-> I'm not trying to get Eliezer or "the community" to take a public stance on gender politics; I'm trying to get us to take a stance in favor of the kind of epistemology that we were doing in 2008. It turns out that epistemology has implications for gender politics which are unsafe, but that's more inferential steps, and ... I guess I just don't expect the sort of people who would punish good epistemology to follow the inferential steps? Maybe I'm living in the should-universe a bit here, but I don't think it "should" be hard for Eliezer to publicly say, "Yep, categories aren't arbitrary because you need them to carve reality at the joints in order to make probabilistic inferences, just like I said in 2008; this is obvious."
+* 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).