drafting money section for "I Mean, Yes"

diff --git a/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md b/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
index fdaede1..4092726 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
+++ b/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
@@ -72,3 +72,15 @@ III. Ozy argues that "look like street harrassers" is the relevant criterion; I
 I agree that everyone deserves a place to pee; let's talk about changing rooms
 
 IV. Money analogy. I really like this analogy! I agree that money is a social convention, but what would it mean for money to be fully consensual?
+
+
+
+Finally, Ozy makes an analogy between social gender and money. What constitutes money in a given social context is determined by collective agreement: money is whatever you can reliably expect everyone else to accept as payment. This isn't a circular definition (in the way that "money is whatever we agree is money" would be uninformative to an alien who didn't already have a referent for the word _money_), and someone advocating for a _different_ money regime isn't making an epistemic _mistake_. [TODO RESEARCH: include historical example of debate over changing money standards in U.S.; "Cross of Gold" speech]
+
+I _really like_ this example! An important thing to notice here is that while the form of money can vary widely across sociocultural contexts (from arrowheads among American Indians [TODO RESEARCH: is that actually true?!] to silver coins, to fiat paper currency, to database entries in a bank) [...]
+
+Because of these constraints, I don't think the money/social-gender analogy can do the work Ozy seems to expect of it. They write:
+
+> Similarly, "you're a woman if you identify as a woman!" is not a definition of womanhood. It is a criterion for who should be a woman. It states that our social genders should be fully consensual: that is, if a person says "I would like to be put in the 'woman' category now," you do that. Right now, this criterion is not broadly applied: a trans person's social gender generally depends on their presentation, their secondary sexual characteristics, and how much the cis people around them are paying attention. But perhaps it would improve things if it were.
+
+Similarly, we could imagine someone arguing that our money should be fully consensual: that is, if a person says, "I would like this to be put in the 'dollar' category now", you do that. Right now, this criterion is not broadly applied ...