check in

diff --git a/content/drafts/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females.md b/content/drafts/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females.md
index c0325dd..df631dd 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females.md
+++ b/content/drafts/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females.md
@@ -156,6 +156,6 @@ I definitely agree that this is a valuable thought experiment: in this limit of
 
 _If_ psychological sex differences aren't real, then there aren't any: _ex hypothesi_, the physiological differences between females and males are the only thing for the word _woman_ to attach to, and _ex hypothesi_, we know how to fix those.
 
-Alternatively, _if_ psychological sex differences _are_ a thing, _and_ transness is a brain intersex condition such that pre-transition trans women are _already_ psychologically female, then again, there aren't any.
+Alternatively, _if_ psychological sex differences _are_ a thing, _and_ transness is a brain intersex condition such that pre-transition trans women are _already_ psychologically female, then again, there aren't any, _ex hypothesi_ _&c._
 
-However, if we should be so unlucky to live in a world where psychological sex differences are a thing _and_ most trans women are motivated to transition by some _other_ reason than already having female minds, then we have some nontrivial difficulties.
+_However_, if we should be so unlucky to live in a world where psychological sex differences _are_ a thing _and_ most trans women are motivated to transition by some _other_ reason than already having female minds, then we have some nontrivial difficulties.

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index fed8fa8..3ccf8f1 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -530,3 +530,9 @@ A female commenter on one of Giego's posts—
 ----
 
 fake implies artificial (but not vice versa)
+
+Cut from "Reply to The Unit" (too far afield, not sure what point I'm trying to make): speculating about unproven sex differences isn't _quite_ as prejudicial as it sounds: if a 19th century scholar, knowing nothing of sex chromosomes, had reasoned, "Whatever the physical mechanism of heredity turns out to be, it probably distinguishes between males and females". (Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature-dependent_sex_determination a counterexample or the dreaded "example that proves the rule" like pipefish or the Eurasian dotterel?)
+
+the ultimate AGP weekend project: http://svencharleer.com/blog/2018/02/02/family-fun-with-deepfakes-or-how-i-got-my-wife-onto-the-tonight-show/
+
+"right"-aligned folk like to say the IAT is "pseudoscientific bullshit", but what if those failed replications are just committing Goldberg's "fallacy of the irrelevant experiment"? Here's a pro-IAT _and_ pro-stereotype-accuracy take: "blacks are violent" stereotype strength varies with local crime rates http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617753522 (via https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/983338239221293057)