= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (866)
Because it's a valid Bayesian inference based on the content of the post.
Given the issue of being misgendered, the person seems to be a transperson who either was female in the past and is now male or who was male and is now female. To you think post indicates which of those are the case?
I think the post makes clear that the person is no cis-male, but it's difficult to say things that are more specific.
It's really not. They refer to being misgendered, which should have been strong evidence your assumption was mistaken. And indeed, if you had clicked through to their "about" page you would have found they prefer to be referred to with male pronouns.
I don't really care - I'm fairly certain this is the work of a troll - but hey, you claimed it was an example of valid Bayesian inference, so naturally I'm going to leap on it.