X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=content%2Fdrafts%2Fi-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md;h=e5aab1a9a86f91f15dca0fdce8a13fb26b29f5d9;hp=76bc89ad6d1f9fee104ad830afce5958e5f44baf;hb=6f2f5332bad52a80a04b3a5aa38de90c7fd31ed7;hpb=a98ea188fc3b8f8fc6b56a48d6da22ecb36b766f

diff --git a/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md b/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
index 76bc89a..e5aab1a 100644
--- a/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
+++ b/content/drafts/i-mean-yes-i-agree-that-man-should-allocate-some-more-categories-but.md
@@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ I, the author of this blog post, went with "not-exclusively-androphilic" because
 
 [TODO: address that "non-exclusively-androphilic" does exclude lesbians]
 
+[interruptions study]
+
 But that was just my _guess_ at how to apply reductionism to describe the atmosphere of women-only spaces using lower-level criteria—and it was probably a _bad_ guess. (For one thing, [TODO: lesbians]) A woman who benefits from women-only spaces and knows more about psychology than me might say something different, and we should listen to _her_, not me. The "more than −1σ in both of these two dimensions" threshold was completely arbitrary; maybe she would prefer some other function. Maybe she [doesn't like the Big Five model](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Five_personality_traits&oldid=868909816#Critique). Maybe (in fact, almost certainly) multiple such women wouldn't _agree_ on the exact criteria.
 
 But even if such a committee of female psychologists _could_ agree on such criteria, I think most people would say that reorganizing the group as the "not-exclusively-androphilic people in our-favorite-hobby whose results on this-and-such personality battery match the following 1 KiB description ..." is not a particularly very appealing proposal.
@@ -174,3 +176,5 @@ I happily concede that fully consensual gender is a _coherent_ position. That do
 It's possible that I'm underestimating what feats of social-engineering are possible. We could imagine 
 
 [TODO: it's possible that I'm underestimating the social-engineering feats that might be possible—it's kind of surprising that fiat money equilibria aren't also destroyed by a "How dumb do you think we are?" faction—but fiat money equilibria evolved over a long time for complicated reasons; you need more of an actual argument than "maybe things would be better"]
+
+[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/radical-feminist-warned-refer-transgender-defendant-assault/ !!]