+
+there might be a lot of AGP-transitioners in the win condition
+just not the kind that enter women's bike races and gloat about it
+
+it's all so tiresome
+
+
+Reading the things I do, and talking to the people I do, I see this pattern _over and over and over_ again, where non-exclusively-androphilic trans women will, in the right context, describe experiences that _sound_ a lot like mine—having this beautiful pure sacred self-identity thing about the idea of being female, but also, separately, this erotic thing on the same theme—but then _somehow_ manage to interpret the beautiful pure sacred self-identity thing as an inner "gender" and presumed brain-intersex condition, which I just—can't take seriously. (Even before contrasting to the early-onset type, which is what a brain-intersex condition _actually_ looks like.)
+
+All I've been trying to say is that, _in particular_, the word "woman" is such a noun.
+
+It _follows logically_ that, in particular, if _N_ := "woman", you can't define the word _woman_ any way you want. Maybe trans women _are_ women! But if you want people to agree to that word usage, you need to be able to _argue_ for why it makes sense; you can't just _define_ it to be true, and this is a _general_ principle of how language works, not something I made up on the spot in order to stigmatize trans people.
+
+> Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM
+> So Katie and Seanan did end up coming over last night, but I wasn't very fun to be around because I was emotionally floored because Michael Vassar (!) said that something I said in an _Overcoming Bias_ comment thread was really creepy and that his first reaction was that I should be banned. And I remember lying in bed last night or this morning feeling sick about it, and trying to think about something not thematic, so that I could relax--and I couldn't think of anything.
+
+> But Vassar had a point, and I apologized, and I feel better now.
+
+> So I am broken and I have made terrible mistakes, but in my rationalist's splendor, all I can do is try to understand the facts of the matter and do better tomorrow. This, even as in my rationalist's splendor, I must predict that this is unlikely to actually work.
+
+> Michael fucking Vassar. Shit!
+
+
+* Dr. Will Powers
+
+[TODO: another clinical perspective: Dr. Will Powers]
+
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vjmw8tW6wZAtNJMKo/which-parts-are-me
+
+https://www.overcomingbias.com/2021/03/our-default-info-system-status-and-gossip.html
+
+And because the brain and body are an integrated system, people's intuitive sense of [which parts are "me"]() and which parts are "just" "my body" (which can be swapped out without changing who "I" am), may be much less straightforwardly connected with reality than they'd like to think.
+
+
+But how would that work? The experience described by this trope would be something you'd predict if sexuality was implemented in a separate brain module that could stay with the rest of the body even while the "soul" (the implementation of someone's personality, memory, _&c._) gets swapped out. But if the brain isn't actually modularized that way, the magical transformation process would have to do a lot more custom engineering work (to "fit" the brainware-construed-as-"soul" with sexuality-brainware that matches the body) to get the particular outcome portrayed in the stories.
+
+The problem is that, in the real world, the guys who are jacking off to the _fantasy_ of knowing what it's like to be female, are being motivated by a variation in _male_ sexuality.
+
+
+Or there was the time I took issue with someone in the _Overcoming Bias_ comment section addressed me as "Mr.":
+
+Depending on the cost you assign to a misclassification, you could argue that he _shouldn't_ have assumed—high Scabble-score letters notwithstanding—but in retrospect, I'm _embarrassed_ at my prickliness: he assumed _correctly_. (Yudkowsky: ["I try to avoid criticizing people when they are right. If they genuinely deserve criticism, I will not need to wait long for an occasion where they are wrong."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MwQRucYo6BZZwjKE7/einstein-s-arrogance))
+
+("only because of the demographics of this community")
+
+
+My question was sufficiently mild that I'm not sure the anecdote is worth including—or I can't figure out how to make it fit
+
+> Did you have any specific evidence that I in particular am male, or were you just relying on your priors, knowing the demographics of our community?
+
+_ playing dumb initials anecdote
+Me pretending to be dumb about someone not pretending to be dumb about my initials https://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/inhuman-rationa.html ; contrast that incident (it's not an accident that he guessed right) to Yudkowsky:
+
+, something you should be able to ["consider [...] open-mindedly and then steal only the good parts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YicoiQurNBxSp7a65/is-clickbait-destroying-our-general-intelligence).
+
+linking to the Twitter thread about chromosomes actually isn't fair; that wasn't the point EY was making (https://archive.is/y5V9i)