You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
If the only thing that justifies your belief in T is E, & we have no acces to E b/c E is yr private experience, then you can know what you know and we still get to doubt you. Are justified in doubting you. Are required by reason to doubt you. Like it or not, that’s the detente.
I once leveraged that kind of argument to support belief in God from personal experience. Ultimately not sure it works because language isn't private, and inevitably we name our own experiences (and contextualize then within linguistic framework).
You are misunderstanding me.
I don't think I am...
My point more pragmatic: proponents of gender identity need not view doubts by opponents as intolerant of them as people asserting gender identities but should also recognize that their self assessment has no persuasive power w/o public criteria for justification.
I don’t want to claim to settle the ontological question. I don’t think that’s politically viable at this point. I just want to build a framework for mutual accommodation of disagreement.
Understood. My further question is really about whether your E - the justification for their self-assessment - is actually private. But, as you say, your concerns are more pragmatic than that.
It’s an open question, but I haven’t seen a suggestion for public criteria yet. I am open to revising if one is presented.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
