post-confrontation poke at memoir

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / a-hill-twitter-reply.md

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-twitter-reply.md b/notes/a-hill-twitter-reply.md
index 088f07c..e9fd01c 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-twitter-reply.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-twitter-reply.md
@@ -12,7 +12,3 @@ It's true that I was _originally_ thinking about all this in the context of auto
 Consider again the 6.7:1 (!!) cis-woman-to-trans-woman ratio among 2018 _Slate Star Codex_ survey respondents (which I cited in ["... To Make Predictions"](/2018/Feb/the-categories-were-made-for-man-to-make-predictions/)). A curious rationalist, having been raised to believe that trans women are women (or at least, that people who insist that trans women _aren't_ women are ontologically confused), and considering observations like this, might ask the question: "Gee, I wonder _why_ women who happen to be trans are _so much_ more likely to read _Slate Star Codex_, and be attracted to women, and, um, have penises, than women who happen to be cis?"
 
 If you're _very careful_, I'm sure it's possible to give a truthful answer to that question without misgendering anyone. But if you want to give a _concise_ answer—perhaps not a _maximally rigorous_ answer, but an answer that usefully [points](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YF9HB6cWCJrDK5pBM/words-as-mental-paintbrush-handles) to the true causal-structure-in-the-world while still fitting in a Tweet—I think you _need_ to be able to say something like, "Because trans women are men." (At least as a _live hypothesis_, even if you prefer an intersex-brain etiology for the people we know.)
-
-
-
-