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 4122759..76bc89a 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
@@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ Although I lack relevant lived experience, I suspect this is _wildly_ overestima
 
 [TODO: expand on the expanded threat model, marginalism]
 
+Maybe you want to bite that bullet. But you should at least _acknowledge_ the existence of the bullet, once someone points it out. And if you want to call yourself a rationalist, maybe try to proactively look for the bullet
+
 -----
 
 I think there's a more general lesson underlying these kinds of discussions. If you want to get through life without _verbally_ acknowledging the concept of biological sex, then you _can_ get away with it.
@@ -145,7 +147,7 @@ Because of these constraints, I don't think the money/social-gender analogy can
 
 > 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.
 
-Following the money analogy, 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 ... and it's not easy to imagine how it _could_ be applied (a prerequisite to figuring out if perhaps it would improve things if it were). Could I buy a car by offering the dealer a blank piece of paper and saying, "I would like this to be put in the '$20,000 check' category now"? What would happen to the economy if everyone did that?
+Following the money analogy, 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 ... and it's not easy to imagine how it _could_ be applied (a prerequisite to figuring out if perhaps it would improve things if it were). Could I buy a car by offering the dealer a banana and saying, "I would like this to be put in the '$20,000 bill' category now"? What would happen to the economy if everyone did that?
 
 Maybe the hypothetical doesn't have to be that extreme. Perhaps we should imagine someone taking Canadian $5 bills, crossing out "Canada", drawing a beard on Wilfrid Laurier, and saying "I'd like [this](/images/american_5_dollar_note.png) to be considered an American $5 bill." (Exchange rate at time of writing: 1 Canadian dollar = 0.76 U.S. dollars.) Then imagine that a social norm catches on within a certain subset of Society that it's _incredibly rude_ to question someone who says they're giving you American money, but that this standard hasn't spread to the U.S. government and financial system.