One could argue that this “Words can be wrong when your definition draws a boundary around things that don’t really belong together” moral didn’t apply to Yudkowsky’s new Tweets, which only mentioned pronouns and bathroom policies, not the extensions of common nouns.
But this seems pretty unsatisfying in the context of Yudkowsky’s claim to “not [be] taking a stand for or against any Twitter policies”. One of the Tweets that had recently led to radical feminist Meghan Murphy getting kicked off the platform read simply, “Men aren’t women tho.” This doesn’t seem like a policy claim; rather, Murphy was using common language to express the fact-claim that members of the natural category of adult human males, are not, in fact, members of the natural category of adult human females.
I don’t get it. He’s explicitly disclaiming that he’s not commenting on that situation? But that means that we should take his thread here as implicitly commenting on that situation?
I think I must be missing the point, because my summary here seems to uncharitable to be right.
I don’t get it. He’s explicitly disclaiming that he’s not commenting on that situation? But that means that we should take his thread here as implicitly commenting on that situation?
I think I must be missing the point, because my summary here seems to uncharitable to be right.