right, is like asking for self-driving car software that can drive red cars but not blue cars