On my reading of the text, it is _significant_ that the AI-synthesized complements for men are given their own name, the _verthandi_, rather than just being referred to as women. The _verthandi_ may _look like_ women, they may be _approximately_ psychologically human, but the _detailed_ psychology of "superintelligently-engineered optimal romantic partner for a human male" is not going to come out of the distribution of actual human females, and judicious exercise of the [tenth virtue of precision](http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues/) demands that a _different word_ be coined for this hypothetical science-fictional type of person. Calling the _verthandi_ "women" would be _worse writing_; it would _fail to communicate_ what, in the story, has been lost.
+["Changing Emotions"]
+
-----
Men who wish they were women do not particularly resemble actual women! We just—don't? This seems kind of obvious, really?
[^fans]: I'm specifically thinking of W.E., R.S., and [Sophia](http://unremediatedgender.space/author/sophia/).
---
+
+[document (with archive links) what EY said]
+
+---
+
+[if I agree that pronouns aren't lies, why was I so freaked out]
+
+[pronouns do have truth conditions, cruelty to ordinary people]