This maybe would have made more sense as a Discord message in a rat server?
People sometimes say that it's impossible to rationally explain gender identity. I've taken this as a challenge, and spent the past few months trying to put together a more sophisticated model than I’ve seen others espouse. I’d like to share what I have in this post. First, though:
One common origin of trouble in discussion around transgenderism is that when a cis person is first exposed to the concept of trans people, they’ll understand that this violates their long-held model of male=man | female=woman, and, given low openness, political prejudice, or other biases, often start a motivated search for other, more intuitive reasons for trans people to exist... (read 3437 more words →)
My guess is that this post was going over well-trodden ground, being mostly wrong yet taking kind of an authoratiative tone anyway, and doing so in a format that suggested it lacked any revision at all? I think the topics you're grappling with are understandable things to be confused about, but on LessWrong, it's generally treatead as better to express one's uncertainty in a tone of uncertainty; and if the topic seems like one people should definitely have already poured some resources into exploring, e.g. probability theory, then asking if those explorations exist + where they might be seems like an obviously better approach to your confusion than a confident, free-form ramble.... (read more)