Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

In response to comment by math55 on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: gjm 22 March 2017 03:14:15AM 0 points [-]

How do you know?

Note that I (deliberately) said "are apparently very much rarer ...". I know that because I encounter (in person, on the internet, in others' accounts of conversations they've had, etc.) a lot more people who say they're trans than people who say they're divine avatars. Whether they're actually much rarer, I don't claim to know.

if we look back as recently as say 50 years ago we'd find them much rarer than people claiming to be avatars.

How do you know that?

how do you know there aren't a similar or greater number of avatars also in the closet?

I don't. But if they're in the closet, then they aren't talking about their experiences as (alleged) avatars, which means that their alleged avatarity doesn't give rise to much need for special terminology. Whereas trans people are (apparently) more common and (certainly) more vocal, so conversations about unusual gender issues do happen, and some terminology is useful for those conversations.

In response to comment by gjm on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: math55 22 March 2017 04:25:14AM *  0 points [-]

But if they're in the closet, then they aren't talking about their experiences as (alleged) avatars, which means that their alleged avatarity doesn't give rise to much need for special terminology.

Well maybe if the specialized terminology and associated support system existed they'd be more willing to come out of the closet. That's the order in which things happened with people claiming to be the opposite gender.

In response to comment by math55 on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: gjm 21 March 2017 12:24:33PM 0 points [-]

Rather we object to singling out a particular form of insanity and treating it as an alternate form of sanity, and then insisting that everyone else play along with you.

Potayto, potahto.

So why don't you also have analogous conversations where words like "unavatarilicious" or "non-schizophrenic", or especially "non-autistic" would be useful anywhere near as often?

It's hard to be sure. Part of the reason is that otherwise-normal people who think or feel themselves to be avatars of gods are apparently very much rarer than otherwise-normal who think or feel themselves to be of a gender different from the one you'd guess from looking at the shape of their body. That seems like an important fact. (You might claim that it's true only because of some kind of social-justice-feminist-warrior conspiracy, but I see no good reason to believe that; I think it gets the causality backwards.)

There are words for "non-autistic" that get used in conversations in communities where there are more than averagely many autistic people. I've seen "allistic", for instance. ("Neurotypical" is probably commonest. It's an interesting one because -- see above -- it looks like a broader word that's being used more specifically in a particular context, but I think the actual history is that the first uses of "neurotypical" were actually to mean "not autistic".)

In response to comment by gjm on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: math55 22 March 2017 02:47:20AM *  0 points [-]

Part of the reason is that otherwise-normal people who think or feel themselves to be avatars of gods are apparently very much rarer than otherwise-normal who think or feel themselves to be of a gender different from the one you'd guess from looking at the shape of their body.

How do you know? Granted the people who claim to be the wrong gender are more prominent (not necessarily more common) now, but if we look back as recently as say 50 years ago we'd find them much rarer than people claiming to be avatars. The official PC position as I understand it (this may well be a steelman) is that those people always existed and were simply in the closet/in denial because society wasn't prepared to accept them. But if you claim that's the case how do you know there aren't a similar or greater number of avatars also in the closet?

In response to comment by bogus on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: gjm 21 March 2017 12:10:53AM 0 points [-]

I guess. It feels to me as if saying "not trans" instead of "cis" when the need arises would foreground transness more rather than less. But I guess what some people actually object to is not in fact the term "cis" but acknowledging the existence of transness at all. In other words, the solution that e.g. Eugine wants to the alleged problem that we say things using a term "cis" that he thinks shouldn't exist isn't that we say those things without using the term "cis" but that we not have the sort of conversations in which the term would be useful.

In response to comment by gjm on Am I Really an X?
Comment author: math55 21 March 2017 01:16:32AM 0 points [-]

But I guess what some people actually object to is not in fact the term "cis" but acknowledging the existence of transness at all.

Rather we object to singling out of a particular form of insanity and treating it as an alternate form of sanity, and then insisting that everyone else play along with you.

that we say those things without using the term "cis" but that we not have the sort of conversations in which the term would be useful.

So why don't you also have analogous conversations where words like "unavatarilicious" or "non-schizophrenic", or especially "non-autistic" would be useful anywhere near as often?

Comment author: math55 20 March 2017 10:15:23PM 0 points [-]

Ok, so now they're deleting any comments I replied to? What's next, deleting this whole post? How about just preemptively delete all posts.