X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fi-tell-myself-sections.md;h=905ee5c54411f8f1f6e213e1819c02d1b7858e10;hp=74331a9e8e040dac9ca0909c0bef4f57222bad7e;hb=7b12b98b0a9cc2c3727849d011732e816954cc99;hpb=296601bf47299a71c3a08fa4e8036ee14e0920f1

diff --git a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
index 74331a9..905ee5c 100644
--- a/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
+++ b/notes/i-tell-myself-sections.md
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ _Literally_ all I'm asking for is for the branded systematically-correct-reasoni
  (2) "Woman" is a noun.
  (3) _Therefore_, you can't define "woman" any way you want without cognitive consequences.
 
-Note, **(3) is _entirely compatible_ with trans women being women**. (I normally eschew the use of boldface in prose, but I'll make this concession to people's inability to read a post of this length.) The point is that if you want to claim that trans women are women, you need some sort of _argument_ for why that categorization makes sense in the context you want to use the word—why that map usefully reflects some relevant aspect of the territory. If you want to _argue_ that hormone replacement therapy constitutes an effective sex change, or that trans is a brain-intersex condition and the brain is the true referent of "gender", or that [coordination constraints on _shared_ categories](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests) [support the self-identification criterion](/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/), that's fine, because those are _arguments_ that someone who initially disagreed with your categorization could _engage with on the merits_. In contrast, "I can define a word any way I want" is a denial of the possibility of merits.
+Note, **(3) is _entirely compatible_ with trans women being women**. (I normally eschew the use of boldface in prose, but I'll make this concession to people's inability to read a post of this length.) The point is that if you want to claim that trans women are women, you need some sort of _argument_ for why that categorization makes sense in the context you want to use the word—why that map usefully reflects some relevant aspect of the territory. If you want to _argue_ that hormone replacement therapy constitutes an effective sex change, or that trans is a brain-intersex condition and the brain is the true referent of "gender", or that [coordination constraints on _shared_ categories](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests) [support the self-identification criterion](/2019/Oct/self-identity-is-a-schelling-point/), that's fine, because those are _arguments_ that someone who initially disagreed with your categorization could _engage with on the merits_. In contrast, "I can define a word any way I want" can't be engaged with in the same way because it's a denial of the possibility of merits.
 
 ------
 
@@ -145,3 +145,5 @@ As I've observed, being famous must _suck_.
 https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/
 
 "People started threatening to use my bad reputation to discredit the communities I was in and the causes I cared about most."
+
+