X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fchallenges-notes.md;fp=notes%2Fchallenges-notes.md;h=1c2354ef6d7d88ec6d90df02164d7ef770388d53;hp=07dd6ee73ca5837c2e2f9989b260b55919968a45;hb=ec0140cc1bbba9c0e8d8f4826cd4acc55c7e5e4d;hpb=1fd431bc771e1afcbfb26d7c923fc796ee32f2a2

diff --git a/notes/challenges-notes.md b/notes/challenges-notes.md
index 07dd6ee..1c2354e 100644
--- a/notes/challenges-notes.md
+++ b/notes/challenges-notes.md
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ Fit in somewhere—
  * "gamete size"—this is a tic where everyone knows what sex is, but no one is allowed to acknowledge the cluster  
  * maybe worth explaining why I keep saying "sex category" instead of "gender"—and be consistent about it
  * transition interventions are bundled
+ * also take a crack at the Aristotelan binary sports Tweet
+ * this post needs to exist because I can't let him have the last word
  * I need to acknowledge the
 > In a wide variety of cases, sure, they can clearly communicate the unambiguous sex and gender of something that has an unambiguous sex and gender, much as a different language might have pronouns that sometimes clearly communicated hair color to the extent that hair color often fell into unambiguous clusters.
 
@@ -56,3 +58,7 @@ I already have Yudkowsky blocked on Twitter, because it turns out that me talkin
 Nevertheless, I think I'm justified in posting this comment sharing a link to this write-up explaining everything that Yudkowsky is doing wrong in the above post + comments, because I have a legitimate interest in preventing other people from being harmed by trusting Yudkowsky's intellectual integrity and competence the way I used to: [link]
 
 One imagines that Yudkowsky's optimal response here is to ignore this (rather than, say, acknowledging my incredibly obvious point that the appeal of the self-ID pronoun convention rests on the existing meanings of gendered pronouns, such that it's hypocritical to play dumb about there being existing meanings while defending the self-ID convention). If he already thought the PR risk of violating ideological taboos outweighed the benefits of having a rationality community that can think in public in a principled PR-blind manner, it's unclear why offering more arguments would change this: if the trust of people who want to be able to think in public isn't as valuable of an existential-risk-reduction resource as staying on Stalin's good side, then being trustworthy would be a dumb move! Whatever's best for the lightcone, you know?
+
+----
+
+How sensitive is he to reputational concerns? Compare feud with Alexander Kruel