I’m not completely aware of the correct protocol here, but “with what gender do you primarily identify? … M (transgender f → m) …” is not something I would expect a transgender person to say—if I’d made that much of an effort to be (fe)male, I’d want to be “(fe)male”, not “(fe)male (transgender …)”.
Splitting out blog referrals from general referrals seems odd; is there a reason you cannot use “[ ] some blog, [ ]” and “[ ] other, [ ]”.
I see no benefit to “revealed” in “What is the probability that any of humankind’s revealed religions is more or less correct?”.
Calibration IQ: ”… is greater than the reported IQ...”
I’m not completely aware of the correct protocol here, but “with what gender do you primarily identify? … M (transgender f → m) …” is not something I would expect a transgender person to say—if I’d made that much of an effort to be (fe)male, I’d want to be “(fe)male”, not “(fe)male (transgender …)”.
I’m not completely aware of the correct protocol here, but “with what gender do you primarily identify? … M (transgender f → m) …” is not something I would expect a transgender person to say—if I’d made that much of an effort to be (fe)male, I’d want to be “(fe)male”, not “(fe)male (transgender …)”.
Splitting out blog referrals from general referrals seems odd; is there a reason you cannot use “[ ] some blog, [ ]” and “[ ] other, [ ]”.
I see no benefit to “revealed” in “What is the probability that any of humankind’s revealed religions is more or less correct?”.
Calibration IQ: ”… is greater than the reported IQ...”
One more reason to support splitting the question.