* the literature talks about crossdressing a lot, but I mostly just fantasize; dress-up isn't really convincing
+* not a theory of trans men
+* [the autogynephilic analogue of romantic love](/papers/lawrence-becoming_what_we_love.pdf)
(Picture me playing Hermione Granger in a post-Singularity [holonovel](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-novel_program) adaptation of _Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality_ (Emma Watson having charged me [the standard licensing fee](/2019/Dec/comp/) to use a copy of her body for the occasion): "[We can do anything if we](https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/30) exert arbitrarily large amounts of [interpretive labor](https://acesounderglass.com/2015/06/09/interpretive-labor/)!")
-
* my vocabulary is trained on the robot cult
-
Aren't those trans women going to be _embarrrassed_ after the Singularity, when telepathy tech makes everything obvious
like the time I snuck a copy of _Men Trapped in Men's Bodies: Narratives of Autogynephilic Transsexualism_ into the [MIRI](https://intelligence.org/) office library. (It seemed like something Harry Potter-Evans-Verres would do—and ominously, I noticed, not like something Hermione Granger would do.)
-
-
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 people who see my writing tend to assume I'm self-hating, suffering from false consciousness, that my pious appeals to objectivity and reason are [just a facade](https://sinceriously.fyi/false-faces/) concealing my collaboration with a cissexist social order, that I'm in cowardly thrall to scapegoating instincts: "I'm one of the good, compliant ones—not one of those weird bad trans people who will demand their rights! _They're_ the witches, not me; burn them, not me!"
I have [no grounds to fault anyone for not taking my self-report as unquestionable](/2016/Sep/psychology-is-about-invalidating-peoples-identities/)—the urge to scapegoat and submit to the dominant player is definitely a thing—but I really think this is reading me wrong?
Anne Lawrence described autogynephiles as ["men who love women and want to become what they love."](/papers/lawrence-becoming_what_we_love.pdf) But it's worse than that. We're men who love what we _wish_ women were, and want to become _that_.
-
-
* "The Opposite Sex"
* EY was right about "men need to think about themselves _as men_" (find cite)
our analogues would make a good couple in a nearby alternate universe where at least one of us is female. "Exactly one," he said. "It's California in the year 2015," I said.]
-
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
"people who have sexual fetishes that can't possibly be realized using existing technology [...] like the guy who gets on by entropy decreasing in a closed system"
* If I want to stay aligned with women, then figuring out how to do that depends on the facts about actual sex differences; if I want to do the value-exchange suggested in
+Normal straight men also have positive-valence thoughts about women when they're not immediately horny.
+
+NYT hit piece https://archive.is/0Ghdl
+
------
no safe defense https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-defense-not-even-science
"Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood"
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1351
-> _Look in the mirror
-> What's a white guy doing there?
-> I'm just a spirit
-> I'm just a spirit
-> Floting in air, floating in air, floating in air!_
-
the [Sara Bareilles tune I chose as the breakup song](https://genius.com/Sara-bareilles-gonna-get-over-you-lyrics) is probably etched deeper into my auditory cortex than my mother's voice
+ if my only choices of reading material are radfems who think I'm awful and trans activists who think I DON'T EXIST (!?!?!!?!), I actually feel better about the radfems
+
-----
people colluding to maintain a thin layer of social constructions; lies to cis people
twenty-one month Category War is as long as it took to write the Sequences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9jF4zbZqz6DydJ5En/the-end-of-sequences
+Reading the things I do, and talking to the people I do, I see this pattern _over and over and over_ again, where non-exclusively-androphilic trans women will, in the right context, describe experiences that _sound_ a lot like mine—having this beautiful pure sacred self-identity thing about the idea of being female, but also, separately, this erotic thing on the same theme—but then _somehow_ manage to interpret the beautiful pure sacred self-identity thing as an inner "gender" and presumed brain-intersex condition, which I just—can't take seriously. (Even before contrasting to the early-onset type, which is what a brain-intersex condition _actually_ looks like.)
+
+All I've been trying to say is that, _in particular_, the word "woman" is such a noun.
+
+It _follows logically_ that, in particular, if _N_ := "woman", you can't define the word _woman_ any way you want. Maybe trans women _are_ women! But if you want people to agree to that word usage, you need to be able to _argue_ for why it makes sense; you can't just _define_ it to be true, and this is a _general_ principle of how language works, not something I made up on the spot in order to stigmatize trans people.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff