I think the length of this post detracts a lot from its clarity. There is a summary, but it’s hard to have an opinion about it without having read the whole rest of the post, which I only skimmed.
Yudkowsky’s point as I understand it is just that the position of maximal abstention when it comes to linking gender to pronouns is to use the same default anyone else uses, but then allow anyone to have their personal preference about which term they feel most comfortable referenced by. This is not specifically to exert a stance in favor of transgender people being named by the transitioned-to gender, nor is it to deny that there is any preexisting connotation to the pronouns, it’s just because to object to someone’s request by saying the answer is anything else is to make a nominative statement about how gender should relate to pronouns, which is what you’re abstaining from.
My comment was a lot longer than this, but I deleted the rest because these conversations feel like knives.
I think the length of this post detracts a lot from its clarity. There is a summary, but it’s hard to have an opinion about it without having read the whole rest of the post, which I only skimmed.
Yudkowsky’s point as I understand it is just that the position of maximal abstention when it comes to linking gender to pronouns is to use the same default anyone else uses, but then allow anyone to have their personal preference about which term they feel most comfortable referenced by. This is not specifically to exert a stance in favor of transgender people being named by the transitioned-to gender, nor is it to deny that there is any preexisting connotation to the pronouns, it’s just because to object to someone’s request by saying the answer is anything else is to make a nominative statement about how gender should relate to pronouns, which is what you’re abstaining from.
My comment was a lot longer than this, but I deleted the rest because these conversations feel like knives.