check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / drafts / i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md

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 76bc89a..4287ce6 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
@@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ I, the author of this blog post, went with "not-exclusively-androphilic" because
 
 [TODO: address that "non-exclusively-androphilic" does exclude lesbians]
 
+[interruptions study]
+
 But that was just my _guess_ at how to apply reductionism to describe the atmosphere of women-only spaces using lower-level criteria—and it was probably a _bad_ guess. (For one thing, [TODO: lesbians]) A woman who benefits from women-only spaces and knows more about psychology than me might say something different, and we should listen to _her_, not me. The "more than −1σ in both of these two dimensions" threshold was completely arbitrary; maybe she would prefer some other function. Maybe she [doesn't like the Big Five model](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Five_personality_traits&oldid=868909816#Critique). Maybe (in fact, almost certainly) multiple such women wouldn't _agree_ on the exact criteria.
 
 But even if such a committee of female psychologists _could_ agree on such criteria, I think most people would say that reorganizing the group as the "not-exclusively-androphilic people in our-favorite-hobby whose results on this-and-such personality battery match the following 1 KiB description ..." is not a particularly very appealing proposal.