Given the issue of being misgendered, the person seems to be a transperson who either was female in the past and is now male or who was male and is now female. To you think post indicates which of those are the case?
I think the post makes clear that the person is no cis-male, but it’s difficult to say things that are more specific.
It’s really not. They refer to being misgendered, which should have been strong evidence your assumption was mistaken. And indeed, if you had clicked through to their “about” page you would have found they prefer to be referred to with male pronouns.
I don’t really care—I’m fairly certain this is the work of a troll—but hey, you claimed it was an example of valid Bayesian inference, so naturally I’m going to leap on it.
Because it’s a valid Bayesian inference based on the content of the post.
Given the issue of being misgendered, the person seems to be a transperson who either was female in the past and is now male or who was male and is now female. To you think post indicates which of those are the case?
I think the post makes clear that the person is no cis-male, but it’s difficult to say things that are more specific.
Bayesian inference really isn’t good enough considering how much some people care about being misgendered.
If the would really care about being misgendered they would provide relevant information to make sure that people can easily know their gender.
The rather seem to have another goal, and if you don’t agree with it, you can use Bayesian inference.
I refuse to be blackmailed by people trying to self-modify into utility monsters.
It’s really not. They refer to being misgendered, which should have been strong evidence your assumption was mistaken. And indeed, if you had clicked through to their “about” page you would have found they prefer to be referred to with male pronouns.
I don’t really care—I’m fairly certain this is the work of a troll—but hey, you claimed it was an example of valid Bayesian inference, so naturally I’m going to leap on it.