+
+
+https://www.wheresgeorge.com/
+
+
+Rachel McKinnon documents say she's a woman https://archive.is/PWmOP https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1053633641161678848
+Rachel McKinnon on her opponents making gender-identity https://archive.is/mmhwU
+
+maybe make this angrier—talk about a rape victim being force to describe her accuser as male. You might say, "well, if she wanted to describe her accuser as an elephant, that would be factually incorrect", but there's a reason she doesn't do that
+
+by bringing up rapists, I might be accused of trying to play Ethnic Tension against trans women, but
+
+
+we can expect sex to be fully consensual, because there's a fallback position of no sex if one party doesn't consent:
+
+
+-----
+
+
+I. Ozy says that my argument implies that lesbians aren't women
+ Reply: I didn't want to _define_ gender on psychology; rather, sexual dimorphism is actually real and psychology is _one_ of the implicated dimensions
+
+II. Ozy says that "people who would be contribute to the atmosphere you made this a woman-only event for."
+ Reply: bright lines and specifiability: you can get "people who contribute to the atmosphere" by picking a guest list of people you know,
+ Side note: the effect size here is greater than d=1
+
+if it sounds like I'm advocating stereotypes, well, I agree with Ozy that the solution is more categories
+
+III. Ozy argues that "look like street harrassers" is the relevant criterion; I think this is overestimating the extent to which bad male behavior is an artifact of ideology
+"has nothing to do with psychology anyway"—it has to do with _perceptions_ of psychology; bystanders can't _know_ that feminine-androphilic trans man is one of them; you could imagine an alternative world in which human physiology looked the same but there was no history of male violence, but that's not our world
+I agree that everyone deserves a place to pee; let's talk about changing rooms
+
+IV. Money analogy. I really like this analogy! I agree that money is a social convention, but what would it mean for money to be fully consensual?
+
+
+
+Finally, Ozy makes an analogy between social gender and money. What constitutes money in a given social context is determined by collective agreement: money is whatever you can reliably expect everyone else to accept as payment. This isn't a circular definition (in the way that "money is whatever we agree is money" would be uninformative to an alien who didn't already have a referent for the word _money_), and someone advocating for a _different_ money regime isn't making an epistemic _mistake_. [TODO RESEARCH: include historical example of debate over changing money standards in U.S.; "Cross of Gold" speech]
+
+I _really like_ this example! An important thing to notice here is that while the form of money can vary widely across sociocultural contexts (from arrowheads among American Indians [TODO RESEARCH: is that actually true?!] to silver coins, to fiat paper currency, to database entries in a bank) [...]
+
+Because of these constraints, I don't think the money/social-gender analogy can do the work Ozy seems to expect of it. They write:
+
+> Similarly, "you're a woman if you identify as a woman!" is not a definition of womanhood. It is a criterion for who should be a woman. It states that our social genders should be fully consensual: that is, if a person says "I would like to be put in the 'woman' category now," you do that. Right now, this criterion is not broadly applied: a trans person's social gender generally depends on their presentation, their secondary sexual characteristics, and how much the cis people around them are paying attention. But perhaps it would improve things if it were.
+
+Similarly, we could imagine someone arguing that our money should be fully consensual: that is, if a person says, "I would like this to be put in the 'dollar' category now", you do that. Right now, this criterion is not broadly applied ...