X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=content%2F2018%2Funtitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md;h=2795530ad36236a9b7f58478bde3c1858b8b4e98;hp=03725c6cd65a6298bfdac71fb591224d293fe628;hb=7cb06b9d79153341bf81c19840181cdcb24a3375;hpb=b6be7e345c0497d8c7403b509ba11dd4c815c03e

diff --git a/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md b/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md
index 03725c6..2795530 100644
--- a/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md
+++ b/content/2018/untitled-metablogging-26-december-2018.md
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ I'm not perfect, but I think I'm _pretty good_. Even if I don't agree with someo
 
 And somehow it _doesn't land_. It's like talking to a tape recorder that just endlessly repeats, "Ha-ha! [I can define a word any way I want](http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/)! You can't use that concept unless you can provide explicit necessary-and-sufficient conditions to classify a series of ever-more obscure and contrived edge cases!"
 
-I prefer not to involve named individuals in arguments, even public figures: it's unclassy. But having nothing left, I pull out a [photograph of Danielle Muscato](http://daniellemuscato.startlogic.com/uploads/3/4/9/3/34938114/2249042_orig.jpg). "Look," I say. "This is a photograph of a man. You can see it, too, right? Right?"
+Although I do have a couple favorite edge cases of my own. I prefer not to involve named individuals in arguments, even public figures: it's unclassy. But having nothing left, I pull out a [photograph of Danielle Muscato](http://daniellemuscato.startlogic.com/uploads/3/4/9/3/34938114/2249042_orig.jpg). "Look," I say. "This is a photograph of a man. You can see it, too, right? Right?"
 
 And they say, "It's possible to be mistaken about cis people's genders, too."