metagameface :3 - 昨天晚上9點01分
Like, having a term for women with penises, is making it more of a category than it probably needs to be, because the contexts in which you need to specifically talk about women with penises are few, compared the the contexts in which you need to talk about women, or talk about people with penises.
Hive - 昨天晚上9點07分
Something tells us any such term would be worn out in seconds on the euphemism treadmill.
metagameface :3 - 昨天晚上9點10分
Right, but my point is that the desire to have a term seems suspect, because why are you singling out women with penises to the point that you need a quicker way to refer to them as a group?
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點18分
because futa are hot
and sex is important to people?
Hive - 昨天晚上9點21分
Considering all the trans people we know irl experience a good deal of like, discomfort and distress w/r/t their genitals, putting them in a group that defines them specifically by genitals seems really shitty.
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點25分
yeah different people have different needs
and the needs of pervs is outweighed by the needs of innocent victims. IDK this is probably not a thing to say in public with people who are not your friends.
Arguing over which priors to use for generic [member of class] isn't fun.
metagameface :3 - 昨天晚上9點28分
nods
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點28分
Just like give a survey or something maybe.
Hive - 昨天晚上9點33分
We think that's just it though Somni, at least from our experience, like, trans men for instance, don't want to be in the set of [trans men] they want to be in the set of [men]. They don't want to be treated like a special case distinct from the generic [men] set. Most people don't transition from like, male to transgender, they transition from male to female.
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點43分
Not all trans people want to assimilate into social structures for the gender they transition to, but for ~90% probably. Trans people, however aren't the only morally relevant agents involved here. The people who creep and perv on trans people (including pervs who are trans) also have experiences and emotions. And being able to talk about what you like is important for them emotionally. When interacting with trans people who are not a part of their subculture using the distinction is probably a net negative utility wise. I see not problem with these people having and using terms with these distinctions within their own subculture.
And I think this is a ~motte and bailey. A bit here or something. The conversation started vague and now I am talking about specific solutions.
So we should probably refresh and update when these things happen to see if we still disagree. I disagree with you if you say that a distinction between [girls] and [girls] with dicks is a net negative for the world.
Serei c: - 昨天晚上9點46分
@metagameface :3, having a term for women with penises is quite relevant
when you're, like
looking for porn of women with penises
which is the context in which this was brought up
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點48分
^
Serei c: - 昨天晚上9點49分
also futas are different from women with penises, or at least the Japanese term 'futa' is
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點49分
eh yes but also it gets applied to trans girls
people have arguments about this on like 4chan
metagameface :3 - 昨天晚上9點50分
@Serei c: Ah, I missed that context
微梦 - 昨天晚上9點50分
Okay I mean grrr maybe I am being 2edgy but this is What Somni Actually Believes. And I may be being more forceful on this point because it brings up a rhetorical thing that has been annoying me for a while I both want to reject the point and the technique.
Which is gerrymandering morally relevant agents to make your proposal come up with positive net utility.
I think this is done when there aren't separate stages for expressing your needs and collectively trying to figure out what is best for the benefit of every agent who is affected by the choice.
~ And people present what they need and their concerns as a "plan that helps everyone" because they don't want what they care about left out of consideration.
Instead of what should be protocol which is everyone stating what they want and are sensitive to and then discussing the situation and then brainstorming a solution.
In discrete steps.
Hive - 昨天晚上9點55分
Something something Moloch
kerapace :s - 昨天晚上9點56分
I mean, I think we already have different terms (non-offensive ones, even) for people and pornography, and I think that's probably as close as we're going to get to a nice compromise
one can talk about people, the other can be used to talk about people's sexual preferences
Hive - 昨天晚上9點57分
Isn't that literal objectification though?
微梦 - 昨天晚上10點00分
But yeah if your plan makes excuses for omitting a class of people because they are serial killers or unintelligent or have a different political philosophy or have money or just leaves them out of consideration entirely, it is probably because including these people makes figuring out a solution that benefits everyone is a hard problem and the planners do not want to cede power because ceding power is painful and might give their ground fewer nice things.
When you measure the goodness of a plan ideally you estimate what it does to all morally relevant agents (not non-computing rocks etc.) who are affected by the change and see how to fit everyone's needs together. When making a choice the chooser should desperately want to live in a world where every hair is numbered and every grain of sand.
Hive - 昨天晚上10點07分
Unless you can actually do that math and show the positive effects outway the negatives then all of that is just talk though.
微梦 - 昨天晚上10點13分
It is talk which gives us the heuristics that of you omit a class of people affected by the thing from your considerations, you cannot knowingly converge on the correct answer even if you have all the exact numbers.
Hive - 昨天晚上10點15分
Okay sure but in that case Chesterton's Fence.
微梦 - 昨天晚上10點16分
It is strictly worse for working out a solution that actually works for all parties if just drop a class of people from consideration. Unless information about them is smuggled in through other avenues.
Hive - 昨天晚上10點17分
Okay like, fine, we're not saying 'ignore perverts values' or anything. As a pervert ourselves that would directly effect us. But like, show us the math.
kerapace :s - 昨天晚上10點17分
somni I am very confused at what you are saying
微梦 - 昨天晚上10點21分
If "Chesterson's fence" points to the argument I think it does, then I don't think it is even applicable. I know why people are dropped from consideration and I have seen it cause dysfunction and failed plans. I am not saying "why are perverts not being taken into consideration here it seems like and arbitrary hold over from barbaric times". I am saying that omitting people from consideration causes specific harm and is done because people don't want their group to be shafted at the negotiating table so they draw the line around who matters such that there is little uncertainty over whether they will "win" the resources.
@kerapace :s Then I shall dispel your confusion!
A questioning technique from debates in the middle ages: Can you write out what you think I am saying so far and what part is the Region of Confusion?
kerapace :s - 昨天晚上10點27分
so you're saying that the feelings of people who are attracted to trans people need to be taken into account when making the calculus of what language people use when talking about their gender and genitalia
微梦 - 昨天晚上10點38分
@Hive :3 There is a reason people use mathematical models for things that are messy and hard to quantify and this is because they are kind of useful. Thinking about things in terms of utilitarianism even though the numbers are hard to locate instead of just doing what just feels right on an intuitive level at least prevents people from donating to things like the Make A Wish Foundation. Which is clearly not effective at all according to pretty much any metric of charity evaluation that cares for maximizing happiness per a dollar. But the thing is a lot of people don't even think of evaluating this class of things in a considered way as a thing that is done. So even though many of the people who are donating to EA things aren't actually doing any math they still do better than people who use no framework at all and wing it 100% on impulses like guilt or desire to help cute kids.
Even if they have only rough numbers, using the model that dominates intuitions under perfect information out performs the the intuitions when both processes are given approximately correct information.
There are times when over analysis harms people and the intuitive processes of the brain dominate because they are more efficient than formalized processes using imperfect information as inputs. But I do not think [neglecting to include members of a class of people who are not you in a choice of who should get what resources is a time when intuitive biases do better at locating solutions that are good for all parties] is one of the situations that is easier to reason about when given over to human intuition.
@kerapace :s This is correct!
Hive - 昨天晚上10點47分
Fine, but we're arguing that in such a situation, doing nothing is a better option then messing with the status quo and adding words to the language that might be harmful. We're arguing for the status quo, unless you can actually do the math that shows that changing the language the way you're proposing will do more good for people attracted to trans people, then it will do harm to trans people (who are already disproportionately marginalized already). Unless you can actually show us the data on that, we're not going to find your argument particularly compelling. Chesterton's fence! basically.
微梦 - 昨天晚上11點02分
Ah! I kind of agree with you there! I think the current direction of word use is good and words shouldn't be regulated and communities of people perving on trans girls should be allowed to use whatever words they want in their own communities. However the phrase "maintain the status quo" is weird and like "act natural". I mean what actions do and do not maintain it how do we measure the difference between how we would act with no agreement. etc. What if without being told to maintain the status quo someone goes out and says that all trans girls are traps and gay. Is that maintaining the status quo or not? Assume that none of us did anything and in fact were locked in a room away from the rest of the world. (Although that would be changing the status quo.)
I'm not you, but I think that maintaining the status quo in this case would call you to make a positive action to tell the person saying that to stop advocating for this or to write letters about why they were wrong because they were doing was changing the status quo. If by maintaining the status quo you mean let the communities hash it out between each other with good negotiation norms where everyone's concerns and needs are heard and navigated around so that they fit together in a positive sum way, then we agree on this!
Hive - 昨天晚上11點06分
Realistically communities aren't going to neatly hash it out between each other in every case. Within communities definitely, smaller ones specially, but yes.
