Danica Roem

[Angra Mainyu]

Here you go again - you are implicitly assuming that your standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment" is THE STANDARD for everyone for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment". Since you admit you are neither omniscient nor infallible, you are tacitly asking people to accept your claims because you say so. My observation that " I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy ." is epistemically warranted.

No, that's false, and it should be obvious to you that that is false. We humans make intuitive epistemic probabilistic assessments on the basis of the available information. Some of those assessments go awry due to factors such as emotional committment to religion/ideology, hatred towards one's interlocutor, and so on. But that does not mean one can't make proper assessments. One generally can, and moreover, even when ideology/religion/hatred, etc., get in the way, one can choose to make an effort, put them aside, and look at the evidence with a cool head, so that the assessment goes right.
It's very obvious to me - and it should be to you - that none was not making an empirical observation but calling me names when he called me a "little bitch". But no matter how many times you misrepresent the truth (because you're not being epistemically rational), the fact remains that I do not want other people to believe that on my say so. In fact, I want other people to:

1. If they have read the exchange, make their own assessment rationally. Of course, if they do so, they will agree that none wasn't making an empirical observation.
2. If they have not read the exchange and are unfamiliar with my posts, then either read the exchange (so, 1. applies), or withhold judgment.
3. If they have not read the exchange and are familiar with my posts, then either read the exchange (so, 1. applies), or assign a proper probability that I'm correct on the basis of what they know about my posting history (the proper assessment depends on how much they know about my posts). Moreover, if they are also familiar with your posts, I want them to count that info as well, in order to make a proper assessment.
4. Generally, I want people to make epistemically rational assessments on my exchanges with others. I claim no infallibility, obviously. Of course, I claim to be correct, but that is my assessment - clearly, for if it weren't, then I would be saying something else!
And if I happened to be making an improper assessment myself for one reason or another, I would hope others would read the exchange and rationally would realize that, rather than believe on my say so.

 

[RavenSky]

First <snip>

self-edit

fuck it... I'm done with you. I have given you far more courtesy than you deserve. Bye.

 

[RavenSky]

You know what is even more ironic than content-free non-argument. It is that you want people to accept your position on your say so, but you are unwilling to accept Danica Roem's position that she is a woman on her say so. I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy .

<---- content-free non-argument from me!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here is what his loathsome behavior... insisting on referring to a transgender woman has "he"

It is no more loathsome to call a trans "woman" "he" than to call a born again's relationship with Jesus as them talking to an imaginary friend or telling them that their God does not exist. It may be a little unkind or rude to not play along with somebody's delusions, but to attempt to force people to do so, as we have now seen with new laws coming in, is far more loathsome.

fuck it... I'm done with you. I have given you far more courtesy than you deserve. Bye.

Come now. Let's not pretend you have shown any courtesy to AM. And lets's also not pretend you are done with AM. You can't resist trolling AM. AM is your new toy. You will post to AM again, with more juvenile insults, and stand behind your mod status if AM responds in kind. We can all see this coming. AM has shown incredible restraint here. You have not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Horseshit. I made my comment yesterday morning. You didn't make any comment in that thread until THIS morning (and even then tried to turn it into a bitch-fest by wearing your faux-martyr cape again.) Anything you (or I) post in this thread is a derail, and I am done indulging you in that.

That is false. Of course, I did not post in the other thread until you challenged me to do it. I was not going to, given the experience of how I had been treated in this thread. My point was that by not posting on the other thread, I had not ignored any evidence.

Horseshit again. Your whiny martyr complex is getting fucking old. Here is what his loathsome behavior... insisting on referring to a transgender woman has "he"~

I said I was going with "he" because it is probable, though not certain, that he is a man. You have not presented any good reasons to believe otherwise. But moreover, I have looked at the evidence - linguistic and scientific - beyond what you or others say (and well before this thread), and the assessment is the same.

You DID try to derail that thread, too.

That is not true.

That's YOU trying to start shit.

No, actually that is me not trying to start anything, but hoping that that does not happen.

Fuck your "challenge". I posted that thread with a shit-ton of authoritative links, and you ignored it all. Then, when you finally do post in that thread, YOU tried to stir up shit. So don't you fucking "challenge" me to anything. You ARE derailing. Here and there with your bullshit "they are picking on me" whinging

You posted some links to some studies. I looked at them, and at others -, and my assessment in this thread has not changed. In fact, I had already incorporated scientific data in my analysis, even if I hadn't gotten into the details. Now, while you may not have known I had looked at the scientific evidence, you should have known that what it says overall does not present a challenge to my analysis. If you believe this is not so, again, you can always argue for your belief, and explain how the scientific evidence shows that Roem (or other transgender people who have or had male sexual organs; pick your choice) is a woman, or that transgender people with female sexual organs are men. If you want to debate, I offer to debate.

And you are :Shrug:

No, I am not. You are not just mistaken. You should not make that accusation. The information available to you (in this very thread) does not remotely warrant that.

It is a FACT that you refused to even attempt to consider any of the information on the appropriate thread (and you still have considered anything other than your pre-conceived position). All for all of your crocodile tears about being picked on, YOU are the one running around calling people names.

First, no, it is not a fact that I refused to consider the information in yet another thread. It is a fact that I considered both the scientific evidence and the linguistic evidence. You did not have to know that, but it is a fact - and this one you should have known - that the scientific evidence does not present a problem for my position.
Now, it is a fact that I had chosen to avoid the other thread and not say anything, because I was treated so badly by you and other people in this thread, that it was stressful and didn't want to go through that so quickly again. But on the other hand, you falsely accused me of ignoring the evidence because I did not post in the other thread, so I changed my mind and decided to post anyway. If you want to debate, I'm all for it.

Second, no, I'm not calling people names. That's false, and you should realize that. I'm being called names, and also the subject of libel and generally number of unjust attacks by people believe that they are correct but should not believe they are.

Third, due to your ideological belief that using the pronoun "he" behavior is loathsome, you end up condemning people whom you have no good reason to hate or condemn. You should think about it, and change your behavior. It's not okay to condemn people with no good reason to believe they behaved immorally.

I have given you far more courtesy than you deserve. Bye.

That is false. But even if you were correct (which you are not), it would be out of sheer luck (i.e., if I were evil for some reason you have no information about at all; since I have provided no good reason for you to even suspect so). Your characterization about what has transpired in this thread is very mistaken.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Also, I'd like to point out that this is a discussion board. It's not as if I'm going after transgender people, or Pentecostals who claim to speak in tongues, or Umbanda who claim to do spells of all sorts, etc., around me in meat space - or chasing them in cyberspace -, telling them that they are mistaken in those beliefs. But this is a discussion board. It's supposed to be a place for civil discussion. It's supposed to be a place where one can challenge religious/ideological claims, even if those are leftist claims.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is what his loathsome behavior... insisting on referring to a transgender woman has "he"

It is no more loathsome to call a trans "woman" "he" than to call a born again's relationship with Jesus as them talking to an imaginary friend or telling them that their God does not exist. It may be a little unkind or rude to not play along with somebody's delusions, but to attempt to force people to do so, as we have now seen with new laws coming in, is far more loathsome.

fuck it... I'm done with you. I have given you far more courtesy than you deserve. Bye.

Come now. Let's not pretend you have shown any courtesy to AM. And lets's also not pretend you are done with AM. You can't resist trolling AM. AM is your new toy. You will post to AM again, with more juvenile insults, and stand behind your mod status if AM responds in kind. We can all see this coming. AM has shown incredible restraint here. You have not.

Oh puhleeze. The Semantic Quibbler in Chief is not courteous but instead annoying and arrogant. After 20 pages of bullshit, if you don't see juvenile responses, then people aren't being honest about the state of epistifucking going on. The latest example being your Dear Philological Leader messing up in a conversation by implicitly accepting Danica being called a woman, then dishonestly claiming it was a coincidental accident all to maintain a semantic narrative he believes is necessary, but actually is a bad argument. The Semantic Quibbler can't allow for non-standard usage of the word woman in a non-standard situation which makes no sense. Moreover, that this is a semantic judgment only He can dictate is lost on Him. But no one cares about his bad semantic arguments all trying to win a Debate game no one registered for. 20 Fucking pages! The big picture is juvenile and arrogant, deserves ignore feature or such a lack of investment to give one line responses.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that's false, and it should be obvious to you that that is false. We humans make intuitive epistemic probabilistic assessments on the basis of the available information.

Yes, we do. But we do not (or should not) then confuse those probabilistic assessments as infallible. Yet here you are again, claiming I should know my claim is obviously false. Such a statement is not consistent with any probabilistic assessment unless that probability is 1 (i.e. infallibility).

Some of those assessments go awry due to factors such as emotional committment to religion/ideology, hatred towards one's interlocutor, and so on. But that does not mean one can't make proper assessments. One generally can, and moreover, even when ideology/religion/hatred, etc., get in the way, one can choose to make an effort, put them aside, and look at the evidence with a cool head, so that the assessment goes right.
It's very obvious to me - and it should be to you - that none was not making an empirical observation but calling me names when he called me a "little bitch".

And here you are again, conflating a probabilistic assessment with infallibility.

But no matter how many times you misrepresent the truth (because you're not being epistemically rational),

And here you are again, confusing another one of your "probabilistic assessments" with fact in order to produce yet another insult.

the fact remains that I do not want other people to believe that on my say so.

I realize you believe that, but your persistence in using terminology that implies infallibility contradicts your claim.
Your dogmatic arguments rest fundamentally on your implicit belief of your infallibility in assessment - a truly religious position.

In fact, I want other people to:

1. If they have read the exchange, make their own assessment rationally. Of course, if they do so, they will agree that none wasn't making an empirical observation.

The fact is that at least one person read the exchange and did not agree with that assessment. So you are literally implicitly claiming that your assessment is the only rational one any person who reads the exchange will make. That is consistent with a delusion of omniscence and infallibility on your part.

If you written something like "While tI can understand why there are others who have made good contradictory points, I sincerely believe that that most readers will agree.....", your claim about what you want people to do would be believable. However, you did not make such a statement or anything close to it. Instead, you basically said that any reader who does not agree with your conclusion is not making a rational assessment. I understand that is your belief that is not founded on reality. Hence it is a religious belief.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is what his loathsome behavior... insisting on referring to a transgender woman has "he"

It is no more loathsome to call a trans "woman" "he" than to call a born again's relationship with Jesus as them talking to an imaginary friend or telling them that their God does not exist. It may be a little unkind or rude to not play along with somebody's delusions, but to attempt to force people to do so, as we have now seen with new laws coming in, is far more loathsome.

Since no one is forcing anyone, what on earth are you babbling about?

Come now. Let's not pretend you have shown any courtesy to AM. And lets's also not pretend you are done with AM. You can't resist trolling AM. AM is your new toy. You will post to AM again, with more juvenile insults, and stand behind your mod status if AM responds in kind. We can all see this coming. AM has shown incredible restraint here. You have not.

As long as we are not pretending, let's not pretend that you are at all interested in promoting courtesy on this board. Let's not pretend AM has shown incredible restraint in this exchange.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is no more loathsome to call a trans "woman" "he" than to call a born again's relationship with Jesus as them talking to an imaginary friend or telling them that their God does not exist. It may be a little unkind or rude to not play along with somebody's delusions, but to attempt to force people to do so, as we have now seen with new laws coming in, is far more loathsome.

fuck it... I'm done with you. I have given you far more courtesy than you deserve. Bye.

Come now. Let's not pretend you have shown any courtesy to AM. And lets's also not pretend you are done with AM. You can't resist trolling AM. AM is your new toy. You will post to AM again, with more juvenile insults, and stand behind your mod status if AM responds in kind. We can all see this coming. AM has shown incredible restraint here. You have not.

Oh puhleeze. The Semantic Quibbler in Chief is not courteous but instead annoying and arrogant. After 20 pages of bullshit, if you don't see juvenile responses, then people aren't being honest about the state of epistifucking going on. The latest example being your Dear Philological Leader messing up in a conversation by implicitly accepting Danica being called a woman, then dishonestly claiming it was a coincidental accident all to maintain a semantic narrative he believes is necessary, but actually is a bad argument. The Semantic Quibbler can't allow for non-standard usage of the word woman in a non-standard situation which makes no sense. Moreover, that this is a semantic judgment only He can dictate is lost on Him. But no one cares about his bad semantic arguments all trying to win a Debate game no one registered for. 20 Fucking pages! The big picture is juvenile and arrogant, deserves ignore feature or such a lack of investment to give one line responses.

I have replied to the "charge" of accepting other people's usage before. And again, I make mistakes with the pronouns sometimes (I made one in this thread at least, but the particular one you charge me with is not one of them), as I explained in my previous reply.
But leaving that aside, and with regard to the different usages of "woman", this is not about a different meaning of the word "woman", or about addressing a person by a chosen name . This is about the ideological leftist claim that Danica Roem is a woman, and similar claims for other people. Those who do not buy them are accused of denying science, apart from other accusations. If Danica Roem says that "call me Danica", or something like that, sure, whatever, there is no claim involved. But when leftists say that Danica Roem is a woman and those who fail to say so are science deniers who fail to look at the evidence, misrepresent it, or whatever, that's another matter altogether, and that is the sort of claim usually made by leftists on these matters.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, we do. But we do not (or should not) then confuse those probabilistic assessments as infallible. Yet here you are again, claiming I should know my claim is obviously false. Such a statement is not consistent with any probabilistic assessment unless that probability is 1 (i.e. infallibility).

It should be obvious to you (given the information available to you) that Donald Trump is the POTUS. This is a perfectly reasonable assessment on my part. It involves no claims of infallibility. It should also be obvious to you that I'm not a chatbot. And again, there is no claim of infallibility. And there is also no claim of infallibility when I say that it should be obvious to you (and it should after our exchange so far or up to the previous post, though you should have realized on your own earlier) that your claim that

Here you go again - you are implicitly assuming that your standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment" is THE STANDARD for everyone for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment". Since you admit you are neither omniscient nor infallible, you are tacitly asking people to accept your claims because you say so. My observation that " I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy ." is epistemically warranted

is false.

And here you are again, conflating a probabilistic assessment with infallibility.

No, that's your repetition of a claim that is false and you should realize is false.

And here you are again, confusing another one of your "probabilistic assessments" with fact in order to produce yet another insult.

My assessment is correct, but apart from that, you are mistaken in your belief that my assessment that you're not being epistemically rational is an insult. It's not. It's not even close. In fact, even if I were mistaken, it would not be an insult.

I realize you believe that, but your persistence in using terminology that implies infallibility contradicts your claim.

While I realize that you believe that, there is no terminology that implies infallibility, or any reason for you to even suspect so.

Your dogmatic arguments rest fundamentally on your implicit belief of your infallibility in assessment - a truly religious position.

That's both false and not rational for you to believe. On the other hand, it does not look like an insult on your part. You shouldn't do it, but an insult is something else.

The fact is that at least one person read the exchange and did not agree with that assessment. So you are literally implicitly claiming that your assessment is the only rational one any person who reads the exchange will make. That is consistent with a delusion of omniscience and infallibility on your part.

I also claim that people who have read the news articles, looked at the scientific evidence, etc., and conclude that the Moon Landing was fake are being epistemically irrational. The same goes for, say, the fact that humans descended from monkeys. And there is nothing in my behavior suggesting in any way - let alone showing - a delusion of omniscience or infallibility.

Now, of course saying that or even saying that there is a keyboard in front of my is also "consistent" with a delusion of infallibility. But that does not give you any good reason whatsoever to even suspect in such delusion - and, indeed, there is more than enough evidence in this and other threads for you to realize that I'm not under such delusions, if you were being rational about this. And that's not an insult, by the way.

 

[Juma]

So let us go back to topic:

What does ”man” and ”woman” mean?

Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.

Rest of the gang seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

 

[laughing dog]

It should be obvious to you (given the information available to you) that Donald Trump is the POTUS. This is a perfectly reasonable assessment on my part. It involves no claims of infallibility. It should also be obvious to you that I'm not a chatbot. And again, there is no claim of infallibility. And there is also no claim of infallibility when I say that it should be obvious to you (and it should after our exchange so far or up to the previous post, though you should have realized on your own earlier) that your claim that

is false.

You are conflating a fact (Donald Trump is the POTUS) with a probabilistic assessment (it was necessarily an insult). So, you are wrong.

No, that's your repetition of a claim that is false and you should realize is false.

Nope, and here you are doing it again, just like a dogmatic religionist.

My assessment is correct, but apart from that, you are mistaken in your belief that my assessment that you're not being epistemically rational is an insult....

More assertion sans substantiation. BTW, even if you did not intend it as an insult (which I do not believe), it is an insult.

It's not. It's not even close. In fact, even if I were mistaken, it would not be an insult.

While I realize that you believe that, there is no terminology that implies infallibility, or any reason for you to even suspect so.

Wrong again, as shown in previous posts.

That's both false and not rational for you to believe. On the other hand, it does not look like an insult on your part. You shouldn't do it, but an insult is something else.

It is true and rational. So here you are again, telling people that your claim is the only rational claim and you are telling people what to believe. Once again, your religiousity shines through.

I also claim that people who have read the news articles, looked at the scientific evidence, etc., and conclude that the Moon Landing was fake are being epistemically irrational. The same goes for, say, the fact that humans descended from monkeys. And there is nothing in my behavior suggesting in any way - let alone showing - a delusion of omniscience or infallibility.

You are wrong - I have shown it repeatedly. Your refusal to accept reality is just another dimension of your religious viewpoint.

 

[RavenSky]

So let us go back to topic:

What does ”man” and ”woman” mean?

Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.

Rest of the gang seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

cr;jq

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Since no one is forcing anyone, what on earth are you babbling about?

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bru...aw-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

I have heard of similar laws coming into being in your country as well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So let us go back to topic:

What does ”man” and ”woman” mean?

Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.

Rest of the gang seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

The question I find more pressing is to what degree should we be able to force other people to play along with our delusions. If I can force you to call me "she", then why can't the religious force you to acknowledge the existence of their God? It seems a rather slippery slope. Trans-racial, etc also come into play, and are dismissed here as "too fringe"... but so was transgender not more than a decade ago. I have no issue with trans. I think people should have the right to live as whatever gender they want to express. It gets dicey when they want to force me to play along or if they were to demand special rights to go with it. If there were no separated or special rights, then that wouldn't be as much of an issue, but many of the same people who push for trans also push the identity politics of separation and of special rights.

If separate rather than unisex bathrooms are pushed for, then I can understand why some people may have a problem with men ("trans women") in the women's bathroom. If we can all agree on unisex bathrooms (my prefrence), then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Will the day come where I can declare myself black and not asian and have lower requirements for university admissions? Sounds laughable now. But will it someday be something actually under consideration?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trans-racial, etc also come into play, and are dismissed here as "too fringe"... but so was transgender not more than a decade ago.

Not that I care to defend anything I will write or engage in a debate but I want to point out this minor point that someone else already brought up...

There is an underlying premise somewhere in your argument that fraudulent trans-persons are equivalent to those with some kind of material difference. So, for example, Trausti or Rachel Dolenzal may be frauds...maybe even deliberately so for both. There's another class of persons, though, who have some small bit of something physical. There are people whose recent sub-saharan African ancestry is much less than their recent European ancestry but are still called by society as "black." For example, at some level 3/4 of Sally Hemmings recent ancestors had come from Europe while 1/4 of her recent ancestors had come from sub-Saharan Africa but she was still called "black" without anyone batting an eye. She also may have been called mulatto by some or even the same people in different contexts. So the vast minority of the physical (but still some) were "black" but she was called "black" and maybe that is because she also was a slave, i.e. met the social role of black at the time in Virginia in addition to the small bit of material things. Now while I do not wish to engage in this semantic debate ad infinitum I thought it was important to bring to your attention that Sally Hemmings might be a more appropriate analogy even though she might not be classified as trans-racial because Danica Roem may also fulfill a social role (gender) as well as have some kind of material difference from "men" and some other, atypical material similarities to "women." I will add also that there are other persons who have undergone dna tests and minority of their dna from the test is classified as subSaharan African but they still identify as black and are called black by society. Likewise, there are a number of persons who identify as Hispanic and whom society calls Hispanic as a racial designation but there is no "true" hispanic identifier genetically. Persons who identify as such typically but not always have some Native American and Iberian Peninsula parts to their ethnicity composition results but not always and not always to the same degree or as a majority in total. The other factor playing a role is social such as, do they speak Spanish or come from a country where the majority speaks Spanish or does one of their parents speak Spanish. So, for example, suppose you took a genetic test and got 20% Native American and 5% Iberian, you had a grandfather from Venezuela and you spoke Spanish and then you and others might consider your race to be Hispanic. Meanwhile, someone else whose Native American ancestry went to Maine, USA and matched at 20% Native American and also had 5% Iberian but it went to ancient sources not recent and they did not speak Spanish or have a recent ancestor who spoke Spanish would not be called Hispanic. Society's rules for these things are fuzzy, not completely consistent across all speakers, and involve social identification, perhaps personal identification or personal history.

 

[laughing dog]

Since no one is forcing anyone, what on earth are you babbling about?

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bru...aw-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

I have heard of similar laws coming into being in your country as well.

I'm sorry, I should have written "No one in this thread is forcing anyone". Danica Roem is not forcing anyone to use the term woman as a descriptor for her(or his, if you prefer) gender. Hence your concern is out of place in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Will the day come where I can declare myself black and not asian and have lower requirements for university admissions? Sounds laughable now. But will it someday be something actually under consideration?

To put it kindly, your slippery slope argument is very premature.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Trans-racial, etc also come into play, and are dismissed here as "too fringe"... but so was transgender not more than a decade ago.

Not that I care to defend anything I will write or engage in a debate but I want to point out this minor point that someone else already brought up...

There is an underlying premise somewhere in your argument that fraudulent trans-persons are equivalent to those with some kind of material difference. So, for example, Trausti or Rachel Dolenzal may be frauds...maybe even deliberately so for both. There's another class of persons, though, who have some small bit of something physical. There are people whose recent sub-saharan African ancestry is much less than their recent European ancestry but are still called by society as "black." For example, at some level 3/4 of Sally Hemmings recent ancestors had come from Europe while 1/4 of her recent ancestors had come from sub-Saharan Africa but she was still called "black" without anyone batting an eye. She also may have been called mulatto by some or even the same people in different contexts. So the vast minority of the physical (but still some) were "black" but she was called "black" and maybe that is because she also was a slave, i.e. met the social role of black at the time in Virginia in addition to the small bit of material things. Now while I do not wish to engage in this semantic debate ad infinitum I thought it was important to bring to your attention that Sally Hemmings might be a more appropriate analogy even though she might not be classified as trans-racial because Danica Roem may also fulfill a social role (gender) as well as have some kind of material difference from "men" and some other, atypical material similarities to "women."

We could render all of this moot if we simply stopped with all the identity politics that have so overwhelmed our societies. It wouldn't matter if you are "man" or "woman" or "black" or "white" if we didn't treat each other differently based on those labels.

What I find especially interesting is that many of the same people who push for the trans stuff also push for the identity politics, so they are bringing the conflict onto themselves.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm sorry, I should have written "No one in this thread is forcing anyone". Danica Roem is not forcing anyone to use the term woman as a descriptor for her(or his, if you prefer) gender. Hence your concern is out of place in this thread.

Ok, then to clarify, I do not know Danica Roem, have nothing against Danica Roem and don't put any words in Danica Roem's mouth. Nothing I have written here is specific about or directed at Danica Roem. I had never heard of him/her prior to this thread and I am not particularly interested in him/her. This thread transitioned multiple times away from being merely about Danica Roem a long time ago. You were part of some of those transitions.