+
+same person: "people do tend to present as their genders"
+
+politicizing the question of what 2 + 2 should equal
+
+Aumann is an Orthodox Jew
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ovvwAhKKoNbfcMz8K/on-expressing-your-concerns
+
+If my actions (implausibly) represent a PR risk to someone else's Singularity strategy, then they're welcome to try to persuade or negotiate with me.
+
+stroop test https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
+
+I was pretty surprised how well the coinflip post did
+
+speculating that people are lying for political cover may be "uncharitable", but what else can I do when I _can't_ take people seriously?!
+
+https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+A world that makes sense. A world that's not lying to me.
+
+_(But this time not for you, but just for me—)_
+
+_(Well, no more; I won't beg to buy a shot at your back door)_
+
+_(If I'm aching at the thought of you, what for? That's not me anymore)_
+
+The "truth/anti-truth attractors in human psychology" hypothesis feels more plausible when I emphasize the need to cover-up cover-ups as the specific mechanism for anti-truth.
+
+Introspectively, I think I can almost feel the oscillation between "I'm embarrassed and upset about {thing} that I don't want to acknowledge or explain, but that makes me not want to acknowledge or explain the fact that I feel embarrassed an upset" vs. "Yes, {thing} is real; real things are allowed to appear on maps."
+
+----
+
+an implicit don't-ask-don't-tell agreement, where they certainly had clues that something was wrong with me gender-wise, but no one had an incentive to bring it up.
+
+(Contrary to popular belief, it's not exactly ignorance that's bliss, but more generally lack of game-theoretic common knowledge: if they know, and I know that they know, but they don't know that I know that they know, that's often close enough.)
+
+For example, I seem to remember my first pair of breastforms mysteriously disappearing just after the time my mother unilaterally cleaned out my closet. (And a friend not long thereafter reported overhearing her telling his parents that she was pretty sure I wasn't gay.)
+
+my history of email exchanges with the Popular Author being demanding
+
+posting on LW because it's the conversational locus https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8rYxw9xZfwy86jkpG/on-the-importance-of-less-wrong-or-another-single
+
+M.L. Morris "Vocational Interests in the United States" d=1.7 on occupational preferences
+
+playing for scraps vs. playing for keeps https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1151902363059392512
+
+You can't optimize your group's culture for not-talking-about-atheism without also optimizing against understanding Occam's razor; you can't optimize for not questioning gender self-identity without also optimizing against understanding "A Human's Guide to Words."
+
+I didn't not have any reason to _invent the hypotheses_ that I had some undiagnosed brain-intersex condition, or that I was literally a girl in some unspecified metaphysical sense.
+
+[This is something where I _actually need the right answer_]
+
+Ultimately, I think this is a pedagogy decision that Eliezer got right. If you write your summary slogan in relativist language, people predictably take that as license to believe whatever they want without having to defend it. Whereas if you write your summary slogan in objectivist language—so that people know they don't have social permission to say that "it's subjective so I can't be wrong"—then you have some hope of sparking a useful discussion about the exact, precise ways that specific, definite things are, in fact, relative to other specific, definite things.
+
+Great at free speech norms, there's a level above free speech where you _converge on the right answer
+
+(I cried my tears for three good years; you can't be mad at me.)
+
+a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
+
+Technical mistake
+
+_politically load-bearing_ philosophy mistake.
+
+https://economicsofgender.tumblr.com/post/188438604772/i-vaguely-remember-learning-trans-women-are : "for a while nobody argued about the truth or implications of 'trans women are women.' It would be like arguing over whether, in fact, the birthday boy really gets the first piece of cake."
+
+So, while I have been seeking out a coalition/bandwagon/flag-rally for the past few weeks, I've tried to be pretty explicit about only expecting buy-in for a minimal flag that says, "'I Can Define a Word Any Way I Want' can't be the end of the debate, because choosing to call things different names doesn't change the empirical cluster-structure of bodies and minds in the world; while the same word might legitimately be used with different definitions/extensions in different contexts, the different definitions imply different probabilistic inferences, so banning one definition as hurtful is an epistemic issue that rationalists should notice because it makes it artificially more expensive to express probabilistic inferences that can be expressed concisely with that definition."
+
+I do usually mention the two-types model at the same time because that's where I think the truth is and it's hard to see the Bayes-structure-of-language problem without concrete examples. (Why is it that that only ~3% of women-who-happen-to-be-cis identify as lesbians, but 60% of women-who-happen-to-be-trans do? If you're careful, you can probably find a way to encode the true explanation in a way that doesn't offend anyone. But if you want to be able to point to the truth concisely—in a way that fits in a Tweet, or to an audience that doesn't know probabilistic graphical models—then "Because trans women are men" needs to be sayable. You don't need to say it when it's not relevant or if a non-rationalist who might be hurt by it is in the room, but it can't be unsayable.)
+
+Do I need to be much louder about the "This philosophy-of-language point can be accepted independently of any empirical claims" disclaimer and much quieter about the empirical claims, because literally no one understands disclaimers!?
+
+(I don't think I'd be saying this in the nearby possible world where Scott Siskind didn't have a traumatizing social-justice-shaming experience in college, but it's true here.)
+
+I don't want to fall into the bravery-debate trap of, "Look at me, I'm so heroically persecuted, therefore I'm right (therefore you should have sex with me)."
+
+Strongly agree with this. I have some misgivings about the redpilly coalition-seeking I've been doing recently. My hope has been that it's possible to apply just enough "What the fuck kind of rationalist are you?!" social pressure to cancel out the "You don't want to be a Bad (Red) person, do you??" social pressure and thereby let people look at the arguments. I don't know if that actually works.
+
+"Moshe": "People rightly distrust disclaimers and nearly no one except me & Michael can say so instead of acting like it’s common knowledge with people who don’t fully know this."
+
+Standards! https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/contrite-strategies-and-the-need-for-standards/
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067490362225156096
+"The more technology advances, the further we can move people towards where they say they want to be in sexspace. Having said this we've said all the facts. Who competes in sports segregated around an Aristotelian binary is a policy question (that I personally find very humorous)."
+
+_Why_ is it humorous? Because you don't like sports? (["Though, since you never designed your own leg muscles, you are racing using strength that isn't yours. A race between robot cars is a purer contest of their designers."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/29vqqmGNxNRGzffEj/high-challenge))
+
+It's alarming when someone who shattered all your dreams with logic ten years ago, then turns around and tells you your dreams can be real by definition
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067300728572600320
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1065666629155995648 "The only leaders in the current ecosystem who express any kind of controversial opinion, ever, are organisms that specialize in subsisting on the resource flows produced by expressing that kind of controversial opinion."
+
+https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/14/cancer-research-removes-word-women-smear-campaign-amid-transgender/ "anyone who has a cervix"
+
+A rationality mistake is made that's useful for supporting political agenda X, now no one can ever correct the rationality mistake (even in the most abstract terms with examples about dolphins) for fear of being smeared as anti-X
+
+if THAT is now too politically contentious to affirm in public, we're DEAD
+
+http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/07/concerns/
+
+http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/09/concerns-ii/ "you yourself admit that your model won't assign literally all of its probability mass to the exact outcome?!"
+
+"Don't Revere the Bearer of Good Info" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tSgcorrgBnrCH8nL3/don-t-revere-the-bearer-of-good-info
+
+casuistry
+
+Eliezer's NRx 2013 vs. 2019 takes
+
+In the English language as it is spoken today, third-person singular gender pronouns _do_ have truth conditions. If a stranger crossing your path is rude to you, you'll say, "What's _her_ problem?" or "What's _his_ problem?" depending on your perception of their secondary sex characteristics.
+
+(1) If _x_ is a noun, you can't define _x_ any way you want without negative side-effects on your cognition (for at least 37 different reasons).
+(2) _Woman_ is a noun.
+[From (1), (2), and _modus ponens_] Therefore, you can't define the word _woman_ any way you want without negative side-effects on your cognition.
+
+It's _unhealthy_ to spend this many hours stuck in a loop of, "We had an entire Sequence about this! You lying motherfuckers!"
+
+What are you looking at me like that for? [It's not a cult!](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gBma88LH3CLQsqyfS/cultish-countercultishness)
+
+At least, it [_wasn't_](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yEjaj7PWacno5EvWa/every-cause-wants-to-be-a-cult) a cult.
+
+(A _secondary_ reason for explaining, is that it could _possibly_ function as a useful warning to the next guy to end up in an similar situation of trusting the branded systematically-correct-reasoning community to actually be interested in doing systematically correct reasoning, and incurring a lot of wasted effort and pain [making an extraordinary effort](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GuEsfTpSDSbXFiseH/make-an-extraordinary-effort) to [try to](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XqvnWFtRD2keJdwjX/the-useful-idea-of-truth) correct the situation. But I don't know how common that is.)
+
+https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/what-is-rationalist-berkleys-community-culture/
+https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/the-craft-is-not-the-community/
+
+I feel betrayed, but that doesn't
+
+"chromosomes" isn't as dumb as it sounds—it's the "root" of the causal net of all other sex differences
+
+Am I suffering from a "hostile media" effect?
+
+Choose a gerrymandered or thin-subspace category isn't that dangerous in itself—it's the dark-side epistemology that kills everyone
+
+deconfusion https://intelligence.org/2018/11/22/2018-update-our-new-research-directions/
+
+I want the thing Ozy is doing here to be _socially unacceptable_; I want it to be _laughed out of the room_
+https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2019/04/10/in-my-culture/
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zGJw9PGhu9e8Z6BEX/fake-norms-or-truth-vs-truth
+
+https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/contrite-strategies-and-the-need-for-standards/
+
+(And if you should prefer to model the pain as having been manufactured by the [elephant in my brain](http://elephantinthebrain.com/) as a game-theoretic precommitment to force conscious-me to write in the face of social incentives that would otherwise make silence feel safer, you should know that only real pain is a credible threat.)
+
+If an Outer Party member in the world of George Orwell's 1984 says, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia," even though they clearly remember events from last week, when Oceania was at war with Eurasia instead [...] even if it's not really their fault
+
+> but not worth starting over over
+
+I mean, this is the part where I do a very not Effective Altruist-themed thing, and stop talking as if I do anything for the good of the lightcone. (Maybe see Ben on "Against Responsibility" and "The Humility Argument for Honesty".) I internalized a particular vision [...] of what conduct is appropriate to a "rationalist"; I'm didn't that standard upheld with respect to my Something to Protect; so I am doing a halt–melt–catch-fire on "the community." It's worth starting over over _for me_. If my actions (implausibly) represent a PR risk to someone else's Singularity strategy, then they're welcome to try to persuade or negotiate with me.
+
+the appeal to arbitrariness technically extends in both directions (if there's no rule saying you can't use the word to talk about self-identity, there's no rule saying I can't use the word to talk about sex), but systematically favors one side—sex is a pretty robust abstraction, and there's no reason to deny the appeal of robustness
+
+Inadequate Equilibria!
+
+I'm expressing the same kind of frustration as the Great Teacher complaining about cryo not being standard—my personal benchmark of "sanity" isn't realistic
+
+there's a sense in which everyone is behaving reasonably given their incentives, but
+
+"Concessions" don't help: even if people will grant some of my points if I threaten to walk, that's not a truth-seeking discourse process that systematically responds to arguments and evidence
+
+Julia Serano
+
+words don't have intrinsic definitions, but the only reason you would want to repurpose an _existing_ word is either becasuse you think you can carve the joints better, or mindfucking
+
+cat/dog gaslighting; even if you don't particularly need that particular classification for a practical purpose, even so ...
+
+fame: arguing with a Discord server was low-impact compared to getting the leadership on board
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CEGnJBHmkcwPTysb7/lonely-dissent
+
+
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/does-age-bring-wisdom/
+
+> Sometimes I can almost feel this happening. First I believe something is true, and say so. Then I realize it's considered low-status and cringeworthy. Then I make a principled decision to avoid saying it–or say it only in a very careful way–in order to protect my reputation and ability to participate in society. Then when other people say it, I start looking down on them for being bad at public relations. Then I start looking down on them just for being low-status or cringeworthy. Finally the idea of "low-status" and "bad and wrong" have merged so fully in my mind that the idea seems terrible and ridiculous to me, and I only remember it's true if I force myself to explicitly consider the question. And even then, it's in a condescending way, where I feel like the people who say it's true deserve low status for not being smart enough to remember not to say it. This is endemic, and I try to quash it when I notice it, but I don't know how many times it's slipped my notice all the way to the point where I can no longer remember the truth of the original statement.
+
+
+https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/FBgozHEv7J72NCEPB/my-way#comment-W4TAp4LuW3Ev6QWSF
+> I am skeptical that either sex can ever really model and predict the other's deep internal life, short of computer-assisted telepathy. These are different brain designs we're talking about here.
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions
+
+> Jun 18, 2008
+> this is too perfectly terrifying, too terrifyingly perfect
+>
+> My search for not-previously-read Eliezer Yudkowsky material was getting kind of pathetic--I'd gotten to the point of reading his old messages in the archives of the extropians mailing list. And then I read this:
+>
+> http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-September/008924.html
+>
+> --and the worst thing is that I cannot adequately talk about my feelings. Am I shocked, liberated, relieved, scared, angry, amused? I'm not going to read the replies right now. I have work to do, and--and I'm too floored? _I'm just not built to handle this sort of thing_. I remain,
+>
+> Zachary Michael Davis
+
+Arguing with a specific person's published words is important, because otherwise you can strawman
+
+[Am I the asshole?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/)
+
+(I told people that my father was coming to pick me up at the end of my 72-hour (== 3 days) evaluation period, but that it wasn't fair that I couldn't rescue everyone.)
+
+blegg commentary: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GEJzPwY8JedcNX2qz/blegg-mode#aAgSDZ4ddHpzj9fNN
+
+if it's objective, there is truth; if it's not-objective social construction for coordination purposes (like money or Christmas), it is at least subject to _negotiation_ (so "words don't mean anything" isn't a valid excuse)
+
+http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html
+
+If we _actually_ had the sex change technology described in "Changing Emotions", no one would be motivated to invent these category-gerrymandering mind games in the first place
+
+at some point, maybe tell my "leading intellectual figure of the alt-right" anecdote??
+
+anyone else I thought was being dumb about philosophy, I would just shrug and write off rather than spend a _goddamned year_ prosecuting the mistake
+
+canary
+
+Scott being more sensible in a less-visible place: https://archive.is/In89y
+
+like [not being an astronaut](http://unremediatedgender.space/2017/Feb/if-other-fantasies-were-treated-like-crossdreaming/)
+
+[but it doesn't matter](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NG4XQEL5PTyguDMff/but-it-doesn-t-matter)
+
+three worlds collide no such thing as love
+
+I would have hoped you'd be proud of me, as your (mass correspondence-course) student
+
+ People who spend their entire lives on the receiving end of the calm voice of [authority-backed-by-implied-violence](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/29/reflections-from-the-halfway-point/) might be justified in thinking that Slate Star mistake-theoretic ideals like "reason" and "debate" are for suckers: that's what their distribution of training data actually looks like!
+
+https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/dy7gkv/what_happened_to_me_and_why_i_think_women_need/
+
+Archive links—
+Extropians "changing sex is difficult" https://archive.is/En6qW
+
+The _original_ meaning of the word "woman" points to a cluster in
+
+No one is actually surprised in System 1; it's just that the parts of us that talk aren't supposed to believe in psychological sex differences (since before my time—and I still prefer not to believe) or physical sex (since 2015).
+
+Slate Star-power: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/28/ssc-meetups-everywhere-retrospective/ 1,476 people attended SSC meetups,
+
+not-lying is most usefully constraining when a situation is suspected to be adversarial (if you're trying to hurt someone with your speech, not being allowed to outright make shit up constrains you quite a lot)
+
+to which my attitude is: if your behavior is optimized to respond to political threats, but _not_ optimized to respond to carefully reasoned arguments from your friends, at some point your friends have to stop being your friends and start threatening you politically because you've made it clear from your behavior that _that's all you'll respond to_
+
+I think if the so-called "rationality" community is going to not be FRAUDULENT, we should at LEAST be able to publicly clear up the philosophy-of-language mistake (I DON'T expect a community consensus on gender politics; that would be crazy! I JUST expect public consensus on "You can't define a word any way you want", which was not controversial when Eliezer taught us in 2008)
+
+I'm grateful to [...] for actually helping me, but I feel incredibly betrayed that Scott is playing dumb about philosophy (and doesn't want to talk to our coalition anymore), Eliezer will PRIVATELY admit that he has no objections to my philosophy arguments but is playing dumb about how the things he said in public were incredibly misleading (and doesn't want to talk to our coalition anymore). I have more conversation-bandwidth with Anna because I've been friends with her for 10 years, but Anna doesn't believe in free speech; she'll privately sympathize that it's bad that we're in a situation where political factors are interfering with being able to have an honest public conversation about philosophy, but
+
+> "friendship, supplication and economics"
+
+This whole multi-year drama _should_ have been a three-comment conversation. If we were _actually trying_ to do the systematically-correct-reasoning thing
+
+Random Commenter: Hey, that can't be right—we had a whole Sequence about
+
+Robot cult leaders:
+
+> "Those who are savvy in high-corruption equilibria maintain the delusion that high corruption is common knowledge, to justify expropriating those who naively don't play along, by narratizing them as already knowing and therefore intentionally attacking people, rather than being lied to and confused."
+
+Steve said it's funny that Ziz and I are ragequitting over opposite things, and I couldn't help but want to phrase it as "She thinks our institutions are transphobic; I don't think they're transphobic enough"
+
+"I guess an "only delusional people get to self-actualize" equilibrium is better than "no one gets to self-actualize, because the general public wouldn't allow it if they knew the truth" if those _really were_ the only two options
+
+> Katie quoting my comment: "Folks, I'm not sure it's feasible to have an intellectually-honest real-name public conversation about the etiology of MtF. If no one is willing to mention some of the key relevant facts, maybe it's less misleading to just say nothing.\" 01/15/2017
+
+> [I am actively hostile](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1164241431629721600) to neoreaction and the alt-right, routinely block such people from commenting on my Twitter feed, and make it clear that I do not welcome support from those quarters. Anyone insinuating otherwise is uninformed, or deceptive.
+
+; I'm a weird guy; I would like to believe there could be a cis woman like me. Not obvious that I acutally know any. My sister is a natural experiment; hands vs. finger; "felt sense"]
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KmghfjH6RgXvoKruJ/hand-vs-fingers
+
+genetic heuristic and progressivism
+
+I don't _care_ if the blatantly-misleading statements were carefully worded to permit a true interpretation such that they're not technically "lying."
+
+This situation is _fucked_. I don't care whose "fault" it is. I don't want to "blame" anyone. But as the first step to making things less fucked, I need to _write about the world I see_—and you are, still, a pretty prominent part of my mental universe.
+
+Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal
+
+Heinlein
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584
+
+> When an epistemic hero seems to believe something crazy, you are often better off questioning "seems to believe" before questioning "crazy", and both should be questioned before shaking your head sadly about the mortal frailty of your heroes.
+
+Ooh, how I wish they'd want me to stay.
+
+[trade arrangments: if that's the world we live in, fine]
+
+that's what makes it so hard: the only thing that actually helped me stop being bitter about school, was exiting the entire social context that made it an issue: once I had a grown-up software job
+it became irrelevant
+I was able to ragequit school (which was claiming to be one thing, education, but I don't think was living up to its marketing message) because I had somewhere else to go
+the obvious analogy here is to ragequit the "rationalist community" (which is claiming ot be one thing, but I don't think is living up to its marketing message)
+but ... that's my entire social circle
+
+If I can't ragequit the community, I have to do the analogue of going to grad school, while hating school—I don't have an exit this time
+
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLJwTJ7uGPA5Qphbp/trying-to-try
+> it's a lens through which you can view many-but-not-all personal dilemmas—"What standard am I holding myself to? Is it high enough?"
+
+see, you're doing this "reasoning about sex differences" thing, and you're allowed to do the reasoning-about-sex-differences thing because you're female. (Same reason Nixon could go to China, and I'm allowed to express gender-identity skepticism.) But since everyone else is required to speak as if gender identity is real and sex differences aren't (because those are the rules for being a good person in Berkeley), we get an equilibrium where discrimination against transfems is a huge Issue
+I'm being incredibly cynical here and it feels awful, but I just ... can't take the things people say literally anymore; I tried, and it drove me crazy
+
+everything anyone says is "true" if the speaker is allowed to define their own category boundaries!
+
+if I'm allowed to have unflattering psychological theories about other people, then those people are also allowed to have unflattering psychological theories about me—not just as a matter of procedural fairness, but "symmetry" in the physics sense (the Rules are universal and don't depend on who "I" am)
+
+"If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything." —Daniel Dennett
+
+> "The Choice between Good and Bad," said the Lord of Dark in a slow, careful voice, as though explaining something to a child, "is not a matter of saying 'Good!' It is about deciding which is which."
+
+inside views are just outside views against a finer-grained method of constructing reference classes
+
+["Fear not to touch the best / The truth shall be thy warrant"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/trb9HPWFk8Gy9MBdN/less-wrong-poetry-corner-walter-raleigh-s-the-lie)
+
+more of my Overcoming-Bias-era sex differences denialism: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/XM9SwdBGn8ATf8kq3/c/comment/Evc7xKXjd4LaRR26c
+
+"Preferences about how other people model you" is very general, though! Lots of people would prefer that others model them as smart and funny and attractive, and feel genuine pain when other people don't see them that way. It might be tempting to say, "Ah! We can alleviate that pain by redefining 'smart' and 'funny' and 'attractive' to include the people who are hurt by not being included in those categories" ... and in the short term, if you only look at the emotional state of the people who are now being acclaimed as smart/funny/attractive who previously weren't, it works. But the reason it works is what, from an AI-design perspective, we would call "wireheading": manipulating the map, not the territory; it works because of equivocating between the old cutoff for smart/funny/attractive (what people were originally sad about not having) and the new, artificially lowered bar (which you'll be happy about meeting if you don't realize that it's not the same as the old cutoff).
+smart transhumanism is about keeping the map as accurate as possible (don't destroy language in order to wirehead ourselves) and then using the accurate map to actually make the territory better (e.g., by developing nootropics and cosmetic surgeries to actually make people smarter/funnier/more-attractive, in real life, and not just by linguistic fiat)
+
+> 'that in 10 to 20 years, every male with some kind of autogynephilia will "transition" if something isn't done stop reverse things. That is about 2-3% of the male population.' https://twitter.com/TransRadically/status/1212102282499829761
+
+getting in repetitive arguments on Discord is a form of culture change maybe????
+
+http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/judgment-punishment-and-the-information-suppression-field/
+
+karaoke "some cis women sing bass"
+
+What I'm up against: "you can have a social context wherein nobody is incentivized to figure out who's deserving of Real Woman Status and who's not."
+
+speaking in Sequences links: in my review of "Origins of Unfairness", the phrase "suggestively named Lisp tokens" just came out
+
+Nice Job Breaking It Hero feels relevant to my about-face on sex differences
+
+If the explanation that predicts your observations makes you unhappy, then the explanation—and the unhappiness—are functioning as designed.
+
+fitness subs: https://np.reddit.com/r/GCdebatesQT/comments/et231b/qt_what_good_reason_is_there_to_allow_tw_to_post/
+
+Discord arguments get _very_ repetitive; I wish there was a way to make progress and move on rather than having to keep yelling.
+
+my Culture War struggle is actually structurally similar to AI alignment: the economy/social-justice provides vast riches in the process of eating your soul. (I can have my hair long, I can get HRT and surgeries—but at the cost of not being able to explain why.)
+
+sneaking a copy of MTIMB into the MIRI library after visiting Eliezer (Jessica was outside), because it was what Harry would do (but notably, not Hermione)
+
+playing chess with a pigeon, what the tortise said to Achilles
+
+[Discord comment about creating a space where no one questions whether someone deserves real woman status]
+
+
+The "national borders" metaphor is particularly galling if—[unlike](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/) [Arthur Blair](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/30/the-lottery-of-fascinations/)—you _actually know the math_.