Categorization really doesn't seem like this. If there's a conflict between one person's desire to be modeled as belonging to a particular gender and someone else's perception that the person is more accurately thought of as belonging to a different gender, then it's not clear what it would _mean_ to resolve the conflict in the direction of "consent of the modeled" other than mind control, or at least compelled speech.
-Ozy gives a list of predictions you can make about someone on the basis of social gender, as distinct from sex, apparently meant to demonstrate the usefulness of the former concept. But a lot of the individual list items seem either superficial ("Whether they wear dresses, skirts, or makeup"—surely we don't want to go for "gender as clothing", do we??), or tied to other people's _perceptions_ of sex.[ref]The harrassment and expected-sacrifices example in particular are what radical feminists would call sex-based oppression.[/ref] [ref][Friend of the blog](https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/837846616937750528) Ray Blanchard [recently proposed on Twitter](https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1054743819206434816) that the term "subjective sex" might be more useful than "gender".[/ref]
+Ozy gives a list of predictions you can make about someone on the basis of social gender, as distinct from sex, apparently meant to demonstrate the usefulness of the former concept. But a lot of the individual list items seem either superficial ("Whether they wear dresses, skirts, or makeup"—surely we don't want to go for "gender as clothing", do we??), or tied to other people's _perceptions_ of sex.[ref]The harrassment and expected-sacrifices example in particular are what radical feminists would call sex-based oppression.[/ref] [ref][Friend of the blog](https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/837846616937750528) Ray Blanchard [proposed on Twitter](https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1054743819206434816) that the term "subjective sex" might be more useful than "gender".[/ref]
Take the "How many messages they get on a dating site" item. The _reason_ men send lots of messages to women on dating sites is because they want to date people with vaginas and female secondary sex characteristics, and maybe eventually marry them, father children with them, _&c._[ref]And the fact that it's women being deluged with messages from men rather than vice versa is predicted by the evolutionary logic of [Bateman's principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman's_principle) and [parental investment theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment): the sex that invests more resources per offspring will be "choosier", and the sex that invests less will compete for them. There are a few species (like the [pipefish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipefish) or the [Eurasian dotterel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_dotterel)) in which males are the more-investing sex, but humans aren't one them.[/ref]
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 [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!
+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_ costs and benefits in a complex system. If someone _actually_ wants to do a careful psychologically- and sociologically-informed analysis of how a "fully consensual gender" regime could actually be implemented in real life,[ref]As I observed recently, fully consensual gender would at least have the advantage of [being a Schelling point](http://unremediatedgender.space/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/). Oh, and 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