X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=content%2Fdrafts%2Freply-to-ozymandias-on-fully-consensual-gender.md;h=b990c809f3bc2073ae3dd29aa53440d1cafa4f4f;hp=dc431d274ca92611271f6d56527a9c9a5dd984df;hb=d96dae4ac6a5c906dccb438685850f65fd2daeb0;hpb=6c18418d025e82cf1a6e7a50f22d3df8865823d2

diff --git a/content/drafts/reply-to-ozymandias-on-fully-consensual-gender.md b/content/drafts/reply-to-ozymandias-on-fully-consensual-gender.md
index dc431d2..b990c80 100644
--- a/content/drafts/reply-to-ozymandias-on-fully-consensual-gender.md
+++ b/content/drafts/reply-to-ozymandias-on-fully-consensual-gender.md
@@ -49,13 +49,11 @@ I think the man would reply, "How dumb do you think I am?!"[ref]This isn't neces
 
 One might respond with, "But there's a lot of cis women who you _also_ wouldn't date. Therefore, while you're allowed to not date trans women if that's your preference, you can't say it's because they're not _women_."
 
-So, I think there's actually a [statistically sophisticated reply to this](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cu7YY7WdgJBs3DpmJ/the-univariate-fallacy) which I really need to elaborate on more in future posts. To be sure, our man is just relying on his intuitive perception and probably doesn't _know_ the statistically sophisticated reply[ref]Although I would argue that the sophisticated statistics are part of the cognitive-scientific _explanation_ of what he perceives.[/ref]—but one also hasn't given him a _reason_ to trust clever verbal arguments over his own perception.
+So, I think there's actually a [statistically sophisticated reply to this](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cu7YY7WdgJBs3DpmJ/the-univariate-fallacy) which I really need to elaborate on more in future posts. To be sure, our man is just relying on his intuitive perception and probably doesn't _know_ the statistically sophisticated reply[ref]Although I would argue that the sophisticated statistics are part of the cognitive-scientific _explanation_ of what he perceives.[/ref]—but it's not clear that we've given him much of a reason to trust our clever verbal arguments over his own perception.
 
 I happily agree that fully consensual gender is a _coherent_ position. That doesn't make it _feasible_. _How_ are you going to maintain that social equilibrium without it being _immediately_ destroyed by normal people who _have eyes_ and don't care about clever philosophical definition-hacking mind games the way that readers of this blog do?
 
-That's not a rhetorical question. In the case of fiat currency, the question _actually has a literal answer_, although I personally am not well-versed enough in economic history to tell it. _Somehow_, societies have evolved from a state in which the idea of paper currency would have provoked a "How dumb do you think I am?" reaction, to the present state where everyone except a few thoroughly marginalized 
-
-
+That's not a rhetorical question. In the case of fiat currency, the question _actually has a literal answer_, although I personally am not well-versed enough in economic history to tell it. _Somehow_, societies have evolved from a condition in which the idea of paper currency would have provoked a "How dumb do you think I am?" reaction, to the present condition where everyone and her dog accepts paper money as money without a thought—where the "somehow" probably involves the use of state violence to enforce banking regulations.
 
 
 
@@ -66,6 +64,9 @@ That's not a rhetorical question. In the case of fiat currency, the question _ac
 
 [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"]
 
+
+what kind of monster could possibly be against _utility_?!
+
 the girl in the  [G.I.R.L.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIRL)