What does this mean? It seems like if the original issue is something about whether to call an XY-er “she” if the XY-er asks for that, then,
My understanding of Zack’s position is that he fixated on this because it’s something with a clear right answer that has been documented in the Sequences, and that he was really just using this as the first step to getting the rationalist community to not make him transition.
that’s sort of like a redefinition and sort of not like a redefinition...
Arguably what “it is” depends on why people are doing it. Zack has written extensive responses to different justifications for doing it. I can link you a relevant response and summarize it, but in order to do that I need to know what your justification is.
This one is a set of empirical, objective claims.… but elsewhere you said:
The latter was representing my viewpoint whereas the former was an attempt at representing Zack’s viewpoint, but also I don’t think the two views are contradictory with each other?
My understanding of Zack’s position is that he fixated on this because it’s something with a clear right answer that has been documented in the Sequences, and that he was really just using this as the first step to getting the rationalist community to not make him transition.
Arguably what “it is” depends on why people are doing it. Zack has written extensive responses to different justifications for doing it. I can link you a relevant response and summarize it, but in order to do that I need to know what your justification is.
The latter was representing my viewpoint whereas the former was an attempt at representing Zack’s viewpoint, but also I don’t think the two views are contradictory with each other?