XPEARA

the literal sense of the phrase is something like, "how he carries himself by his os"† with the difficulty that os can refer either to the mouth specifically (and, therefore, metonymically, speech) or to one's mien or countenance. so there's a genuine ambiguity in how to interpret the line

or at least, that was my crude understanding; but since every other source I could find took this to be talking about aeneas's physical beauty, I started to get worried about the scholarly authority of the (relatively minor) text I was using, and asked claude how marginal the "speech" interpretation was, who pointed me to pease's stunningly thorough commentary on the poem

(seriously, click through that link—there's a full page or more of commentary for each single line in the aeneid)

and pease has this to say about quem sese ore ferens:

the Scholia Danielis are in doubt whether this refers to speech or appearance, yet if we have the same idea as in 3, 490: sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat (cf. Sil. 8, 72 (of Aeneas): noto sese ore ferebat) it seems likely that the appearance is intended; cf. also 1, 503: talem se laeta ferebat.

the scholia danielis of course (obviously!) refers to the ~11th century expansion (see servius's wikipedia page for some context on the manuscript tradition here) of the roman grammarian servius's commentary on the aeneid, which says: (§ 4.11 at the link)

QUEM SESE ORE FERENS cum eum ob virtutem laudet, addendo tamen os nec pulchritudinem denegaverit. 'ore' autem 'ferens' utrum oratione, an vultu, dubium est.

or (my translation)

QUEM SESE ORE FERENS while she praises his character, by adding "os" she does not deny his beauty. whether, though, 'ore ferens' refers to his speech or his countenance is unclear.

so: while the modern consensus (n.b.: I say "consensus" but it's not like I've checked that many independent sources) seems to prefer the "by his countenance" reading, there has been doubt over which reading is licensed for at least the last 1000 years

honestly, just the fact that both readings are possible suggests to me that the ambiguity itself is intended. we're talking about about one of the most highly acclaimed classical poets, after all. but I haven't really seen anybody taking this tack

"it's a buffalo, it can't look that much like him-"

Evaluating the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. (Bohr-Einstein debates)

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. (Empirical tests of Bell's inequality) (in fairness nobody knew this at the time)

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". (his name is on the paper)

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". (Einstein came up with the core thought experiments, and Rosen did most of the work formalizing them)

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". (he claims QM is correct but incomplete, and so it does not provide a mechanism for how entangled states collapse while preserving angular momentum)

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). (he did think he was on Einstein's level. in fairness he was right.)

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. (Einstein had one and presumably thought he deserved it)

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) (it's called the EPR paradox)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. (he was)

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. (the nazis did actually really hate his ideas, it was a whole thing)

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. (Bell figured these out later but it took a while)

So you think trans women are men?

No, this post describes a position that TERFs hold. This post is anti-TERF.

Do TERFs actually hate men? It seems like they just hate trans women.

You may be confusing a more garden-variety reactionary for a TERF. I encourage you to search the word "moid" on this site to gain a better understanding of how the average TERF feels about men.

Does this imply trans women and men are under similar levels of threat from TERFism?

Not even a little bit.

What's the point of making a post like this?

People are going to come up with new & different interpretations of your story regardless of whether you reveal yours! You're withholding information that might add depth to the experience for no actual reason.

1. sometimes (and, imo, particularly often with good fiction writing) the "intended interpretation" is too large to fit within the margin, sometimes to the point where the least lacking expression of what is meant is the book itself

2. sometimes an official answer will in fact serve as a thought-terminator

3. sometimes the process of the reader puzzling something out is part of the "point", not just instrumentally for the purpose of suspense and keeping the reader's keen attention to details, but "terminally", for its own sake