I'm slightly saddened that you were so rapidly upvoted for lazily mis-applying Eliezer cites as a substitute for doing your own thinking.

I'll take the cites one by one.

The first cite (which you badly paraphrased) concerns people who fail to follow Bayesian rationality and who attempt to excuse this by saying that they followed some social-custom-based rationality. His point in this article is that rationality, true rationality, is not a matter of social rules.

You have mis-applied this. True rationality does not preclude having false factual beliefs on occasion. It is possible, for example, for the evidence to temporarily mislead an ideally rational person.

The second cite is an improvement on the first since you are providing a quote but still does not apply in the way you want it to. His point is that rationalists should win. This does not mean that rationalists will necessarily win every time. Rather, rationalists will win more often than non-rationalists. In Newcomb's Problem Omega has a historical record of being wrong 1 times out of 100, so even if all players have so far been making the correct, rational choice (which is the one-box choice), then 1 out of 100 of them have still been losing. This does not demonstrate that those who picked the one-box and still lost were not, in fact, being rational on those occasions. That they were being rational is demonstrated by the fact that the ones who adopted their exact same strategy won 99 times out of 100.

Ever played poker? You can tell if a player's going to improve a lot or only a little by looking at whether they reward themselves for making the right play win or lose, or for winning the hand right play or no. Analogously, dfranke made the right play and got unlucky.

I can invoke selection effects and the dust specks vs torture post and especially a failure to multiply to explain why the disutility of accidentally insulting a transgendered person appears to outweigh the disutility of adopting a different communication style but does not, but you should be doing that for yourself.

He completely correctly made the assumption that....

Would this phrasing illustrate the nuance I was aiming for better?

Yes. I feel that is an extension on my parenthetical about the other interpretation of correct response - that it could lead to changing the environment.

Predicting when that second result is likely is easy to get wrong.

I'd like to put it down in writing somewhere that I predict a community norm of using nongendered speech, at least on the level of the norm of "read the Sequences", to be fully formed and applied by six months from now.

If someone wants to avoid specifying gender, ey have options.

Spivak pronouns look weird and are hard to read for most people who aren't used to using them. Just use the singular they. Much simpler and has been used colloquially for centuries.

Edit: This seems to be just way too much drama. Can we all just agree that English is a sucky language and that no matter what we do we're going to be using some kludge and just get along?

It's "ey has".