"Okay," she says. "So, what should we call the group now?"
-You think for a few moments. "What about 'not-exclusively-androphilic people in our-favorite-hobby who are not less than one standard deviation below the population mean in the Agreeableness and Neuroticism factors of the Big Five personality model'?"
+You think for a few moments. "What about 'non-exclusively-gynephilic people in our-favorite-hobby who are not less than one standard deviation below the population mean in the Agreeableness and Neuroticism factors of the Big Five personality model'?"
I can think of a few criticisms of this proposal.
First of all, there's a lot of room for disagreement over the operationalization of "people who would contribute to the atmosphere you made this a woman-only event for" in terms of some function of individual psychological traits that would exclude some women and include some men.
-I, the author of this blog post, went with "not-exclusively-androphilic" because I'm imagining that part of the appeal of women-only spaces is not having to deal with people who might want to hit on you, but that excluding bisexual women would go too far; and I went with "more than −1σ in Agreeableness and Neuroticism" because the Big Five seems to be the most popular personality model in the study of psychology, and Agreeableness and Neuroticism are the dimensions of that model with the largest sex differences, at _d_≈0.5 and _d_≈0.4, respectively[ref][Weisberg _et al_](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/)[/ref].
+I, the author of this blog post, went with "not-exclusively-gynephilic" because I'm imagining that part of the appeal of women-only spaces is not having to deal with people who might want to hit on you, but that excluding bisexual women would go too far; and I went with "more than −1σ in Agreeableness and Neuroticism" because the Big Five seems to be the most popular personality model in the study of psychology, and Agreeableness and Neuroticism are the dimensions of that model with the largest sex differences, at _d_≈0.5 and _d_≈0.4, respectively[ref][Weisberg _et al_](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/)[/ref].
[TODO: footnote calculation of how many women and men this would exclude]
[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.
[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.
> 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.
It's possible that I'm underestimating what feats of social-engineering are possible. We could imagine
[TODO: it's possible that I'm underestimating the social-engineering feats that might be possible—it's kind of surprising that fiat money equilibria aren't also destroyed by a "How dumb do you think we are?" faction—but fiat money equilibria evolved over a long time for complicated reasons; you need more of an actual argument than "maybe things would be better"]
+
+[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/radical-feminist-warned-refer-transgender-defendant-assault/ !!]
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff