In some sense, this is kind of unobjectionable—what kind of monster could possibly be against _utility_?!—but it's an _incredibly vague_ sense. The decision of what kind of money we should have should be made on purely utilitarian grounds, but the set of possible solutions to that problem, and how well each solution performs with respect to the global utilitarian calculus, is _very tightly constrained_ by many _facts_ of economics and sociology.[ref]For example, fiat money lets central banks exert greater control over the money supply, but can suffer disastrous [hyperinflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation) under the wrong conditions.[/ref]
-So too with gender. "Utilitarian grounds" does _not_ mean, "I and some other people have an [unconstrained utopian vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Conflict_of_Visions&oldid=915640693#The_unconstrained_vision), and we'll be _very_ dysphoric if you don't implement it, so the global utilitarian calculus says you should obey us." To be sure, your dysphoria is _a_ cost under the global utilitarian calculus—but it's just one of _many_ possible costs and benefits in a complex system. If someone _actually_ wants to do a careful economically and sociologically-informed analysis of how a "fully consensual gender" regime could actually be implemented in real life,[ref]Although speaking of "real life", I happily concede that the social-engineering problem of fully consensual gender is _much_ easier in online communities, where pesky expensive-to-change secondary sex characteristics are hidden behind the fog of net. In other words, [on the internet, nobody knows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog) you're a [G.I.R.L.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIRL).[/ref] and what impact it would have in terms of QALYs, that would be really interesting to read!
+So too with gender. "Utilitarian grounds" does _not_ mean, "I and some other people have an [unconstrained utopian vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Conflict_of_Visions&oldid=915640693#The_unconstrained_vision), and we'll be _very_ dysphoric if you don't implement it, so the global utilitarian calculus says you should obey us." To be sure, your dysphoria is _a_ cost under the global utilitarian calculus—but it's just one of _many_ possible costs and benefits in a complex system. If someone _actually_ wants to do a careful economically and sociologically-informed analysis of how a "fully consensual gender" regime could actually be implemented in real life,[ref]Although speaking of "real life", I happily concede that the social-engineering problem of fully consensual gender is _much_ easier in online communities, where pesky [easy-to-detect/expensive-to-change](http://unremediatedgender.space/2018/Feb/blegg-mode/) secondary sex characteristics are hidden behind the fog of net. In other words, [on the internet, nobody knows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog) you're a [G.I.R.L.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIRL).[/ref] and what impact it would have in terms of QALYs, that would be really interesting to read!
Until then, the question remains: how dumb do you think we are?!
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff