-[...]
-
-the _idiot sophistry_ of "Women are people who identify as women, _by definition_, and definitions can't be wrong, except if you use another definition, you're hurting people!—look, even Scott Alexander says so!"
-
------
-
-[cut for flow from an earlier draft, partially salvagable?—]
-
-Is this too absolutist?—effectively equating "trans" with "passing", and even then marked as an [atypical case](http://lesswrong.com/lw/nk/typicality_and_asymmetrical_similarity/)? Would it really be so costly to grant an occasional isolated unprincipled exception to our usual category boundaries, for kindness's sake?
-
-Perhaps not—if we could trust that the exception to our normal ways of thinking and speaking would _stay_ isolated. But the goals of the modern transgender movement seem to be somewhat broader in scope. Consider this display at at recent conference of the American Philosophical Association—
-
-![APA pronoun stickers]({filename}/images/apa_pronoun_stickers.jpg)
-
-(photograph by [Lucia A. Schwarz](https://twitter.com/Lucia_A_Schwarz/status/949315365842116608))
-
-But this isn't how _anyone_ actually thinks about gender! Human brains are good at _noticing patterns_, even if we usually can't articulate exactly how or why. The process by which we notice someone's features (voice, facial structure, whether they have breasts, gendered clothing cues, any number of [subtle differences in motor behaviors](https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/all-the-wrong-moves/) that your perceptual system can pick up on without you being consciously aware of them), categorize them as a _woman_ or _man_, and use that category (and everything else we can infer about the person, using more-detailed, finer-grained categories) to guide our interactions with them, isn't something subject to conscious control.
-
-That is: If you need a sticker to get people to gender you correctly, your transition has _failed_. In a free Society, everyone should have the right to express themselves, to modify their body and social presentation however they see fit. But having your best to present your true self, you can't—not even _shouldn't_, but _can't_—exert detailed control how other people percieve you.
-
-All you can do is force them to lie.
-
-----
-
-
-People should get what they want. We should have social norms that help people get what they want.
-
-Unfortunately, helping people get the things that they want is a hard problem, because people are complicated and the world is complicated. That's why, when renegotiating social norms to apply to a historically unprecedented situation, it's important that we
-
-As a rationalist, I want to protect people's freedom to describe the world as it
-
-
-I don't _know_ what the optimal set of social norms around transitioning should be.
-
-the _idiot sophistry_ of, "Women are people who identify as women _by definition_ and definitions can't be wrong; look, Scott Alexander said so."
-
-We're _smarter_ than this.
-
------
-
-[Emperor Norton]
-
-
-and no one is allowed to talk about the social problems because we're not supposed to use the phrase "actual women" to avoid hurting anyone's feelings ... this is CRAZY! I don't know what the right solution is! But the status quo is CRAZY. We're smarter than this!
-
-This is a question about what sort of social norms we want to establish, and different choices of social norms have different costs and benefits! In a world where trans isn't a thing, the standard is, "Pass as a natal woman, or be regarded as a man pretending to be a woman." This isn't good for autogynephilic transsexuals! Later, the standard became, "If if looks like you're sincerely trying to pass as a natal woman, we'll model you that way, even if you don't quite pass." This is a better deal for autogynephilic transsexuals!
-
-
-While a minority of trans women in Western countries fit the "classical transsexual" profile of being attracted to men, displaying lifelong female-typical social behavior and interests, and transitioning early. But the majority don't fit this pattern.
-
-A review of the empirical evidence supporting the two-type taxonomy is regrettably outside the scope of this post. To interested or skeptical readers who only have time to read one paper, I recommend Lawrence's ["Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies"](http://unremediatedgender.space/papers/lawrence-agp_and_typology.pdf) For a more exhaustive treatment, see Lawrence's book [_Men Trapped in Men's Bodies_](https://surveyanon.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/men-trapped-in-mens-bodies_book.pdf) or follow the links and citations in [Kay Brown's FAQ](https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/faq-on-the-science/).
-
-
-[caveats: take care to note that it's possible to believe in a weaker form of it: maybe you agree to the bimodality in the data, but don't think it's two discrete etiological types; or, maybe you [agree that there are two etiologies, but](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/against-blanchardianism/) don't buy that AGP is the cause]
-
-Nowadays, in progressive enclaves of Western countries, this is no longer true, and in communities that form around [non-sex-balanced interests](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/), the numbers can be quite dramatic. For example, on the 2018 _Slate Star Codex_ reader survey, 9.4% responded _F (cisgender)_ to the gender question, compared to 1.4% responding _F (transgender m -> f)_. So, if trans women are women, _13.4%_ (!!) of female _Slate Star Codex_ readers are trans.
-
-A (cis) female friend of the blog, a member of the Berkeley, California rationalist community reports on recent changes in local social norms—
-
-> There have been "all women" things, like clothing swaps or groups, that then pre-transitioned trans women show up to. And it's hard, because it's weird and uncomfortable once three or four participants of twelve are trans women. I think the reality that's happening is women are having those spaces less—instead doing private things "for friends," with specific invite lists that are implicitly understood not to include men or trans women. This sucks because then we can't include women who aren't _already_ in our social circle, and we all know it but no one wants to say it.
-
-This is a _terrible_ outcome with respect to _everyone's_ values. One couldn't even say, "The cost to bigoted cis women of not being able to have trans-exclusionary spaces is more than outweighed by trans women's identities being respected," b
-
-Depending on your values, of course, you might be in favor of making it socially unacceptable to have sex-segregated spaces that are actually segregated by biological sex. The methods of rationality themselves have nothing to say on the matter.
-
-To only say, "What's the problem? Trans women are women, by definition, and definitions can't be wrong" is to invite the reply, "That's not what I meant _and you fucking know it._"
-
-------
-
-[Alexander cites Emperor Norton as a charming example of the power of kindness, but as fun as the story is to read about on Wikipedia, that kind of "benevolent" gaslighting is not something you would do to someone you actually _respected_; I'm glad my friends didn't lie to me when I was having delusions of grandeur]
-
-[imagine you're Emperor Norton's best friend and he expresses doubt as to whether he's being hugboxed]
-
-[...]
-
-"What if—what if I'm not actually the Emperor?"
-
-"The categories were made for man, not man for the categories, Your Highness," you say.
-
-[...]
-
-"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_."
-
-
-------
-
-POINTS TO ADD (not sure where it fits best yet)—
-