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]
-----
-["delusional perverts", no one understands me]
+If I sound angry, it's because I actually do feel a lot of anger, but I wish I knew how to more reliably convey its target. Some trans women I know
+
+[think I'm collaborating with the cis] [nor, by my own principles can I say they're wrong about me by self-declaration] [agree that scapegoating is real]
-----
----
+[leaning on "Travis" for social proof]
+
+----
+
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff