-But this is just giving up _way_ too easily. The map is not the territory, and many very different kinds of maps can correspond to the territory in different ways (we have geographical maps, political maps, road maps, globes, _&c._), but that doesn't mean _no map is in error_. Rationalists can't insist on using the one true categorization system, because it turns out that—in all philosophical strictness—no such thing exists. But that doesn't release us from our sacred duty to describe what's actually true. It just leaves us faced with the _slightly more complicated_ task of describing the costs and benefits of different categorization systems with respect to different optimization criteria. There's no objective answer to the question as to whether we should pay more attention to an animals' evolutionary history or its habit—but given one criteria or the other, we can say definitively that whales _are_ mammals but they're also _dag_/water-dwellers. That there exists an element of subjectivity in what you choose to pay attention to, doesn't negate that there is a structured empirical reality to be described, and not all descriptions of it are equally compact.
-
-In terms of the Lincoln riddle: you _can_ call a tail a leg, but you can't stop people from _noticing_ that out of a dog's five legs, one of them is different from the others. You can't stop people from inferring decision-relevant implications from what they notice. (_Most_ of a dog's legs touch the ground, such that you'd have to carry the dog to the vet if one of them got injured, but the dog can still walk without the other, different leg.) And if people who work and live with dogs every day find themselves habitually distinguishing between the bottom-walking-legs and the back-wagging-leg, they _just might_ want _different words_ in order to _talk_ about what everyone is thinking _anyway_.
-
-The topic of exactly how to apply these philosophical insights to transgender identity claims is a deep and fascinating one of prime sociopolitical relevance in today's Society, a topic about which many things could be written in support of any number of views—which is why it's such a shame that Alexander doesn't apply his prodigious wit and eloquence to address the topic at all.
-
-Okay, that's not quite true. Alexander has one, and apparently only one, argument to make—namely, that accepting transgender identity claims benefits transgender people:
-
-> If I'm willing to accept an unexpected chunk of Turkey deep inside Syrian territory to honor some random dead guy—and I better, or else a platoon of Turkish special forces will want to have a word with me—then I ought to accept an unexpected man or two deep inside the conceptual boundaries of what would normally be considered female if it’ll save someone's life. There's no rule of rationality saying that I shouldn't, and there are plenty of rules of human decency saying that I should.
-
-This is true in an uninteresting tautological sense: if you deliberately define your category boundaries in order to get the answer you want, you can get the answer you want, which is great for people who want that answer, and people who don't want to hurt their feelings [(and who don't mind letting themselves get emotionally blackmailed)](/2017/Jan/dont-negotiate-with-terrorist-memeplexes/).
-
-It's less interesting to people like rationalists—although apparently not all people who _self-identify_ as rationalists—who want to use concepts to _describe reality_.
-
-It's important to stress that this should _not_ be taken to mean that transgender identity claims should necessarily be rejected! (Bad arguments can be made for true propositions just as easily as false ones.)
-
-
-
-
-------
-
-"Well," you say, sighing, "let's see what we can do." You pull out your notebook, ready to jot down, ideas, strategies—battle plans?
-
-"But," you caution, "I'd be lying if I told you it was going to be _easy_."
-
-
-------
-
-REMAINING OUTLINE—
-
- * The argumentation in section IV is _uncharacteristically_ weak for Scott:
- basically just "We've established that categories are neither true nor
- false, so if you care about transgender people, then you should use their
- categories"?!
- * To do better: let's _discuss in detail_ the detailed consequences of
- different ways of drawing gender categories, and analyze the conflicts
- that different people have.
- * The case for using identified gender rather than biological sex is
- strongest for binary trans people who actually pass.
- * The tack where you show a picture of Buck Angel and say, "You're not
- really going to call this person a woman, are you?" makes a good point
- * It's less strong for ...
- * People who don't pass
- * Passing is a continuum rather than a binary and is also
- observer-dependent, which is inconvenient from the perspective of
- categorization, which tends to stick to bright-lines and Schelling
- points
- * Re observer dependence: quote Serano (do I rely/pick on Serano too
- much?) or someone about how it's actually _harder_ to pass in urban
- areas because people have a higher prior
- * Ref-to-rebut Zinnia Jones on "passing is subjective, therefore it's
- bullshit"
- * "nonbinary people"
- * Normies don't have nonbinary gender in their ontology; at least
- acknowledge that you're making a political demand when you want
- them to adapt
- * What are the decision criteria for nonbinary, anyway? People can
- still _tell_
- * Rundown of social consequences of different criteria—
- * When you have people who are _identifiably_ distinct from natal-sex
- people _and_ not drawn from the same psychological distribution, it
- becomes socially profitable for people to notice and adjust their
- expectations; you can't stop them from doing this
- * separate post "Stereotypes, Models, and Cognition"
- * People are making probabilistic inferences all the time whether
- they realize it or not
- * Being drawn from a different psychological distribution but _not_
- identifiably (AGPs who pass really well) doesn't hurt the dynamics
- as much
- * AGPs aren't drawn from the same psychological distribution as cis
- women. (Briefly explain the typology, but refer to external sources
- for justification. For a more hard-facts empirical justification of
- "not drawn from the same dist'n", cite data on sexual orientation (and
- [constrast](https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/905572666332987392))
- and crime rates.)
- * Making it not-OK for people to _talk_ about the categories that they
- internally use to make sense of the world is bad
- * experiences in LWish spaces with lots of trans women: if you
- doctrinairely call everyone women, my brain rebels and wants to
- say, "That's not what I meant and _you fucking know it_." And
- honestly? (And I think they do, in fact, fucking know it.)
- * The inability to have women's clothing swaps is a _real loss_
- * Negotiation-structure: we've been using this word to refer to this
- thing for the past 200,000 years since the invention of language;
- if you want us to stop, you need to offer us something we value
- (and you have nothing to trade with); threatening to kill yourself
- is easily (if callously) countered with "We don't negotiate with
- terrorists"
- * For crime/medical statistics, you need natal sex or third-category.
-
- * The case of Emperor Norton looks cute at first glance, but
- ostensibly-benevolent gaslighting is still problematic (we call it
- _hugboxing_).
- * I've been crazy (link "Memoirs"), and I'm glad my friends patiently told
- me why I was wrong rather than saying "That's nice dear" (maybe quote
- care email).
- * Tell a story about what this could have been like for Norton beginning to
- doubt the reality of his reign.
- * Link to Maria Catt's "Baby Jessica" essay (maybe write her fan mail and
- ask her to put it back up again)
-
-re emphasis on predictions: dicuss how observations make you infer class membership, which lets you infer things about what you haven't observed
-
-/2017/Feb/if-other-fantasies-were-treated-like-crossdreaming/
-
-Similarly, [discussion of borders]
-
-[point out that legal fictions aren't always taken seriously by people who are trying to talk about the world, use "Europe" examples from acquaintance; Seeing Like a State]
-
-[point out that Alexander agrees that some categories suck]
-
-two-types are relevant to trans child debate
-
-Buck Angel pic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Angel#/media/File:Buck_Angel_Headshot.jpg
-
-"Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden" http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 retained a male pattern re criminality