1 Title: Reply to Scott Alexander on Autogenderphilia
4 Tags: autogynephilia, epistemology, two-type taxonomy
7 [This started out as a draft email to Scott, but I'm really unhappy with the way it's developing; I should try to sculpt it into a defensible public post instead—or make it a good email first, then a post]
9 parsimony intuitions and autogenderphilia
11 Explaining my view in a way that I think you'll understand turns out to be a surprisingly challenging writing task, because I suspect my actual crux comes down to a [Science _vs._ Bayescraft](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/viPPjojmChxLGPE2v/the-dilemma-science-or-bayes) thing, where I'm self-conscious about my answer sounding weirdly overconfident on non-empirical grounds to someone who doesn't already share my parsimony intuitions—but, frankly, I also expect my parsiony intuitions to actually get the right answer in the real world, and modesty/[Outside View](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FsfnDfADftGDYeG4c/outside-view-as-conversation-halter)/[Caution on Bias Arguments](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/17/caution-on-bias-arguments/) to get the wrong answer. So, self-consciousness aside, here goes—
13 You suggest what you allege is a "very boring" hypothesis of "autogenderphilia": "if you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, it's a natural leap to be attracted to yourself being that gender."
15 In my ontology of how-the-world-works, this is _not_ a boring hypothesis. In my ontology, this is a _shockingly weird_ hypothesis, where I can read the English words, but I actually have a lot of trouble parsing the English words into a model in my head, because the antecedent, "If you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender, then ...", already takes a massive prior probability penalty, because that category is multiply disjunctive over the natural space of biological similarities: you're grouping together lesbians _and_ gay men _and_ heterosexual males with a female gender identity _and_ heterosexual females with a male gender identity, and trying to make claim about what members of this group are like.
17 What do lesbians, and gay men, and heterosexual males with a female gender identity, and heterosexual females with a male gender identity have in common, such that we expect to make useful inductive inferences about this group?
19 Well, they're all human; that buys you a _lot_ of similarities!
21 But your hypothesis isn't about humans-in-general, it's specifically about people who identify "identify as a gender, and [are] attracted to that gender".
23 So the question becomes, what do lesbians, and gay men, and heterosexual males with a female gender identity, and heterosexual females with a male gender identity have in common, that they _don't_ have in common with heterosexual males and females without a cross-sex identity?
25 Well, sociologically, they're demographically eligible for our Society's LGBTQ+ political coalition, living outside of what traditional straight Society considers "normal." That shared _social_ experience could induce similarities.
27 But your allegedly boring hypothesis is not appealing to a shared social experience; you're saying "it's a natural leap to be attracted ...", appealing to the underlying psychology of sexual attraction in a way that doesn't seem very culture-sensitive. In terms of the underlying psychology of sexual attraction, what do lesbians, and gay men, and heterosexual males with a female gender identity, and heterosexual females with a male gender identity have in common, that they _don't_ have in common with heterosexual males and females without a cross-sex identity?
29 I think the answer here is just "Nothing."
31 Oftentimes I want to categorize people by sex, and formulate hypothesis of the form, "If you're female/male, then ...". This is a natural category that buys me [predictions about lots of stuff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans).
33 _Sometimes_ I want to categorize people by gynephilic/androphilic sexual orientation: this helps me make sense of how [lesbians are masculine compared to other females, and gay men are feminine compared to other males](http://unremediatedgender.space/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf). (That is, it looks like _homosexuality_ is probably a kind of brain intersex condition, at least in many cases.)
35 But even so, when thinking about sexual orientation, I'm usually making a within-sex comparison: contrasting how gay men are different from ordinary men, how lesbians are different from ordinary women. I don't usually have much need to reason about "people who are attracted to the sex that they are" as a group, because that group splits cleanly into gay men and lesbians, which have a _different_ [underlying causal structure](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vhp2sW6iBhNJwqcwP/blood-is-thicker-than-water). "LGBT" (...QUIA+) makes sense as a _political coalition_ (who have a shared interest in resisting the oppression of traditional sexual morality), not because the L and the G and the B and the T are the same kind of people who live common lives. (Indeed, as you know, I don't even think the "T" is one thing.)
37 And so, given that I _already_ don't have much use for "if you are a sex, and you're attracted to that sex" as a category of analytical interest (because I think gay men and lesbians are different things that need to be studied separately), "if you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender" (with respect to "gender", not sex) comes off even worse. What causal mechanism could that possibly, _possibly_ correspond to?!
39 Again, I'm self-conscious that to someone who doesn't already share my worldview, this seems dogmatically non-empirical—here I'm telling you why I can't take your theory seriously without even _addressing_ the survey data that you think your theory can explain that mine can't. Is this not a scientific sin? What is this "but causal mechanisms" gibberish, in the face of _empirical_ survey data, huh?
41 The thing is, I don't see my theory as _making_ particularly strong advance predictions one way or the other on how cis women or gay men will respond to the "imagine being him/her" questions, because I consider it highly nonobvious whether the survey responses mean the same thing in different populations.
43 The _reason_ I believe autogynephlia (in males) "is a thing" and causally potent to transgenderedness in the first place, is not because trans women gave a mean Likert response of 3.2 on anyone's survey, but as the output of my brain's inductive inference algorithms operating on a _massive_ confluence of a [real-life experiences](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/) and observations in a naturalistic setting.
45 If I'm not playing the modesty/Outside View politeness game, I actually think this thing is _just obvious_ if you look at the world and try to describe what you see. To illustrate, I was about to include a link to [the search results for "fetish"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/search?q=fetish&restrict_sr=on) on [/r/MtF](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/), but before even sending a search query, I see that the top post (with 476 votes) at time of drafting this paragraph is ... ["I have boobs and a pp"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/rjehj1/i_have_boobs_and_a_pp/).
47 Show that post title to any normal person outside of your tiny and recent ideological bubble, and ask them whether they think the author is a man with a fetish, or a woman trapped in a man's body. You and I, we're intellectuals—in our world, you wouldn't, and shouldn't, let me get away with that leading question. ("Man with a fetish, or ..." is a false dichotomy.) Nevertheless, _pragmatically_, I think the normal person gets this one right with far greater sample-efficiency by means of successfully noticing that actual women don't post about how they "have boobs" in that particular gleeful tone, and the people in your tiny and recent ideological bubble get this one wrong because you're insane religious fanatics who are obligated to pretend you don't have a concept of "actual women."
51 [TODO: IRB nightmare and interpretation skepticism]
53 [TODO: reasons to be suspicious that women aren't reporting the same thing]
55 [TODO: behavioral genetics and trans]
59 In ["My IRB Nightmare"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/), you express skepticism about a screening test for bipolar disorder:
61 > You ask patients a bunch of things like "Do you ever feel really happy, then really sad?". If they say 'yes' to enough of these questions, you start to worry.
63 > Some psychiatrists love this test. I hate it. Patients will say "Yes, that absolutely describes me!" and someone will diagnose them with bipolar disorder. Then if you ask what they meant, they'd say something like "Once my local football team made it to the Super Bowl and I was really happy, but then they lost and I was really sad." I don't even want to tell you how many people get diagnosed bipolar because of stuff like this.
65 > There was a study that supposedly proved this test worked. But parts of it confused me, and it was done on a totally different population that didn't generalize to hospital inpatients.
67 The reason it makes any sense at all for you to be skeptical, is because our beliefs about the existence and etiology of "bipolar disorder", don't completely stand or fall on this particular test. People _already_ had many observations pointing to the idea of "bipolar disorder" as a common cluster of symptoms. From your years of clinical experience, you know with your eyes what the cluster looks like. So when people whose favorite team lost the Super Bowl happen to answer "Yes" to the some of the same survey questions as people who you've _seen_ in the frenzy of mania and depths of depression, you generate the hypothesis: "Gee, maybe different populations are interpreting the question differently." Not as a _certainty_—maybe further research will provide more solid evidence that "bipolar disorder" isn't what you thought—but there's nothing un-Bayesian about thinking that your brain's pattern-matching capabilities are on to something important that this particular survey instrument isn't catching. You're not scientifically obligated to _immediately_ jump to "Bipolar Is Common and Not Especially Related to Mania or Depression."
71 In the case of the etiology and taxonomy of MtF, it seems to me that informed observers typically _agree_ that there's a pretty stark bimodality in the data (very large effect sizes, even if not of course not literally everyone fits the stereotype, because _nothing_ in psychology is that clean): that androphilic MtF transsexuals tend to have been overtly feminine their entire lives in a way that's noticeable to others (such that they "stick out" in Society as effeminate men if they _didn't_ transition), but gynephilic/bi/asexual MtF transsexuals don't fit this profile (living as ordinary men before "coming out"), and very frequently report a history of erotic female transformation fantasies (autogynephilia)—which shows up not only in easily-quantifiable surveys, but also qualitatively if you [just _read_ the things non-androphilic MtFs write in their own forums when the general public isn't looking](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/search?q=fetish&restrict_sr=on).
73 Anyway, if we agree on the basic observations, what's at issue? [What's at issue is the _causality_](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/): does AGP cause gender identity (such that these are, basically, straight males with a fetish), or does gender identity (presumably caused by some underlying brain intersex condition) get eroticized and manifest as AGP?
75 I readily admit that I can't definitely _prove_ that it's not an intersex condition. Nevertheless—if I'm just being honest about the inference procedure my brain is _actually_ using, without pretending that it's more rigorous than it is—I think this question is _actually_ pretty obvious if you have functional parsimony intuitions about how the world works.
77 To me, the qualitative observations are very important, because they have a lot of details about what the psychological phenomenon actually is. (The qualitative observations are what _motivated_ the survey question, to try to get a more quantifiable measurement of something we already had reason to believe exists.) An ordinary cis woman who reads the survey question, "How sexually arousing would you find it to imagine being her?" with no context, is not necessarily in the same headspace as an MtF transsexual, even if they end up giving the same number—just like someone who's never had a real manic–depressive cycle might give the same answer to "Do you ever feel really happy, then really sad?" because they're remembering when their team lost the Super Bowl. (If you were worried about a bipolar screening test not generalizing to a group so different as "hospital inpatients", how much more worried should you be about asking people of _different sexes_ questions _about sexuality_?)
79 Anecdotally, when I talked about my experiences to Sarah Constantin, her _first_ reaction was to say that she
83 Just—_other than_ this mysterious sexualized _desire_ to be female, the biological _and_ psychological traits of the group in question seem to be in the _male_ normal range. Notice how your survey had almost eight times as many lesbian trans women than straight trans women? That's _not_ what the distribution of sexual orientation looks like among cis women. But if we consider that trans women are _male_, and males tend to be attracted to females, the data looks _less confusing_. Or did you know that [the ratio of trans to cis women among Haskell programmers is close to 1:1](http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Nov/survey-data-on-cis-and-trans-women-among-haskell-programmers/)? That's _way_ off from the ratio in the general population. The data looks _less confusing_ if you think of it as "at least 1.5% of male Haskell programmers wish they were female" rather than "Haskell programmers with female gender identities are equally likely to be trans or cis".
85 Your "If you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender [...]" hypothesis seriously is treating "gender identity" as a causally potent variable that means the same thing in trans people and cis people. And just—the world doesn't look that way
87 Even if it were _true_ that the late-onset type were caused by some
89 You point to your survey data saying that cis gay men are autoandrophilic as something Blanchard–Bailey–Lawrence can't explain, but I don't see my theory as being particularly committed to making predictions about how gay men will answer the "Picture a very attractive man [...]" question. It's a different population!
91 I would totally respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality; I can't expect everyone to share my parsimony intuitions. But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"! I just don't think that's something you can possibly conclude based on how _other populations_ are answering similar survey questions!
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blob