check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / i-tell-myself-sections.md

diff --git a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
index cd02ad1..9095c3a 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
+++ b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
@@ -123,10 +123,6 @@ _Literally_ all I'm asking for is for the branded systematically-correct-reasoni
 
 Note, **(3) is _entirely compatible_ with trans women being women**. The point is that if you want to claim that trans women are women, you need some sort of _argument_ for why that categorization makes sense in the context you want to use the word—why that map usefully reflects some relevant aspect of the territory. If you want to _argue_ that hormone replacement therapy constitutes an effective sex change, or that trans is a brain-intersex condition and the brain is the true referent of "gender", or that [coordination constraints on _shared_ categories](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests) [support the self-identification criterion](/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/), that's fine, because those are _arguments_ that someone who initially disagreed with your categorization could _engage with on the merits_. In contrast, "I can define a word any way I want" can't be engaged with in the same way because it's a denial of the possibility of merits.
 
-----
-
-[trade arrangments: if that's the world we live in, fine]
-
 ------
 
 [happy price, symmetry-breaking]
@@ -188,6 +184,3 @@ I don't doubt Serano's report of her own _experiences_. But "it became obvious t
 -----
 
 [You "can't" define a word any way you want, or you "can"—what actually matters is the math]
-
-----
-