Title: Transcript: "Autogynephilia and Epistemic Despair"
-Date: 2024-07-11 05:00
+Date: 2024-07-15 05:00
Category: commentary
Tags: autogynephilia, Phil Illy
Status: draft
And so in 2007, I bought this book when it was new, Julia Serano's _Whipping Girl_, and, it's just so darkly comic in hindsight, how many clues there were that I missed that about—
-**PI**: The connection between autogynophilia and transgenderism?
+**PI**: The connection between autogynephilia and transgenderism?
**ZMD**: Because I had assumed that AGP was a different thing, I had assumed, oh, well, trans people, trans people say they have this inner gender identity thing, so I believe them, that must be right. And I'm like, but me, my thing is AGP, it clearly has to be a different thing, because the idea that these are actually the same thing, or that they actually share it, or that one is the root cause of the other, wasn't the mainstream view, and because it wasn't the mainstream view, I had no particular reason to believe it. And it's just hilarious how many clues there were, like—
I say horribly gerrymandered, but in order to explain what that means, there's this whole associated like philosophy of language that like explains what I mean by that. And maybe for people who didn't follow my trajectory of going deep into the sex differences literature and deep into like the sort of philosophy I was reading, maybe they don't have the same concepts that make this seem so intuitive to me. Again, this goes both ways. I don't want to like arrogantly say, ah, "I know more; therefore I'm epistemically superior to all of you." But on the other hand, I try to like write clearly about what I think is going on. And if someone else thinks they have a better account, they're welcome to blog about it too.
-**PI**: Yeah. I've found that, after I learned about autogynophilia and the associated theory that it seemed to describe what I was seeing so good compared to the gender identity.
+**PI**: Yeah. I've found that, after I learned about autogynephilia and the associated theory that it seemed to describe what I was seeing so good compared to the gender identity.
**ZMD**: Especially when you look at what trans women write online when the general public isn't watching. You go to /r/MtF, the subreddit search for fetish in the sidebar, and there are like dozens upon dozens of posts where people say, "Oh, you know, I get an erection when I have gender euphoria" or "My gender dysphoria goes away after masturbating." If you just look at the literal text of what people are literally claiming about the world, this is obviously autogynephilia. This is obviously just like the straightforward explanation of what's going on, if you just look at the world. And then the commenters are like, "Oh no," there's somehow this ideology that's like, "you're actually a woman, specifically a woman who happens to be trans, and this is just a symptom of that."
-**PI**: Yeah. They switch up the cause and effect, basically, where the gender identity is the ultimate cause in their perspective, whereas the way we see it is more that the autogynophilia is the ultimate cause.
+**PI**: Yeah. They switch up the cause and effect, basically, where the gender identity is the ultimate cause in their perspective, whereas the way we see it is more that the autogynephilia is the ultimate cause.
**ZMD**: Yeah. Or I don't want to be too like dogmatic about—there could be multiple causes. In the sense that, introspectively, it seems like a pretty good guess that like my AGP was a necessary cause of what I've been calling the beautiful, pure, sacred self-identity thing. But you can imagine it not being a sufficient cause, like the fact that I'm not a macho guy's guy. I'm a sensitive introspective nerd. And there could be multiple causes leading someone to have like gender identity feelings, but it's still seems pretty obvious that autogynephilia is a major cause.
**ZMD**: I mean, I did actually have that nervous breakdown and get hospitalized. But it could have been worse.
-There was a dramatic episode that I mentioned in [part one of my memoir](http://unremediatedgender.space/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/), where I was arguing about this stuff on Facebook and staying up too late, and eventually the stress and the sleep deprivation, I went a little bit crazy for a while there.
+There was a dramatic episode that I mentioned in [part one of my memoir](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/), where I was arguing about this stuff on Facebook and staying up too late, and eventually the stress and the sleep deprivation, I went a little bit crazy for a while there.
On the one hand, it was actually pretty bad for me, but I want to accept my share of the blame for that, and say that my friends are pretty good at free speech norms, even though they're not very good at actually being sane.
So for a couple years, my writing was in this awkward state where, I have my gender and politics blog, and I'm also doing real-name blogging about the philosophy of language. And, these things are obviously—one is obviously the result of the other. And people knew. I eventually ended up dropping the pseudonym, because it was just eventually too awkward. I took my cowardly friends' advice to start with a pseudonym. But I just temperamentally am not well suited to keeping secrets, which is probably causally related to why I'm doing autogynephilia blogging in the first place. That I want a world that makes sense, and I want a world that makes sense in public, and I don't want to hide. I never took the anonymity very seriously. The level of privacy I was going for was, the first page of my "Zack M. Davis" Google search results should hopefully not be my politically sensitive blogging, just for the sake of future job searches. But I'm not even worried about that anymore. I'm going on your podcast with my real name and face.
-**PI**: Yeah, I remember you decided to drop the pseudonym around the time that I was finishing the manuscript for my book. And I was glad to see that you finally felt comfortable coming out. And that point you made about a desire for prioritizing honesty being causally related to talking about autogynophilia. I definitely feel that that applies to myself, as well: that I didn't feel that it was right that I would have to lie because other people with my same sexuality didn't like what the science said about them.
+**PI**: Yeah, I remember you decided to drop the pseudonym around the time that I was finishing the manuscript for my book. And I was glad to see that you finally felt comfortable coming out. And that point you made about a desire for prioritizing honesty being causally related to talking about autogynephilia. I definitely feel that that applies to myself, as well: that I didn't feel that it was right that I would have to lie because other people with my same sexuality didn't like what the science said about them.
**ZMD**: Yeah. And I've said this a couple times, but if someone has doubts about the science, that's fine. It is possible to have skeptical good faith doubts about the details,because the whole autogynephilia theory, it's not just one atomic claim that stands or falls on its own. There's this whole bundle of claims about like, what about bisexual trans women? And there's a proposed explanation: "Well, that's meta-attraction." You could reasonably have doubts, where some people might say, "Well, maybe some AGPs really are bisexual." I'm not wedded to every specific detail of all supposedly bisexual trans women are really just only AGP. You're actually in a better position to have an informed opinion than me, because, for your book, you went deep into the sexology literature.
But without even committing in detail to what a better world would look like, the current state of affairs does not seem that great to me. And I'm despairing of, despairing—you know, I wrote my blog. I'm doing this, I speak up where I can. But I'm just a very small, small part of the world-spirit. And it seems like the world spirit has other ideas. I don't think the thing that we have is very sustainable.
-There's that old saying, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. It seems like gender identity culture, it seems like it can endure for, it seems likely that it can endure for, like, a surprisingly long time before, like, some, like, rather than collapsing under, rather than strictly collapsing under the cold light of reason, you can imagine it collapsing because, like, something else game-changing happens instead, like superhuman artificial intelligence or fertility collapse or something. Yeah, I mean, I think it will eventually collapse just because it, it had, since it, my perspective on it is that since it's not an accurate description of reality, it, it's being held in force by sort of authoritarian measures, like people, people are taught a very specific way of thinking and there are consequences for saying otherwise. But I think as trans people, their population continues to grow, more and more people are going to have everyday experience with transsexuals. And sort of, I think more people will encounter a dissonance between what they're perceiving and what they're being told to think. Yeah, but, like, but, like, the, the, the, there might be a sort of path dependence where, like, the equilibrium that we end up with is, is, you know, could be pretty different from, like, what would happen if, like, you know, the kinds of discussions that you and I are trying to have, like, had happened, like, earlier in political time and been louder and more dominant in the public sphere. Because, like, we could end up, we, I mean, in a lot of places you are ending, ending up with this, like, de facto third gender role thing where, you know, people still notice who's AFAB and who is AMAB. And, like, people are still noticing, people are still noticing these things, but, like, you also still have this entrenched, entrenched institution of being a trans woman or being a trans man. Whereas, like, you know, you can imagine a different world where, like, you know, biological sex was always primary and, you know, some, some AGPs become femboys or something like that. And in some ways, I think that could, like, you know, I don't want, like, with all due respect to my trans women friends, I think that would be a healthier, healthier world in some ways. Yeah, I think it would be more ontologically sound. Yeah. But I, I think what we have now, the gender identity, sort of the ideology associated with it, I think it was kind of inevitable given just the individual, it seems to me like an egregore that arises out of the autogynephilic wish to be a woman to the greatest extent possible. And then once enough people have that wish, it created this cultural entity. Yeah. And which is just so heartbreaking because, like, there's, because, like, the way, like, you know, people who know me in Berkeley, like, no one, no one seems to, so, like, you know, if, if someone was, like, trying to, like, protect, protect gender identity culture, there's one particular tact you could imagine taking where you say, like, oh, fine, you, you, Zach, you're just a weird fetishist. That's totally a different thing from actually being a trans woman, which is, again, basically what I thought for 10 years. And it's kind of funny that, like, among people, among people who know trans people, like, in, you know, in Berkeley, no one actually seems to believe that. Like, when I say, like, I think I'm in the same, I think I'm in the same taxon as trans women, like, no one, no one particularly seems to doubt this. Right, yeah, because they'll notice the similarities. Like, you can notice, yeah. And I mean, it's also funny because, again, like, you know, it, it breaks my anti-sexist heart, but, like, you know, sex difference in, like, interests and personality, like, if you go to, like, there's, you know, a very particular kind of geek that's, like, interested in, like, things instead of people. So, like, there are particular subcultures where, like, it's very, it's surprisingly, it's surprisingly easy to get into a situation where, in a particular context, where there are more trans women than cis women. And that sort of, like, breaks a lot of illusions. Right, like, I recall you writing about that happening at, like, a Rust convention, if I'm... Yeah, yeah, well, maybe, yeah, yeah. But just basically, yeah, basically, like, in sort of the programming spheres that are tilted towards males so much, basically, trans women are a significant proportion of the, the women. Yeah, I mean, so there is, there's this very common thing when I see, you know, I see online, like, like, like an interesting programming blog post by someone with a female name, you know, I'm, like, oh, are they trans? And, like, you know, not always, but, like, a significant... But usually. A significant fraction of the time. Yeah. Very significant fraction of the time. And, oh, I, like, I think I examined, like, the Haskell, the Haskell community survey data, and, like, the trans women to cis women ratio was about one to one. So. Right. Which is, it sort of backs up that point you were saying about trans women being sampled from a different distribution. Yeah. Than the cis women. Yeah. And, and again, like, if you have this, if you have this philosophical insight about, like, what it means for something to belong to a category, being, like, being, being modeled, being, like, being more accurately modeled as being sampled from a different distribution is sort of, like, what it means to belong to a category. So, like, when, like, when I say that I'm male, like, it's not because, like, I'm, like, identifying with masculinity or maleness or, like, my, some vision of, like, fulfilling male gender roles. It's just that, like, I, you know, unfortunately, or, or not, or I am, in fact, biologically male, and, like, you probably can make some inferences about my behavior and psychology from this. Like, I, I've accepted this now. I didn't, I didn't want to believe this in, in 2004, but, like, it is what it is. Yeah. Was it hard to accept that? And, and, like, once you did, was there a difference in how you felt? I mean, it was, it was pretty like, these things are pretty gradual. Yeah. Um, oh, yeah, like, and so, like, the, the other, like, in terms of, like, despair, despair turning the culture around, like, you know, you, you have, so, like, you know, I'm, I'm grateful for, to you for writing the popular level book, so I don't have to. And really, I couldn't have, because, like, you know, I'm a sense, I'm a sense maker and not a popularizer. Like, I'm trying to get, like, you know, when my curiosity is aroused, like, I want to, like, be as rigorous and detailed as possible, which is not the same thing as, like, writing a popular level text that you can, like, you know, hawk at conferences and stuff. But, like, I heard you had a pretty, pretty interesting experience at, like, Genspec last October. Yeah. Yeah, I wore what is, for me, typical garb. Obviously, not typical garb for women, you know, sampled from a different distribution, as we've talked about. And they, actually, at the conference itself, it was perfectly fine. There was, I exhibited no conflict, got along with people, not an issue at all. But then, a few days later on Twitter, Kelly J. Keane struggled Genspec. And it started this conflict between the two different schools of feminists that, between the liberal feminists and the, sort of, the radfems. Yeah. And with me as the ostensible target, right? Like, I'm, I'm, like, the focal point of the discussion, but it's not actually a conflict with me. Yeah. Yeah, when you were seeing that, what, what are some of your thoughts on? Well, just, like, I don't know, just, just, like, I mean, I don't know, like, I do, I do actually have a little bit of, I think I have more sympathy for the radfems than you. Because, like, they're not, like, because, you know, a lot of, like, Kelly, Kelly J. Keane, Karen Davis types, they're not, they're not, like, they're very clear, like, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, like, they're very clear that they're not trying to do sense-making. They're, they want, they want a society in which women have their traditional protected spaces, and they are fighting for that. And, like, insofar as, insofar as, like, insofar as people like you and me are, like, more amenable to a compromise solution, where, like, trans women can, like, get their body mods, but we also, like, don't destroy the public concept of sex, like, they're not happy with that compromise. And, like, I can see why they're not, like, I just wish, I wish, like, I can see why, I can see that there are reasons why it isn't, but, like, I wish the whole conversation could take place at a higher meta level, where, like, first we establish, like, shared, a shared map of the territory of what's actually going on, and then also, and then separately, in addition to that, like, we have the policy debate about what to do about it. But, like, given that that's, like, so hard for humans to pull off, like, I have a little bit of sympathy for the people who are, like, worried that, like, ostensible, ostensible attempt, like, they want to go back to the world where sex is a top-level category that has these top-level protections. And, like, I also want, like, I think we're both kind of sympathetic to that to some extent, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, unfortunately, because, anyway, I don't know. Yeah, it's, I, I mean, I, I actually used to, I think, around, like, 2016 or so, I got exposed to radical feminism, and it seems really plausible to me for a bit. It seems like a lot of HPs find it plausible, because we're kind of primed to put women up on a pedestal, and radical feminism is kind of female supremacist in sort of its vibe. You, you froze, are we still recording? My audio, I'm not hearing you. Okay, yeah, I'm, it's, I think it's still going. Sorry, you froze up for me for a second. Yeah, am I back? Yeah, you're back now. Okay, yeah, I, I was just saying that, I think that, like, I originally got exposed to radical feminism, and it seemed plausible, but after I learned more about, you know, psychological sex differences, for example, I came to realizing that it was not a simple matter of, while, while sort of the male oppression of females is kind of an ancient thing, it even occurs in other primates, it's not just in humans, it's, it's not as simple as that sort of Marxist-derived version of it. But I mean, you could, there's also an angle you can, there's also, like, it is, you know, naturalistic fallacy angle, you can take on it and say, like, yeah, this happens in other primates, but it's still terrible. And like, you could still, like. Oh, yeah, no, I don't like it. I would, like, I do have some egalitarian sentiments. I mean, I live on the West Coast, in Portland. So, however, I think we do have to recognize that, that males and females are, on average, different psychologically, and, and this is apparent to us in everyday life. And I'm not sure what the quite, quite what the right policy is, like, I agree with you that, at least with regards to transsexualism, that, that adults, the morphological freedom thing, that adults should be able to have access to alter their body. And it may just never be reconcilable between the radical feminists and people that want that freedom. Yeah. So, I don't know, I think we've covered most of the stuff I wanted to cover. Yeah. I noticed you also wanted to talk about, that the sort of thing I'm doing, like, the cause of raising, say, like, autogynephilic identity as sort of a social category, that, that you're pessimistic about it, to some extent, and I'd be curious to hear about. Well, just, just empirically, just, just empirically, like, the, because, you know, I know, I know, like, you know, people, people in their early 20s who have transitioned and, like, and, like, you know, even people who are, like, you know, socially adjacent to me and, like, and, like, like my writing in some cases. You know, if they're not buying it, then the rest of, like, the chances for, like, the rest of society just seem, like, incredibly bleak. Like, if, if I, you know, if I can't, if I can't win, if I can't win definitively, like, in my own native subculture with, where, like, I have so much home-field advantage, then, like, the prospects of, like, winning a broader cultural battle just seem, just seem hopeless. Yeah, I, I do feel that I'm in somewhat of an underdog situation, you know, that there is a lot of... And again, okay, I mean, it also, like, sorry, I also want to highlight that, like, it may seem, it may seem, like, uncouth to talk about winning in, in, like, like, because, like, I, like, ideally, like, you want, you want, you want to, like, figure out what's actually true and not just, like, fight a zero-sum war between, like, different ideas where, like, the ideas you ended up with, you're just, like, blindly loyal to them without any particular reason, but, like, it looks like they're actually, like, you kind of, like, you know, the science and politics do actually interact, unfortunately, and so there is actually, there, so, like, separately from the fact that I think I'm right, there, there's also, like, the project of, of, like, sharing, sharing those ideas with other people does have some similarities with war and competition, even though that feels like it seems like it shouldn't be the case. Anyway, go on. Right, yeah, no, I mean, it's, there is a political element to it, for sure, which is, like, why I might describe it as, like, trying to win something, but I, even though there does seem to be a lot of headwinds to people accepting autogynophilic, autogynophilia theory, I, I, I still am optimistic about the ability to spread the ideas and grow the proportion of the, the autogynophilic and autoandrophilic population who understand these ideas. Yeah, on the margins. I think, yeah, on the margins, and particularly among the autists, I, I think it, as far as I could tell, it, these sort of ideas, the autistic autosexuals seem the most able to separate sort of what is true from what might feel good, and they are the most promising subgroup. And I think when you get a large enough group of autists together working on something, great things can happen. And I, I think that even though in everyday life, there may not, that, thatThe incentives might not be there for people yet for people to be out as autogynephilic or autoangrophilic, at least at least to the degree that say like homosexuals are able to be out. I do think that so much of life happens these days in the disembodied domain of the internet and even people who haven't transitioned, they might want to be able to participate in gender discourse and talk about their own experiences and sexual identity just as people with more well-established identities do. My hope is that over time through building it within community discourse, we'll collectively sort of improve each other's knowledge and when we have false ideas, sort of disprove them. My hope is that over time we'll iteratively arrive at more of our kind understanding the sort of type of sexual orientation they have and also more of them accepting it in a chill way where it's not this huge damage to their self-image where it's really just like not a big deal because they know other people like that, that they respect and it's fine. Yeah. To the future, whatever future we can get. Yeah. I understand feeling a little bit hopeless, but I think I'm trying to take a really long view on this that if autogynephilia is true, then eventually that sort of meme will win out to some extent and it might take a very long time. I mean, people are still struggling with evolution by natural selection. It used to be Christians that were bothered by it, and now it's the egalitarian left that has issues with its implications. But I think eventually ideas that are true, well, they have a certain staying power to them. Hopefully. Yeah. We can hope. Yeah. I can hear your voice, like I can understand feeling dispirited after what you went through with trying to talk about autogynephilia and then having that reality. Well, again, I could understand the nuanced specific doubts of like every little, like, you know, because like Blitzard and there's like lots of detailed claims here about like, so I could also understand, like if someone has read the Erotic Target Identity Inversion paper and has like specific doubts about like, you know, like I get like, I don't know. Like I don't, I don't, I don't want to be defending a fixed dogma, but like, I do want a world where facts matter. And it seemed like the crux I ran into with people was not like, not like, not about science. It just seemed like people don't, don't think that non-social facts matter. Yeah, it's, I understand it's frustrating. It, yeah, I do want to say that it did really help me when I was struggling with sort of this, this, when upon learning that I was autogynephilic and then having people doubt me and I was struggling with it, it did help me a lot to see that I wasn't the only one that had gone through this sort of struggle before of having the reality doubted even after reading the papers and everything. And so you're wrong. I mean, I don't, I have reservations about that phrasing of like, oh, like, I don't want to copy their phrasing of like, oh no, you're doubting my, my reality, therefore, therefore you're, you're oppressing me. Like you know what I mean though? Like just in like an emotional sense. Yeah. Yeah. And like in the, just the, the realistic experience of like, you've put in due diligence to know what is true, or at least to read a bunch of papers and do your best to like try to find out what's true and then just have everyone still doubt it. It's kind of crazy making and, and it like it, seeing that that had happened to someone else made me feel less crazy. And it also made me realize how serious the problem was that it was, it was happening in a subculture that is supposedly super, super rational. And so they're, they're totally lying about that. Yeah. I know it. Well, cause they're human ultimately, right? Yeah. Yeah. So it was part of the impetus for me to write my book. I didn't want that to continue happening to people. And I didn't think it was fair what happened to me or you. And also there wasn't yet a popular level book. Yeah. The closest thing was Anne Lawrence's book, but the title seems like designed to hurt AGPs in the fields. I love the title. No, I loved it. I loved it at first. I thought it was great. No, I don't mean wrong. I loved it at first, the transgressiveness of it. I thought it was like, I love the edginess of it. I thought it was like, it's not even, I don't even think it was about edginess. I think it's just like descriptively accurate. Yeah. But like, because it's accurate, it hurts emotionally, right? I guess so. A little bit. Well, yeah, that was, again, that was like this, this, this shocking thing, like talking to people in private in 2016, like, you know, like I bought, I bought extra copies of men trapped in men's bodies to like give to people and like, you know, I, you know, I, like, I like, I snuck it. So I snuck it into like more than one queer center library. Like you go to the community's queer center and they have a bookshelf. I just like sneak the book in there. The, but you know, I made my local library system, buy it. And then they did, it had for a couple of years, but someone wants to complain and they removed it now. Oh, so the, the, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I gave someone this book and like get complaints of, I got complaints along the lines of like, well, it seems like, you know, Lawrence is, you know, someone complained that like Lawrence used the, like use the word transgender. I don't even remember, but like, just like grammatical complaints, like saying men instead of AMAB or whatever. I'm just like, okay, but like, can, has it occurred to you for just a moment that someone like someone who is not part of your ideological subculture and use like exactly the same terminology as you might, you know, have things to say about reality. I think people that are trapped in that ideological subculture have a poor time modeling other subcultures because it's, it's the progressive zeitgeist. It's so all encompassing. Yeah. But yeah, it was. That's interesting that you also had gotten extra copies because like I bought an extra one to like be able to share with people and then I realized like at a certain point that most people weren't going to make it past seeing the cover and I was like, damn, there needs to be another book that sort of explains this in a simpler way that doesn't. That isn't like such a bummer, so to speak, to some of the AGPs that are propaganda, right? Exactly. I needed to, in a descriptively neutral sense, like the word propaganda, it needed a more mimetically viable delivery than was being done. And so I did, yeah, I tried to do that where it made more emotionally palatable, but also shorter sentences, clearer sentences. Yeah, you lose some of the detail when you can sort of do that. Huh? I cannot write like that. No, I know. I know. Like some of my favorite posts of yours are actually like the ones that are just like a few hundred words, like like your psychology is about invalidating people's identities post is like excellent. Thank you. Um. Yeah, I know you can't write like that, but I. And I don't naturally write like that, I just kept editing until it looked like that, I read books about how to write short in the American style and I did it. And yeah, time will tell, like how influential. The book is. Yeah, I just think that. The sort of argument I make in the book that it's it's an epistemic injustice that people with this orientation don't get a fair shot at learning about it, say, like in sex ed, as as you've proposed on your blog. It just. I think those of us who go through these feelings, we deserve to be treated as humans that can handle hearing the truth, especially because there's such if you do transition, that is a very serious kind of adult decision, like, yeah, we we deserve to be treated seriously and told what is real so that we can make sense of reality and decide how we want to live in it. And like this other tragedy of like like this culture, like I think it makes people into like worse people. Yes. Of like of like being committed. Being committed, being like because, again, like, you know, in the words of J.K. Rowling, you know, call yourself what you want, wear what you like. I would add, you know, modify your body how you like. But like being committed, committed to this particular ontology of gender and like in a way that like. Shuts out like the various situations in which people need to use the sex, have like legitimate reasons for wanting to use the sex based ontology without worrying about whether it might trigger someone's dysphoria, like that's just no way to live. Like maybe maybe, you know, there's a way to live in the world as it exists with the technology that we actually have. Yeah, I I hope for that sort of an outcome to where. Like, I obviously want transsexuals to be able to live in society as the gender they aspire to and to be able to have access to the medical care. I mean, there's also I mean, there's also this this. There's also kind of this funny aspect of like, you know, I keep I keep like wanting to like put emphasis on like, look, I'm not you know, I don't do policy if you want to transition and like you you you know what you're getting into. Like, I don't want to say that I don't want to I don't want to. I don't want to like have definitive policy decisions on how other people should live their lives because. Because, you know, that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm just trying to. Just trying to get the facts, but like there is like clearly this element of like. Like, if you have to round me into the trans activist camp or the gender critical camp, like it's pretty clear that like. I don't know. Like ontologically which camp you're in. Yeah. Yeah, like, I mean, there does seem to be this phenomenon among among like. Like people like people who transition first and then learn about the two type typology and then like, oh, yeah, that makes sense. Like it seems like if you I think there's a real I suspect there's a real effect that if you teach those people about the typology first, they don't end up transitioning because like given given current technology where you can't just like magically grow a new body in the in a vat and swap your brain into it, like transitioning makes a lot more sense if you actually believe in gender identity, whereas like if you don't have that belief in the first place, I think a lot of people are more likely to do the thing that you and I are doing, which is like, OK, just live with it. Just like. I would agree that, like. If more people had heard the typology before transitioning, it might lead to overall fewer transitions, but I think there would be there would still be some people who hear about the typology and then realize that their sort of transsexual feelings aren't going to be able to go away and they might transition earlier. Yeah. And. But. Yeah, I do think there's probably a thing where people who learn the typology first. More, they're probably more likely to decide not to transition than people who only hear about the gender identity. Theory. And. Yeah, but to be clear, like the reason I don't transition, it's just because of my physical situation. If if I don't transition, I don't feel like I'm going to feel like I'm going to be able to transition. It's just because of my physical situation. If I thought I'd be able to be somewhat passable, I'd probably be doing it. But yeah, it's just like a realistic, pragmatic appraisal of my situation. Yeah. How tall are you? Six four. OK. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I'm taller than the average man to the degree that the average man is taller than the average woman. Like, yeah, I'm the true third gender. Right. So, yeah, it's just about being realistic for me personally. But. Yeah, why, if you don't mind me asking, like, why have you? Did we already cover that, like why you chose not to? I mean, I was I sort of chickened out for like just medical uncertainty. So like, OK, sorry, I'm a transhumanist in theory, but like in practice, there's just like. I'm just wary that. I'm wary about permanent I'm wary about unnecessary medical interventions because like so much like so much. There's so much we just don't know about biology. Yeah. Like we know enough. OK, we know enough like like vaccines. It's not like someone it's not like someone like actually like knows how to engineer nanobots that specifically kill that specifically kill the disease. Like vaccines are like injecting a weakened form of the disease into your body and like letting nature letting your immune system figure it out, you know. And so like there's just sort of just sort of generally unease that like, OK, we can make artificial hormones. You insert like artificial you inject artificial female hormones into a male body. Is that going to break stuff? If you keep doing it over a long period of time. Yeah, no, that's a fair, fair concern. That's that's also another concern. And like again, like I know that like this has been studied somewhat, there are definitely people doing it like we know it doesn't we know it doesn't immediately kill you because there are lots of people who do it, who have done it and are living happy, happy lives for decades and decades. But like, could it be could it be doing could it be breaking things steadily in a way that like makes it not makes the benefit not worth the cost? You know, like I'm pretty worried about that. And also, yeah, and also just not passing like I'm I'm only I'm only five eleven. But like, OK, medical conservatism and not passing and just like. I just don't believe any of this shit. Right. Well, I mean, even if you didn't believe it, you could still think, oh, I'm going to take this because I want to look more feminine. Yeah, and I mean, like I do like I do. You know, I did I did get laser on my face, the laser wasn't that effective. But like I did try to get facial hair reduction, I like my beautiful, beautiful ponytail, even though that, you know, hair length is not actually sexually dimorphic and that's just a cultural condition. I'm kind of like the the effects that hormones did have on my body that was permanent, like I feel OK about it. So like. I'm I have accepted, I have accepted the world, what is available to me in the world as it is. Yeah, which is, I think, a great place to come to. And, you know, if you know, if, you know, we get like. You know, if like superhuman artificial intelligence invents a way to like actually grow a new female body in a vat, then I think I would go for that. But like, you know, at that point, like humanity has much, much bigger problems. Which is which is not the subject of this podcast. Right. I mean, at that point, they probably will have already figured out how to alter the the sort of internalization mechanism that seems to happen with with autosexuality and sort of. Yeah, but well, but you don't. Yeah, I don't I don't want to be cured, though. Right. Like if you if you could cure autogynephilia, like like, OK, I would rather have the magical body transformation than be cured and just be an ordinary man. But. Like if there were a cure, I wouldn't take it, I think I like. I like being I like, I like. I like being the way I am, even though being the way I am in this world, like necessarily entails like knowing that there are some possible nice things that you can't have. Yeah, well, yeah, it sounds like you've come to a pretty good place of acceptance of your situation, which I, I would love for more, you know, like I would love for more autogynephilic individuals to arrive at that, you know, regardless of their state of transition, but just like understand their situation and reality. I think that's a good place to wrap it up. Yeah. Yeah. I was just thinking the same thing. So, yeah. Thanks for coming on my channel. Thanks for having me on the show. And I would like to mention again to the viewers and I'll put it in the description that he blogs about this stuff at UnremediatedGender.space and it's a great blog. In retrospect, it may not have been the best idea for like the blog title and the URL to be so different because like no one remembers the title. No, only your diehard fans. Yeah. Thanks. Bye. Bye.
+There's that old saying, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. It seems likely that gender identity culture can endure for a surprisingly long time. Rather than strictly collapsing under the cold light of reason, you can imagine it collapsing because something else game-changing happens instead, like superhuman artificial intelligence or fertility collapse or something.
+
+**PI**: I think it will eventually collapse just because it's not an accurate description of reality. It's being held in force by sort of authoritarian measures. People are taught a very specific way of thinking and there are consequences for saying otherwise. But I think as trans people, their population continues to grow, more and more people are going to have everyday experience with transsexuals. I think more people will encounter a dissonance between what they're perceiving and what they're being told to think.
+
+**ZMD**: But there might be a path-dependence where the equilibrium that we end up with could be pretty different from what would happen if the kinds of discussions that you and I are trying to have had happened earlier in political time and been louder and more dominant in the public sphere. In a lot of places you are ending up with this _de facto_ third gender role thing where people still notice who's a.f.a.b. and who is a.m.a.b. People are still noticing these things, but you also still have this entrenched institution of being a trans woman or being a trans man. Whereas you can imagine a different world where biological sex was always primary and some AGPs become femboys or something like that. And in some ways, I think that could—with all due respect to my trans women friends, I think that would be a healthier world in some ways.
+
+**PI**: Yeah, I think it would be more ontologically sound. But I think what we have now, the gender identity ideology associated with it, I think it was inevitable given just the individual—it seems to me like an egregore that arises out of the autogynephilic wish to be a woman to the greatest extent possible. And then once enough people have that wish, it created this cultural entity.
+
+**ZMD**: Yeah. And which is just so heartbreaking because, people who know me in Berkeley—you know, if someone was trying to protect gender identity culture, there's one particular tack you could imagine taking where you say, "Oh, fine, you, Zack; you're just a weird fetishist. That's totally a different thing from actually being a trans woman." Which is, again, basically what I thought for 10 years. And it's kind of funny that, among people who know trans people, like in Berkeley, no one actually seems to believe that. When I say I think I'm in the same taxon as trans women, no one particularly seems to doubt this.
+
+**PI**: Right, because they'll notice the similarities.
+
+**ZMD**: It's also funny because, again, it breaks my anti-sexist heart, but, you know, sex differences in interests and personality: there's a particular kind of geek that's interested in things instead of people, so there are particular subcultures where it's surprisingly easy to get into a situation where, in a particular context, where there are more trans women than cis women. And that breaks a lot of illusions.
+
+**PI**: Right, like I recall you writing about that happening at a Rust convention.
+
+**ZMD**: Just basically, yeah, basically, in sort of the programming spheres that are tilted towards males so much, basically, trans women are a significant proportion of the women. There's this very common thing when I see, you know, I see online, an interesting programming blog post by someone with a female name. I'm, like, oh, are they trans? And, you know, not always, but a significant—
+
+**PI**: But usually.
+
+**ZMD**: A significant fraction of the time, very significant fraction of the time. I think [I examined the Haskell community survey data](/2020/Nov/survey-data-on-cis-and-trans-women-among-haskell-programmers/), and the trans women to cis women ratio was about one to one.
+
+**PI**: Which backs up that point you were saying about trans women being sampled from a different distribution than cis women.
+
+**ZMD**: And if you have this philosophical insight about what it means for something to belong to a category, being more accurately modeled as being sampled from a different distribution is what it means to belong to a category. When I say that I'm male, it's not because identifying with masculinity or maleness or some vision of fulfilling male gender roles. It's just that I, unfortunately or not, I am, in fact, biologically male, and you probably can make some inferences about my behavior and psychology from this. I've accepted this now. I didn't want to believe this in 2004, but it is what it is.
+
+**PI**: Was it hard to accept that? And once you did, was there a difference in how you felt?
+
+**ZMD**: These things are pretty gradual.
+
+In terms of despair at turning the culture around, I'm grateful to you for writing the popular-level book, so I don't have to. And really, I couldn't have, because I'm a sensemaker and not a popularizer. When my curiosity is aroused I want to be as rigorous and detailed as possible, which is not the same thing as writing a popular-level text that you can hawk at conferences and stuff. But I heard you had an interesting experience at Genspect last October.
+
+**PI**: Yeah. I wore what is, for me, typical garb. Obviously, not typical garb for women, you know, sampled from a different distribution, as we've talked about. At the conference itself, it was perfectly fine. I exhibited no conflict, got along with people, not an issue at all. But then, a few days later on Twitter, Kellie-Jay Keen struggled Genspec. And it started this conflict between the two different schools of feminists, between the liberal feminists and the radfems. And with me as the ostensible target, right? I'm the focal point of the discussion, but it's not actually a conflict with me. When you were seeing that, what are some of your thoughts on it?
+
+**ZMD**: I don't know. I think I have more sympathy for the radfems than you. Because Kellie-Jay Keen, Karen Davis types, they're very clear that they're not trying to do sensemaking. They want a society in which women have their traditional protected spaces, and they are fighting for that. And insofar as people like you and me are more amenable to a compromise solution, where trans women can get their body mods, but we also don't destroy the public concept of sex, they're not happy with that compromise. And I can see why they're not.
+
+I just wish—I can see that there are reasons why it isn't, but I wish the whole conversation could take place at a higher meta level, where first we establish a shared map of the territory of what's actually going on, and then also, and then separately, in addition to that, we have the policy debate about what to do about it.
+
+But given that that's so hard for humans to pull off, I have a little bit of sympathy for the people who are worried that that ostensible attempt—they want to go back to the world where sex is a top-level category that has these top-level protections. I also want—
+
+**PI**: I think we're both kind of sympathetic to that to some extent, right?
+
+**ZMD**: And, unfortunately, because—anyway, I don't know.
+
+**PI**: I actually used to, around 2016 or so, I got exposed to radical feminism, and it seemed really plausible to me for a bit. It seems like a lot of AGP find it plausible, because we're kind of primed to put women up on a pedestal, and radical feminism is kind of female supremacist in sort of its vibe. But after I learned more about psychological sex differences, for example, I came to realizing that it was not a simple matter of, while the male oppression of females is an ancient thing, it even occurs in other primates, it's not just in humans, it's not as simple as that sort of Marxist-derived version of it.
+
+**ZMD**: But there's also a naturalistic fallacy angle you can take on it and say, yeah, this happens in other primates, but it's still terrible.
+
+**PI**: Yeah, no, I don't like it. I do have some egalitarian sentiments. I live on the West Coast, in Portland. However, I think we do have to recognize that, that males and females are, on average, different psychologically, and this is apparent to us in everyday life. I'm not sure what the quite, quite what the right policy is, I agree with you that, at least with regards to transsexualism, that adults, the morphological freedom thing, that adults should be able to have access to alter their body. And it may just never be reconcilable between the radical feminists and people that want that freedom.
+
+**ZMD**: So, I don't know, I think we've covered most of the stuff I wanted to cover.
+
+**PI**: I noticed you also wanted to talk about, the sort of thing I'm doing, the cause of raising autogynephilic identity as sort of a social category, that you're pessimistic about it, to some extent, and I'd be curious to hear about.
+
+**ZMD**: Just empirically, I know people in their early 20s who have transitioned and even people who are socially adjacent to me and like my writing in some cases. If they're not buying it, then the chances for the rest of society just seem incredibly bleak. If I can't win definitively, in my own native subculture where I have so much home-field advantage, then the prospects of winning a broader cultural battle just seem hopeless.
+
+**PI**: Yeah, I do feel that I'm in somewhat of an underdog situation.
+
+**ZMD**: Sorry, I also want to highlight that it may seem uncouth to talk about winning, because ideally you want to figure out what's actually true and not just fight a zero-sum war between different ideas where the ideas you ended up with, you're just blindly loyal to them without any particular reason. But it looks like science and politics do actually interact, unfortunately, and so, separately from the fact that I think I'm right, the project of sharing those ideas with other people does have some similarities with war and competition, even though that feels like it shouldn't be the case. Anyway, go on.
+
+**PI**: There is a political element to it, for sure, which is why I might describe it as trying to win something. But even though there does seem to be a lot of headwinds to people accepting autogynephilia theory, I still am optimistic about the ability to spread the ideas and grow the proportion of the autogynephilic and autoandrophilic population who understand these ideas.
+
+**ZMD**: On the margins.
+
+**PI**: On the margins, and particularly among the autists. As far as I can tell, these sort of ideas, the autistic autosexuals seem the most able to separate sort of what is true from what might feel good, and they are the most promising subgroup. And I think when you get a large enough group of autists together working on something, great things can happen. Even though in everyday life, the incentives might not be there for people to be out as autogynephilic or autoangrophilic, at least to the degree that homosexuals are able to be out, I do think that so much of life happens these days in the disembodied domain of the internet, and even people who haven't transitioned, they might want to be able to participate in gender discourse and talk about their own experiences and sexual identity just as people with more well-established identities do. My hope is that over time, through building it within community discourse, we'll collectively improve each other's knowledge and when we have false ideas, disprove them. My hope is that over time we'll iteratively arrive at more of our kind understanding the sort of type of sexual orientation they have and also more of them accepting it in a chill way where it's not this huge damage to their self-image, where it's really just like not a big deal because they know other people like that that they respect and it's fine.
+
+**ZMD**: To the future ... whatever future we can get.
+
+**PI**: I understand feeling a little bit hopeless, but I think I'm trying to take a really long view on this that if autogynephilia is true, then eventually that sort of meme will win out to some extent, and it might take a very long time. People are still struggling with evolution by natural selection. It used to be Christians that were bothered by it, and now it's the egalitarian left that has issues with its implications. But I think eventually ideas that are true, they have a certain staying power to them.
+
+**ZMD**: Hopefully. We can hope.
+
+**PI**: I can hear your voice; I can understand feeling dispirited after what you went through with trying to talk about autogynephilia and then having that reality—
+
+**ZMD**: Well, again, I could understand nuanced specific doubts of every little—Blanchard and Bailey, there's lots of detailed claims here. So I could also understand, like if someone has read the erotic target identity inversion paper and has like specific doubts about—like I don't want to be defending a fixed dogma. But I do want a world where facts matter. And it seemed like the crux I ran into with people was not about science. It just seemed like people don't think that non-social facts matter.
+
+**PI**: Yeah, I understand it's frustrating. I do want to say that it did really help me when I was struggling with sort of this, when upon learning that I was autogynephilic and then having people doubt me and I was struggling with it, it did help me a lot to see that I wasn't the only one that had gone through this sort of struggle before, of having the reality doubted even after reading the papers and everything.
+
+**ZMD**: I mean, I have reservations about that phrasing. I don't want to copy their phrasing of, "Oh no, you're doubting my reality, therefore you're oppressing me."
+
+**PI**: You know what I mean though?
+
+**ZMD**: I know what you mean.
+
+**PI**: Just in an emotional sense. And in the realistic experience of, you've put in due diligence to know what is true, or at least to read a bunch of papers and do your best to like try to find out what's true, and then just have everyone still doubt it. It's kind of crazy-making, and seeing that that had happened to someone else made me feel less crazy. And it also made me realize how serious the problem was that it was happening in a subculture that is supposedly super, super rational.
+
+**ZMD**: Yeah, they're totally lying about that.
+
+**PI**: Well, cause they're human ultimately, right? So it was part of the impetus for me to write my book. I didn't want that to continue happening to people. And I didn't think it was fair what happened to me or you. And also there wasn't yet a popular-level book. The closest thing was Anne Lawrence's book [[_Men Trapped in Men's Bodies: Narratives of Autogynephilic Transsexualism_]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Trapped_in_Men%27s_Bodies:_Narratives_of_Autogynephilic_Transsexualism), but the title seems designed to hurt AGPs in the feels.
+
+**ZMD**: I loved the title.
+
+**PI**: No, I loved it. I loved it at first, the transgressiveness of it. I loved the edginess of it.
+
+**ZMD**: I don't even think it was about edginess. I think it's just descriptively accurate.
+
+**PI**: Yeah. But because it's accurate, it hurts emotionally, right? A little bit.
+
+**ZMD**: I guess so. Again, that was like this shocking thing, talking to people in private in 2016. I bought extra copies of _Men Trapped in Men's Bodies_ to give to people.
+
+**PI**: Same.
+
+**ZMD**: I snuck it into more than one queer center library—you go to the community's queer center and they have a bookshelf. I just stick the book in there.
+
+**PI**: I made my local library system buy it. And then they had it for a couple of years, but someone wants to complain and they removed it now.
+
+**ZMD**: I gave someone this book and I got complaints along the lines of like, someone complained that Lawrence used the word _transgendered_. I don't even remember, but grammatical complaints, like saying men instead of a.m.a.b or whatever. I'm just like, okay, but has it occurred to you for just a moment that someone who is not part of your ideological subculture and use like exactly the same terminology as you might, you know, have things to say about reality?
+
+**PI**: I think people that are trapped in that ideological subculture have a poor time modeling other subcultures because it's the progressive zeitgeist. It's so all-encompassing. That's interesting that you also had gotten extra copies, because I bought an extra one to be able to share with people, and then I realized like at a certain point that most people weren't going to make it past seeing the cover and I was like, damn, there needs to be another book that explains this in a simpler way that isn't such a bummer, so to speak, to some of the AGPs.
+
+**ZMD**: Better propaganda.
+
+**PI**: Right, exactly. I needed to—
+
+**ZMD**: In a descriptively neutral sense! The word [_propaganda_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/propaganda)—
+
+**PI**: It needed a more memetically viable delivery than was being done. And so I tried to do that where it made it more emotionally palatable, but also shorter sentences, clearer sentences. You lose some of the detail you do that.
+
+**ZMD**: I cannot write like that.
+
+**PI**: I know, I know. Some of my favorite posts of yours are actually like the ones that are just like a few hundred words, like like your ["Psychology Is About Invalidating People's Identities"](/2016/Sep/psychology-is-about-invalidating-peoples-identities/) post is excellent.
+
+**ZMD**: Thank you.
+
+**PI**: I know you can't write like that, and I don't naturally write like that. I just kept editing until it looked like that; I read books about how to write short in the American style and I did it. Time will tell how influential the book is. I just think that the sort of argument I make in the book, that it's it's an epistemic injustice that people with this orientation don't get a fair shot at learning about it, say, like in sex ed, as you've proposed on your blog. I think those of us who go through these feelings, we deserve to be treated as humans that can handle hearing the truth, especially because if you do transition, that is a very serious kind of adult decision. We deserve to be treated seriously and told what is real so that we can make sense of reality and decide how we want to live in it.
+
+**ZMD**: And the other tragedy of this culture, I think it makes people into worse people. [In the words of J.K. Rowling](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033), call yourself what you want, wear what you like—I would add, modify your body how you like. But like being committed to this particular ontology of gender in a way that shuts out the various situations in which people have like legitimate reasons for wanting to use the sex-based ontology without worrying about whether it might trigger someone's dysphoria: that's just no way to live. Maybe there's a way to live in the world as it exists with the technology that we actually have.
+
+**PI**: Yeah, I hope for that sort of an outcome to where—I obviously want transsexuals to be able to live in society as the gender they aspire to and to be able to have access to the medical care.
+
+**ZMD**: There's also this funny aspect of, I keep like wanting to put emphasis on, look, I'm not—[I don't do policy](/2021/Sep/i-dont-do-policy/). If you want to transition and you know what you're getting into, I don't want to say that—I don't want to make definitive policy decisions on how other people should live their lives, because that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to get the facts. But there is clearly this element of—if you have to round me into the trans activist camp or the gender critical camp, it's pretty clear that—I don't know.
+
+**PI**: Like ontologically which camp you're in.
+
+**ZMD**: Yeah. There does seem to be this phenomenon where among people who transition first and then learn about the two type typology and then say, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." I suspect there's a real effect that if you teach those people about the typology first, they don't end up transitioning, because given current technology where you can't just magically grow a new body in a vat and swap your brain into it, transitioning makes a lot more sense if you actually believe in gender identity. Whereas if you don't have that belief in the first place, I think a lot of people are more likely to do the thing that you and I are doing, which is like, OK, just live with it.
+
+**PI**: I would agree that if more people had heard the typology before transitioning, it might lead to overall fewer transitions, but I think there would still be some people who hear about the typology and then realize that their transsexual feelings aren't going to be able to go away and they might transition earlier. I do think there's probably a thing where people who learn the typology first, they're probably more likely to decide not to transition than people who only hear about the gender identity theory. But to be clear, the reason I don't transition, it's just because of my physical situation. If I thought I'd be able to be somewhat passable, I'd probably be doing it. It's just like a realistic, pragmatic appraisal of my situation.
+
+**ZMD**: How tall are you?
+
+**PI**: Six four. I'm taller than the average man to the degree that the average man is taller than the average woman. I'm the true third gender. It's about being realistic for me personally.
+
+**PI**: If you don't mind me asking, why have you—did we already cover that, why you chose not to?
+
+**ZMD**: I chickened out over medical uncertainty. So I'm a transhumanist in theory, but in practice, I'm wary about unnecessary medical interventions. There's so much we just don't know about biology. We know enough like—vaccines. It's not like someone knows how to engineer nanobots that specifically kill the disease. Vaccines are like injecting a weakened form of the disease into your body and letting nature, letting your immune system figure it out. There's a general unease that, okay, we can make artificial hormones. You inject artificial female hormones into a male body. Is that going to break stuff, if you keep doing it over a long period of time? Maybe.
+
+**PI**: That's a fair concern.
+
+**ZMD**: I know that this has been studied somewhat. There are definitely people doing it—like we know it doesn't immediately kill you because there are lots of people who do it, who have done it and are living happy lives for decades and decades. But could it be breaking things subtly in a way that makes the benefit not worth the cost? I'm pretty worried about that. And also just not passing. I'm "only" five eleven. Okay, medical conservatism, and not passing, and I just don't believe any of this shit.
+
+**PI**: Even if you didn't believe it, you could still think, oh, I'm going to take this because I want to look more feminine.
+
+**ZMD**: I did get laser on my face—the laser wasn't that effective, but I did try to get facial hair reduction. I like my beautiful, beautiful ponytail, even though hair length is not actually sexually dimorphic and that's just a cultural convention. The effects that hormones did have on my body that was permanent; I feel OK about it. I have accepted what is available to me in the world as it is.
+
+**PI**: Which is, I think, a great place to come to.
+
+**ZMD**: If superhuman artificial intelligence invents a way to like actually grow a new female body in a vat, then I think I would go for that. But at that point, like humanity has much, much bigger problems, which is not the subject of this podcast.
+
+**PI**: At that point, they probably will have already figured out how to alter the the sort of internalization mechanism that seems to happen with with autosexuality.
+
+**ZMD**: I don't want to be cured, though. If you could cure autogynephilia—okay, I would rather have the magical body transformation than be cured and just be an ordinary man. But if there were a cure, I wouldn't take it. I like being the way I am, even though being the way I am in this world necessarily entails like knowing that there are some possible nice things that you can't have.
+
+**PI**: Well, it sounds like you've come to a pretty good place of acceptance of your situation, which I would love for more autogynephilic individuals to arrive at, regardless of their state of transition, but just to understand their situation and reality.
+
+**ZMD**: I think that's a good place to wrap it up.
+
+**PI**: I was just thinking the same thing. Thanks for coming on my channel.
+
+**ZMD**: Thanks for having me on the show.
+
+**PI**: And I would like to mention again to the viewers, and I'll put it in the description, that he blogs about this stuff at _unremediatedgender.space_ and it's a great blog.
+
+**ZMD**: In retrospect, it may not have been the best idea for the blog title and the URL to be so different, because no one remembers the title.
+
+**PI**: No, only your diehard fans.
+
+**ZMD**: Thanks. Bye.
+
+**PI**: Bye.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff