Oftentimes I want to categorize people by sex, and formulate hypotheses of the form, "If you're female/male, then ...". This is a natural category that buys me [predictions about lots of stuff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans).
-_Sometimes_ I want to categorize people by gynephilic/androphilic sexual orientation: this helps me make sense of how [lesbians are masculine compared to other females, and gay men are feminine compared to other males](http://unremediatedgender.space/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf). (That is, it looks like _homosexuality_—not the kind of trans people we know—is probably a brain intersex condition, and the extreme right tail of homosexuality accounts for the kind of trans people we don't know.)
+_Sometimes_ I want to categorize people by gynephilic/androphilic sexual orientation: this helps me make sense of how [lesbians are masculine compared to other females, and gay men are feminine compared to other males](http://unremediatedgender.space/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf). (That is, it looks like _homosexuality_—not the kind of trans people we know—is probably a brain intersex condition, and the extreme right tail of homosexuality accounts for the kind of trans people we mostly don't know.)
But even so, when thinking about sexual orientation, I'm usually making a _within_-sex comparison: contrasting how gay men are different from ordinary men, how lesbians are different from ordinary women. I don't usually have much need to reason about "people who are attracted to the sex that they are" as a group, because that group splits cleanly into gay men and lesbians, which have a _different_ [underlying causal structure](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vhp2sW6iBhNJwqcwP/blood-is-thicker-than-water). "LGBT" (...QUIA+) makes sense as a _political coalition_ (who have a shared interest in resisting the oppression of traditional sexual morality), not because the L and the G and the B and the T are the same kind of people who live common lives. (Indeed, as you know, I don't even think the "T" is one thing.)
And so, given that I _already_ don't have much use for "if you are a sex, and you're attracted to that sex" as a category of analytical interest, because I think gay men and lesbians are different things that need to be studied separately, "if you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender" (with respect to "gender", not sex) comes off even worse. What causal mechanism could that possibly, _possibly_ correspond to?!
-Again, I'm self-conscious that to someone who doesn't already share my worldview, this seems dogmatically non-empirical—here I'm telling you why I can't take your theory seriously without even _addressing_ the survey data that you think your theory can explain that mine can't. Is this not a scientific sin? What is this "but causal mechanisms" gibberish, in the face of _empirical_ survey data, huh?
+Again, I'm self-conscious that to someone who doesn't already share my worldview, this seems dogmatically non-empirical—here I'm telling you why I can't take your theory seriously without even _addressing_ the survey data that you think your theory can explain that mine can't. Is this not a scientific sin? What is this "but causal mechanisms" technobabble, in the face of _empirical_ survey data, huh?
The thing is, I don't see my theory as _making_ particularly strong advance predictions one way or the other on how cis women or gay men will respond to the "imagine being him/her" questions.
-The _reason_ I believe autogynephlia (in males) "is a thing" and causally potent to transgenderedness in the first place, is not because trans women gave a mean Likert response of 3.4 on anyone's survey, but as the output of my brain's inductive inference algorithms operating on a _massive_ confluence of a [real-life experiences](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/) and observations in a naturalistic setting. (That's how people [locate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MwQRucYo6BZZwjKE7/einstein-s-arrogance) survey questions are worth asking in the first place, out of the vastness of possible survey questions.)
+The _reason_ I believe autogynephlia (in males) "is a thing" and causally potent to transgenderedness in the first place, is not because trans women gave a mean Likert response of 3.4 on someone's survey, but as the output of my brain's inductive inference algorithms operating on a _massive_ confluence of a [real-life experiences](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/) and observations in a naturalistic setting. (That's how people [locate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MwQRucYo6BZZwjKE7/einstein-s-arrogance) survey questions are worth asking in the first place, out of the vastness of possible survey questions.)
-If you look at what trans women say _to each other_ when the general public isn't looking, you see the same stories (examples from /r/MtF: ["I get horny when I do 'girl things'. Is this a fetish?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/qy4ncb/i_get_horny_when_i_do_girl_things_is_this_a_fetish/), ["Is the 'body swap' fetish inherently pre-trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/q8k57y/is_the_body_swap_fetish_inherently_pretrans/), ["Could it be a sex fantasy?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/rd78kw/could_it_be_a_sex_fantasy/), _&c._, _ad infinitum_) _over and over and over_ again. [TODI: mention the 83% poll and how it's more organic than the cold SSC survey]
+If you look at what trans women say _to each other_ when the general public isn't looking, you see the same stories (examples from /r/MtF: ["I get horny when I do 'girl things'. Is this a fetish?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/qy4ncb/i_get_horny_when_i_do_girl_things_is_this_a_fetish/), ["Is the 'body swap' fetish inherently pre-trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/q8k57y/is_the_body_swap_fetish_inherently_pretrans/), ["Could it be a sex fantasy?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/rd78kw/could_it_be_a_sex_fantasy/), _&c._, _ad infinitum_) _over and over and over_ again.
Without making any pretentions whatsoever to rigor or Science, but _just_ looking at the world and trying to describe it in words, I think there is clearly a _thing_ here. When I look at what women write, and when I look at what gay men write, I don't see the _same thing_.
-I freely admit that this art of looking at how people behave in the world and trying to describe what you see, is not a Science, because it relies on your brain's magical (as the term of art for "capabilities we don't know how to program") pattern-matching abilities that other people might doubt, whereas if you have a pre-registered survey of fixed questions, and the target demographic comes back and says 3.4, other people can't seriously doubt that they did, in fact, say 3.4.
+_After_ observing this kind of pattern in the world, it's a good idea to do surveys to get some numbers and data to help you learn more about what's going on with the pattern. There's clearly a thing here, but is the thing being generated by a _visible minority_, or is it actually a majority? When [82% of /r/MtF users say Yes to "Did you have a gender/body swap/transformation "fetish" (or similar) before you realised you were trans?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/89nw0w/did_you_have_a_genderbody_swaptransformation/), that makes me think it's actually a majority.
-Nevertheless, looking at how people behave in the world and trying to describe what you see is a form of _empiricism_, even if it's less third-party-legible than Science. In trying to upgrade our naïve empiricism to a Science, we should hope to design careful surveys to give us quantitative measurements of the qualitative patterns we see "in the wild", but getting this right is a surprisingly tricky endeavor. We're not obligated to throw away all our qualitative observations, in favor of single (!) survey question, just because the latter is quantifiable.
+When you pose a vaguely similar question to a different group, are you measuring the same real-world phenomenon in that other group? Maybe, but I think this is very nonobvious.
-You wrote about this in ["My IRB Nightmare"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/), expressing skepticism about a screening test for bipolar disorder:
+And it contexts where it's not politically inconvenient for you, _you agree with me_: you wrote about this methodological issue in ["My IRB Nightmare"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/), expressing skepticism about a screening test for bipolar disorder:
> You ask patients a bunch of things like "Do you ever feel really happy, then really sad?". If they say 'yes' to enough of these questions, you start to worry.
> The answer: Yes
-I see this "want her or want to be her" sentiment from trans women _and_ non-transitioned AGP men _very_ frequently. I can't recall any instances of cis lesbians saying this. The poster herself seems to implicitly acknowledge this, by calling it a "trans lesbian question" rather than merely a "lesbian" question!
+I see this "want her or want to be her" sentiment from trans women _and_ non-transitioned AGP men _very_ frequently. I can't recall any instances of cis lesbians saying this. _The poster herself seems to implicitly acknowledge this_, by calling it a "trans lesbian question" rather than merely a "lesbian" question!!
-I think the boring hypothesis here is "Yes, of course, because trans women are AGP men, which are not the same thing as actual lesbians." Again, this isn't Science, because I'm just using my brain's pattern-matching capabilities (I could be selectively remembering, distorting my categories, _&c._). With time and funding, I'm sure it would be possible to make it more formal—gather Reddit comments from cis and trans women, have raters categorize themes while blinded to the cis/trans identity of the authors ...
+I think the boring hypothesis here is "Yes, of course, because trans women are AGP men, which are not the same thing as actual lesbians." This isn't Science, because I'm just using my brain's pattern-matching capabilities (I could be selectively remembering, distorting my categories, _&c._). With time and funding, I'm sure it would be possible to make it more formal—gather Reddit comments from cis and trans women, have raters categorize themes while blinded to the cis/trans identity of the authors ...
But I begin to despair this is a domain where [Science can't help](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wzxneh7wxkdNYNbtB/when-science-can-t-help). It seems like people mostly _agree_ about empirical observations! People _agree_ that AGP is common in lesbian trans women (after this is pointed out with sufficient force, if it looks like the general public isn't looking). You _agree_ that it looks like there are two types of MtF differentiated by sexual orientation; you just think that the second type is also an intersex condition because ... ???
If it were _just_ a matter of different priors (where my stronger [inductive bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_bias) lets me learn faster from less data, at the cost of [being wrong in universes that I think mostly don't exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization)), I would expect you to express more uncertainty. I would _totally_ respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality. [I _agree_ that causality is _much harder_ to pin down than mere correlation.](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/)
-But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"!! If you're _not_ playing a "does the evidence permit me to believe" game, I just don't see how you think the _SSC_ survey data is powerful enough to answer that question one way or the other! If I had a prior belief that invisible dragons were plausible, I would remain agnostic about the no-dragon _vs._ invisible-dragon hypotheses upon seeing an apparently empty garage. But to say that the no-dragon hypothesis "just seems totally wrong" ... ?!?!
+But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"!! If you're _not_ playing a "does the evidence permit me to believe" game, I just don't see how you think the _SSC_ survey data is powerful enough to answer that question one way or the other! If I had a prior belief that invisible dragons were plausible, I would remain _agnostic_ about the no-dragon _vs._ invisible-dragon hypotheses upon seeing an apparently empty garage. But to say that the no-dragon hypothesis "just seems totally wrong" ... ?!?!
------
-
-
-----
-
-I think "Men who sexually fantasize about being women, do not particularly resemble actual women" _is_ the "boring" hypothesis—boring in the sense that Steve Sailer's views on race are boring, in that _everyone knows this shit instinctively_, but no one at your respectibility level can say it out loud because you're insane religious fanatics who are
-
-In ["My IRB Nightmare"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/), you express skepticism about a screening test for bipolar disorder:
-
-> You ask patients a bunch of things like "Do you ever feel really happy, then really sad?". If they say 'yes' to enough of these questions, you start to worry.
-
-> Some psychiatrists love this test. I hate it. Patients will say "Yes, that absolutely describes me!" and someone will diagnose them with bipolar disorder. Then if you ask what they meant, they'd say something like "Once my local football team made it to the Super Bowl and I was really happy, but then they lost and I was really sad." I don't even want to tell you how many people get diagnosed bipolar because of stuff like this.
-
-> There was a study that supposedly proved this test worked. But parts of it confused me, and it was done on a totally different population that didn't generalize to hospital inpatients.
-
-The reason it makes any sense at all for you to be skeptical, is because our beliefs about the existence and etiology of "bipolar disorder", don't completely stand or fall on this particular test. People _already_ had many observations pointing to the idea of "bipolar disorder" as a common cluster of symptoms. From your years of clinical experience, you know with your eyes what the cluster looks like. So when people whose favorite team lost the Super Bowl happen to answer "Yes" to the some of the same survey questions as people who you've _seen_ in the frenzy of mania and depths of depression, you generate the hypothesis: "Gee, maybe different populations are interpreting the question differently." Not as a _certainty_—maybe further research will provide more solid evidence that "bipolar disorder" isn't what you thought—but there's nothing un-Bayesian about thinking that your brain's pattern-matching capabilities are on to something important that this particular survey instrument isn't catching. You're not scientifically obligated to _immediately_ jump to "Bipolar Is Common and Not Especially Related to Mania or Depression."
-
--------
-
-In the case of the etiology and taxonomy of MtF, it seems to me that informed observers typically _agree_ that there's a pretty stark bimodality in the data (very large effect sizes, even if not of course not literally everyone fits the stereotype, because _nothing_ in psychology is that clean): that androphilic MtF transsexuals tend to have been overtly feminine their entire lives in a way that's noticeable to others (such that they "stick out" in Society as effeminate men if they _didn't_ transition), but gynephilic/bi/asexual MtF transsexuals don't fit this profile (living as ordinary men before "coming out"), and very frequently report a history of erotic female transformation fantasies (autogynephilia)—which shows up not only in easily-quantifiable surveys, but also qualitatively if you [just _read_ the things non-androphilic MtFs write in their own forums when the general public isn't looking](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/search?q=fetish&restrict_sr=on).
-
-Anyway, if we agree on the basic observations, what's at issue? [What's at issue is the _causality_](http://unremediatedgender.space/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/): does AGP cause gender identity (such that these are, basically, straight males with a fetish), or does gender identity (presumably caused by some underlying brain intersex condition) get eroticized and manifest as AGP?
-
-I readily admit that I can't definitely _prove_ that it's not an intersex condition. Nevertheless—if I'm just being honest about the inference procedure my brain is _actually_ using, without pretending that it's more rigorous than it is—I think this question is _actually_ pretty obvious if you have functional parsimony intuitions about how the world works.
-
-To me, the qualitative observations are very important, because they have a lot of details about what the psychological phenomenon actually is. (The qualitative observations are what _motivated_ the survey question, to try to get a more quantifiable measurement of something we already had reason to believe exists.) An ordinary cis woman who reads the survey question, "How sexually arousing would you find it to imagine being her?" with no context, is not necessarily in the same headspace as an MtF transsexual, even if they end up giving the same number—just like someone who's never had a real manic–depressive cycle might give the same answer to "Do you ever feel really happy, then really sad?" because they're remembering when their team lost the Super Bowl. (If you were worried about a bipolar screening test not generalizing to a group so different as "hospital inpatients", how much more worried should you be about asking people of _different sexes_ questions _about sexuality_?)
-
-Anecdotally, when I talked about my experiences to Sarah Constantin, her _first_ reaction was to say that she
-
-[...]
-
-Just—_other than_ this mysterious sexualized _desire_ to be female, the biological _and_ psychological traits of the group in question seem to be in the _male_ normal range. Notice how your survey had almost eight times as many lesbian trans women than straight trans women? That's _not_ what the distribution of sexual orientation looks like among cis women. But if we consider that trans women are _male_, and males tend to be attracted to females, the data looks _less confusing_. Or did you know that [the ratio of trans to cis women among Haskell programmers is close to 1:1](http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Nov/survey-data-on-cis-and-trans-women-among-haskell-programmers/)? That's _way_ off from the ratio in the general population. The data looks _less confusing_ if you think of it as "at least 1.5% of male Haskell programmers wish they were female" rather than "Haskell programmers with female gender identities are equally likely to be trans or cis".
-
-Your "If you identify as a gender, and you're attracted to that gender [...]" hypothesis seriously is treating "gender identity" as a causally potent variable that means the same thing in trans people and cis people. And just—the world doesn't look that way
-
-Even if it were _true_ that the late-onset type were caused by some
-
-You point to your survey data saying that cis gay men are autoandrophilic as something Blanchard–Bailey–Lawrence can't explain, but I don't see my theory as being particularly committed to making predictions about how gay men will answer the "Picture a very attractive man [...]" question. It's a different population!
-
-I would totally respect it if you were merely _uncertain_ about the AGP→gender-ID _vs._ gender-ID→AGP causality; I can't expect everyone to share my parsimony intuitions. But on Discord, you said "it just seemed totally wrong"! I just don't think that's something you can possibly conclude based on how _other populations_ are answering similar survey questions!
-
-
> We have a debate every year over whether 50% predictions are meaningful in this paradigm; feel free to continue it.
Someone reading this who trusted Alexander as a general-purpose intellectual authority ("the best of us", the "rationalists") might walk away with the idea that it's an open problem whether 50% binary predictions are meaningful—perhaps reasoning, if the immortal Scott Alexander doesn't know, then who am I to know?
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff