Naïvely, of course, you'd think it would be ideologically _validating_: L. and his manner and his handwriting were living proof that not all boys are masculine! But everyone—even the smart sexists—knew _that_. No, the disturbing part was that if "feminine" handwriting—potentially—indicated "feminine" behavior more generally, that implied that _"femininity" was a valid concept_, which was not a notion I was inclined to grant.
-Ideology isn't my style anymore—or rather, these days, my ideology is centered on the accuracy of my probabilistic predictions, rather than being indignant that some people think it's okay to make probabilistic predictions about humans.
+Ideology isn't my style anymore—or rather, these days, my ideology is about the accuracy of my probabilistic predictions, rather than denying the possibility or morality of making probabilistic predictions about humans. Looking back, I will not only unhesitatingly bite the bullet on femininity being a real thing, I'll also venture to make a bold and seemingly "unrelated" prediction: L. was gay.
+
+I mean, I don't "know" that; I have no recollection of the kid ever _saying_ so in my presence. Nevertheless, between the reading (like about the [Cohen's _d_](/2019/Sep/does-general-intelligence-deflate-standardized-effect-sizes-of-cognitive-sex-differences/) ≈ [1.3 effect size of childhood sex-typed behavior on sexual orientation](/papers/bailey-zucker-childhood_sex-typed_behavior_and_sexual_orientation.pdf)) and the ideological deprogramming I've done since, I feel pretty comfortable
+
+Surely I must have known the s
-Looking back,
-[I had to have known]
very distinctive voice
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff