-So, I took off my estradiol patch during [my recent nervous breakdown](/2017/Mar/fresh-princess/). I still [don't think](/2017/Jan/hormones-day-33/) it had much, if any, real effect. (In particular, the stress and sleep-deprevation by themselves seem quite sufficient to explain the breakdown without attributing any of it to a nonstandard hormone balance, especially given how similar it felt to my 2013 nervous breakdown.)
+So, I took off my estradiol patch during [my recent nervous breakdown](/2017/Mar/fresh-princess/). I still [don't think](/2017/Jan/hormones-day-33/) it had much, if any, real effect. (In particular, the stress and sleep-deprivation by themselves seem quite sufficient to explain the breakdown without attributing any of it to a nonstandard hormone balance, especially given how similar it felt to my 2013 nervous breakdown.)
Again, everyone had _told_ me that just-estrogen without an anti-androgen doesn't do anything, but that didn't seem absolutely locked down from me from what I had read ("Anti-Androgens May Not Be Necessary", according to [a lit review](https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/cross-sex-hormone-therapy-female-hormones/) that I may or may not have had a causal role in commissioning), and remember: from my perspective, if [everyone is lying](/2017/Jan/im-sick-of-being-lied-to/) about the etiology, maybe they got the dosages wrong, too! So I don't regret being conservative for the initial experiment. (The _starter_ in "starter dose" is code-switching for _placebo_!)
Friend of the blog—I mean, I _hope_ we're [still friends](/2017/Jan/the-counter/) even though I'm kind of [trying to overthrow them](/tag/ozy/) as _de facto_ Gender Czar of the [_Less Wrong_](http://lesswrong.com/) diaspora—Ozymandias of [_Thing of Things_](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/) has been [running an intellectual Turing test](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/transgender-intellectual-turing-test/) challenging adherents of the gender-identity and two-type theories of transgenderedness to try to impersonate each other for the good of our collective epistemology!
-(An aside on credit-assignment and the history of ideas: Ozy says _Blanchard–Bailey_ where I've usually been trying to say _two-type_ in order to avoid the [tricky problem of optimal eponymy](/2017/Mar/nothing-new-under-the-sun/), but if you are going to be eponymous about it, I can understand just saying "Blanchard" but feel like it's unfair to include Bailey but _not_ Anne Lawrence. My understanding of the history—and I think Michael Bailey reads this blog and I trust him to send me an angry email if I got this wrong—is that [Bailey's research](http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/research.html) had mostly been about sexual orientation and from-childhood gender nonconformity, not the two-type taxonomy as such. Bailey's popular-level book _The Man Who Would Be Queen_ drew controversy for _explaining_ the two-type taxonomy for a nonspecialist audience (in the last part of a book that was mostly about the androphilic/feminine-from-early-childhood people, not my people), but the critics who disparage _Queen_ as "unscientific" are missing the point: popular-level books that _present_ a scientific theory _aren't supposed_ to capitulate the evidence for the theory—for that, you need to follow the citations and read the primary literature for yourself. In analogy, it should not be construed as a disparagement of Richard Dawkins to note that it would be weird if people talked about the "Darwin–Dawkins theory of evolution"!)
+(An aside on credit-assignment and the history of ideas: Ozy says _Blanchard–Bailey_ where I've usually been trying to say _two-type_ in order to avoid the [tricky problem of optimal eponymy](/2017/Mar/nothing-new-under-the-sun/), but if you are going to be eponymous about it, I can understand just saying "Blanchard" but feel like it's unfair to include Bailey but _not_ Anne Lawrence. My understanding of the history—and I think Michael Bailey reads this blog and I trust him to send me an angry email if I got this wrong—is that [Bailey's research](http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/research.html) had mostly been about sexual orientation and from-childhood gender nonconformity, not the two-type taxonomy as such. Bailey's popular-level book _The Man Who Would Be Queen_ drew controversy for _explaining_ the two-type taxonomy for a nonspecialist audience (in the last part of a book that was mostly about the androphilic/feminine-from-early-childhood people, not my people), but the critics who disparage _Queen_ as "unscientific" are missing the point: popular-level books that _present_ a scientific theory _aren't supposed_ to capitulate all the evidence for the theory—for that, you need to follow the citations and read the primary literature for yourself. In analogy, it should not be construed as a disparagement of Richard Dawkins to note that it would be weird if people talked about the "Darwin–Dawkins theory of evolution"!)
In the intellectual Turing test, contestants answer a set of questions both as themselves, and while trying to pass as someone who believes the other thing, while the audience tries to discriminate the honest entries from the fakes. Below are my probability assignments for this contest (I think it's important to assign probabilities rather than binary guesses, so that you can assess your rationality with a Bayesian [strictly proper scoring rule](http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/) rather than a crude "number correct"), along with an optional brief comment—
"But that doesn't mean I'm _happy_ about it!" I burst out defensively, to the apparent surprise of
-The woman's skepticism was unpreturbed. "I'm not getting a tranny vibe from you," she said.
+The woman's skepticism was unmoved. "I'm not getting a tranny vibe from you," she said.
"Right, you're thinking of the good kind," is what I _should_ have said. "I'm the bad kind."
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff