Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So... what exactly are the standards here? Look, the map is not the territory on these matters. Someone claiming something about their identity is not definitive proof of that identity. If the identity pattern is radically divergent from that indicated by the vast majority of all human beings, the rational response is skepticism. Per Occam's Razor, it is far simpler and more probable that the individual is suffering from either a more conventional gender dysphoria associated with emergent transgender identity; or, alternatively, is suffering from some other identity issue or psychological disorder, and is co-opting the psychiatric narrative of gender dysphoria.

In general, any maladjustment or malady that might make them *believe* that they are something extremely unlikely is more likely than the extremely unlikely thing itself.

Quoting a site with an obvious POV isn't proof of validity, though. We'd need to see serious research into these groups, and that requires being able to ontologically distinguish them from other identities. That's why the "snowflake" accusation is relevant: you cannot (quantitatively) research people who demonstrate no consistent salient patterns.

Shy of there being some revelation here of xenogendered/non-binary/agendered people who turn out to fit salient identity patterns in statistically meaningful ways, my best guess is that these are people who actually fit in some other identity category but, for a variety of reasons, do not identify by that category. The only likely exception I can see is for an individual with significant neurological and/or endocrine aberrations.

TL;DR When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Thanks. This entire concept seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. I've nominated it for deletion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Questioning overlap with Otherkin[edit]

This one might be me, but the arguments that are used here are very similar to those made by Otherkin. Specifically, the overlap with claiming detractors as being transphobic/abelists, using overinclusivity to justify their existence and the complete lack of scientific consensus with "you have to respect them" being the only argument made in favor of it. If I at least understand the basics properly, both Otherkin and Xenogender as concepts also come from the fringes of the "MOGAI" community. Should we put a link to Otherkin (as well as Therian which seems to deal with a specific subsection) on this page? Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png) 13:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotation question[edit]

Is 'Things exist without being prove.' thus written in the source?

If so does the 'bad grammar = probable bad logic' rule apply? Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail?[edit]

Created on 13 June 2020, one carrd in widespread circulation identifies itself as having been created by Twitter user [...], who (without updating the carrd) changed their username to [...] a few days later, and again a few days after that to [...], and then just went ahead and deleted their account. —article text at the time of writing, slightly redacted

Is there actually a need to track whatever they change their account name to and repeatedly link it? IMO, that's intrusive and creepy (possibly even inviting personal attacks), especially noting that at least one of the people the said carrd lists is a minor, according to their profile info.

RIFF WAVEfmt (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)