Does this mean that my art, my path, is now tainted by “male, American, middle-class, white, named Adam, human, born in 1984”? I think, in a nit-picky and causal sense, the answer is yes. The key phrase in the quote above is that this art becomes “tied into every part” of ourselves.
I think we need to remember the distinction between sex and gender. It is our identity (how we interpret our physical description and existence) that our art/path is tied to, not our physical description/existence itself. I’m glad curious brought it up, but this thread still seems to be using “sex” where it means “gender” (how we interpret our sex given social norms, etc).
So, my ability to build on Eliezer’s posted knowledge is not dependent on physical differences explained by my sex, but the similarities I perceive between Eliezer’s reported-identity and my identity. (This is why I would expect “communicating in the maze” to be necessary, not to find out whether Eliezer is male.)
I expect this would be true until we discover exactly what mental traits have been genetically hardwired to correspond to sex, and how those traits socialize.
Given that we haven’t yet, I would imagine that we shouldn’t be asking what a “female-rationalist” would do but what a “rationalist who identifies as a woman” would do.
Given that we haven’t yet, I would imagine that we shouldn’t be asking what a “female-rationalist” would do but what a “rationalist who identifies as a woman” would do.
It seems likely that either will be substantially different. The personalities of the trans men I know are significantly formed by female socialization. The trans women I know are similarly affected by male socialization. They are not what they were raised to be, but how they were raised is a significant part of who they are; in most cases a part they dislike and repudiate, but still a major influence on the people they are.
Of course, the oldest trans person I know is barely 30. Potentially those influences will go away with age, but I doubt it. They may disappear from view, but still have a backstage role.
I think we need to remember the distinction between sex and gender. It is our identity (how we interpret our physical description and existence) that our art/path is tied to, not our physical description/existence itself. I’m glad curious brought it up, but this thread still seems to be using “sex” where it means “gender” (how we interpret our sex given social norms, etc).
So, my ability to build on Eliezer’s posted knowledge is not dependent on physical differences explained by my sex, but the similarities I perceive between Eliezer’s reported-identity and my identity. (This is why I would expect “communicating in the maze” to be necessary, not to find out whether Eliezer is male.)
I expect this would be true until we discover exactly what mental traits have been genetically hardwired to correspond to sex, and how those traits socialize.
Given that we haven’t yet, I would imagine that we shouldn’t be asking what a “female-rationalist” would do but what a “rationalist who identifies as a woman” would do.
It seems likely that either will be substantially different. The personalities of the trans men I know are significantly formed by female socialization. The trans women I know are similarly affected by male socialization. They are not what they were raised to be, but how they were raised is a significant part of who they are; in most cases a part they dislike and repudiate, but still a major influence on the people they are.
Of course, the oldest trans person I know is barely 30. Potentially those influences will go away with age, but I doubt it. They may disappear from view, but still have a backstage role.