> But the blog wasn't always on that 'side', either. Scott wrote one of the best analyses/defenses of trans identity and nonbiological definition of gender that I've ever read, and which ultimately convinced me.
Yet again someone citing "Categories Were Made" as influential: https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/he96rm/star_slate_codex_deleted_because_of_nyt_article/fvr7h7w/
+people are STILL citing this shit! (14 Nov): https://twitter.com/Baltimoron87/status/1327730282703835137
+
Even the enemies respect that post!
https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/1275647936194654208
> And finally, I strongly disagree that one good article about accepting trans-ness means you get to walk away from writing that is somewhat white supremacist and quite fascist without at least awknowledging you were wrong.
> This is because once they hit puberty, no one wants young men around unless they're recruiting for a terrorist cell. [...] Whereas literally everyone wants young women. They come off as determined to be fuckups because they're being actively courted/recruited. Boys are left to fuck up their own lives.
A vote for Kelly Loeffler is a vote for gridlock! A vote for gridlock is a vote to hit the brakes on our ongoing cultural revolution! A vote to hit the brakes is vengeance for Steve Hsu! A civilization that can't avenge Steve Hsu is DEAD (sooner or later and probably sooner) 2/2
+
+> Somebody can be born with a wiener, but not be a boy. Somebody else can be a boy, but not have a wiener.
+https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/
+
+Is the Culture War lost? https://letter.wiki/conversation/930
+
+https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ray-blanchard-transgender-orthodoxy/
+
+> we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred
+https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/170990-suppose-one-reads-a-story-of-filthy-atrocities-in-the
+
+
+If you demand that people change how they think and talk about the world specifically in order to prove they're on your side (rather than because you have evidence and arguments explaining why your model is more accurate in the relevant domain), then people who care about thinking clearly will may reluctantly conclude they're not, in fact, on your side?
+
+Note, this is compatible with trans rights insofar as "more accurate in the relevant domain" can include grouping transsexuals with their social gender rather than their developmental sex, because it's possible for social transition to actually succeed on the merits of actually passing (or getting "close enough"), rather than acquiecing to demands. (Isn't that the goal? To successfully transition, and organically be perceived as your target sex?)
+
+If someone looks like a man, and sounds like a man, and I can model him as a man in the range of circumstances I interact with him without making any grievous prediction errors, then I call him a man even if he's technically a female on testosterone—not as a favor, but because it genuinely seems like the best word to describe what I'm seeing. Futhermore, if I don't perceive someone as a man, but everyone else does (or speaks as if they do), I'll usually go along with the majority's language usage for game-theoretic reasons (explanation: http://unremediatedgender.space/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/). But if he further demands that I'm not even allowed to use the phrase "female on testosterone" to describe what I think is going on in this situation, then we have a problem.
+
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff