prep and import scraps for T.K.o.t.M.

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / drafts / commentary-on-david-maciver-on-gendering.md

diff --git a/content/drafts/commentary-on-david-maciver-on-gendering.md b/content/drafts/commentary-on-david-maciver-on-gendering.md
index 357210a..cba600d 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/commentary-on-david-maciver-on-gendering.md
+++ b/content/drafts/commentary-on-david-maciver-on-gendering.md
@@ -14,11 +14,9 @@ Right? The question of what gender is "seems to be a very hard one to answer wel
 
 Is it a mathematician thing? It feels cleaner to prove a abstract theorem "For all genders _g_ ...", eliding as irrelevant any details about the specific _g_ that are known to exist?
 
-MacIver is clearly not a biological sex denialist. He explicitly gives strength and height as examples of differences between women and men, and later acknowledges that many traits will continue to be gendered due to "underlying biological differences."
+MacIver is clearly not a biological sex denialist. He explicitly gives strength and height as examples of differences between women and men, and later acknowledges that many traits will continue to be gendered due to "underlying biological differences." 
 
-The problem is that it's a conflationary to identify height as a "gender" difference in the context of a discourse where you're also [asserting that you believe that people are whatever gender they identify as](TODO: linky prior MacIver).
-
-Height is a statistical _sex_ difference (at Cohen's _d_≈1.7).
+The problem is that it's conflationary to identify height as a "gender" difference in the context of a discourse where you're also [asserting that "very strongly believe that [one's] gender is whatever [they] choose or believe it to be"](https://www.drmaciver.com/2019/05/the-inner-sense-of-gender/). Height is a statistical _sex_ difference (at Cohen's _d_≈1.7).
 
 [...]