Danica Roem

[Angra Mainyu]

She's a woman because she wants to be and is in some stage of transition.

But that is not a good reason to think Roem is a woman, nor would that make Roem a woman, because the word "woman" in ordinary speech does not track what one wants to be a woman, or whether one has had some sort of surgery.
For example, let's say that someone offers me $1 billion if I become a woman. Even if I want the money, I cannot do it. I mean, I literally cannot do it. If I had surgery, that would not make me a woman, but a man with surgically altered sexual and reproductive organs, or without some such organs, etc. If I also took some hormones, that would make my brain/mind more woman-like to some extent, but probably not entirely or predominantly - or else, the differences between male and female brain/minds are so small that sexual and reproductive organs very probably weigh more.

I don't need to know what stage nor do I need to inspect genitals to accept that she's a woman.

But what do you need, then?
Words have meaning. If Bob claims that he's been born again in Jesus, or that his soul has a permanent mark resulting from his baptism, or that he speaks in tongues (and makes sense), or that he's Imago Dei, etc., he's making a false statement, even if he wants it to be like that, even if he believes he's telling the truth, and even if that is extremely important in his life. But that does not provide good reasons to believe his claims. Millions, even billions of people are vastly mistaken about themselves. It happens.

She is not trying to deceive or pretend; she's telling us who she is.

The Born-Again Christian is not trying to deceive (usually). He believes he's been reborn in Jesus. The Pentecostal believes he speaks in tongues. Most Christians believe they're Imago Dei. There is no deception (again, at least from most of them), other than self-deception if you like. They are mistaken.

The conservative view seems to want to look down the pants of anyone who does not conform to black and white concepts or kowtow to the right wing mentality's assumption that they are everyone's judge.

That would be a problem for conservatives. I, on the other hand, I'm open to evidence. But on the basis of the evidence available to me, it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe Roem is a woman.

This is not weak ideology or ambivalence. It is simply a lack of fear in the face of human reality that does not fit the childish cartoons that underlie the fear-based conservative world view.

Could you provide some good evidence that would convince a person willing to look at the evidence that Roem is a woman?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

By that technical distinction, Roem's sex would be male, gender identity would be female, and gender role would be difficult to ascertain. But that does not provide any good reason to think that Roem is a woman, in the ordinary sense of the word "woman", let alone justify claims that they realized they were a woman, etc., in any ordinary sense.

Aren't senses ordinary/extraordinary in different locations, cultures, contexts? Even so, why does a thing have to be ordinary as opposed to atypical?

How often?

How should I know? You made it sounds like I authored what was clearly written by someone else into Wikipedia...

In any case, that is hardly good reason to think that in the ordinary, usual sense of the term, Roem is a woman.

Why are you so hung up on "ordinary?"

Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.

Again, I'm not following how that is supposed to make a case for Roem's being a woman. And if it's not supposed to do that, I'm not sure what your goal is. Could you clarify, please?

I don't have a goal except to educate as to what some people think with a quote from Wikipedia. Do you agree with them or disagree with them that there is such a thing as gender role? What about gender identity?

Also, why are you so literal?

 

[LordKiran]

Aren't senses ordinary/extraordinary in different locations, cultures, contexts? Even so, why does a thing have to be ordinary as opposed to atypical?





How should I know? You made it sounds like I authored what was clearly written by someone else into Wikipedia...

In any case, that is hardly good reason to think that in the ordinary, usual sense of the term, Roem is a woman.

Why are you so hung up on "ordinary?"

Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.

Again, I'm not following how that is supposed to make a case for Roem's being a woman. And if it's not supposed to do that, I'm not sure what your goal is. Could you clarify, please?

I don't have a goal except to educate as to what some people think with a quote from Wikipedia. Do you agree with them or disagree with them that there is such a thing as gender role? What about gender identity?

Also, why are you so literal?

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former preconceptions might have been false?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Aren't senses ordinary/extraordinary in different locations, cultures, contexts? Even so, why does a thing have to be ordinary as opposed to atypical?

That depends on the word. But the reason it has to be ordinary is that the usual claims that Roem (or Jenner, etc.) is a woman are made under the understanding that that is the usual meaning of the word "woman" in English. It is why the people who make such claims also tend to claim that those who say that Roem is a man are making a false claim.
If the claim is merely that there is some atypical sense of the word "woman" in which Roem is a woman, that may be true (or not; I would have to test it further, but let's say it's true), but surely, that would not warrant claims such as the claim that Roem realized that she was a woman (in the usual sense in which such claims are made), or that people who say that Roem is a man are making a false claim.

How should I know? You made it sounds like I authored what was clearly written by someone else into Wikipedia...

I don't make it sound like that. You provided a source, and I'm arguing it does not give me good reasons to believe that Roem is a woman. I do so by pointing out some of the reasons why it gives me no good reasons. One of them is that it does not provide good evidence (or even makes clear claims) about the meanings of the words (i.e., it lacks on the linguistic evidence department).

Why are you so hung up on "ordinary?"

Because that's what the claims are about - the ones that are frequent; the ones on which the accusations are based, and so on.
Imagine a conservative were to claim "Roem is not a woman", and liberals reply "Maybe on the ordinary sense of the word 'woman', Roem is not a woman. But there is an atypical sense on which Roem is a woman."
Surely, that would result in a totally different sort of debate. It's not what is happening here in this thread, or generally in the US, or for that matter over here and in many other countries.

I don't have a goal except to educate as to what some people think with a quote from Wikipedia. Do you agree with them or disagree with them that there is such a thing as gender role? What about gender identity?

According to Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role

A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality.

In different societies, there are different prevalent moral beliefs, including in many cases beliefs about what is acceptable, appropriate or desirable for males or females. If one wants to call that a "gender role", sure, gender roles exist. If you mean something else, I would need more info.


As for gender identity, Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Gender identity is one's personal experience of one's own gender.

That's rather unclear. If it means roughly that generally, a human person has a belief as to whether he or she is a man or a woman (or neither), sure, that seems to be the case. But the claims that the article keeps making seem at best unwarranted.
That aside, as for gender identity?
If that's meant to say each person has a belief as to whether they're a man or a woman or neither, sure, at least nearly everyone has a gender identity.

But I was asking for (good) evidence that Roem is a woman. I'm not sure how this is relevant. I realize Roem believes that Roem is a woman. But I don't share that belief.

Also, why are you so literal?

The claim is that Roem is a woman. There is huge social pressure to believe, or at least pretend to believe it. Those who fail to do so are regularly punished with all sorts of insults. And yet, on the basis of the available evidence, it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Roem is a woman. That's problematic enough.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former preconceptions might have been false?

That's both false and epistemically irrational for you to believe. But no matter, if you want to make an argument in support of the claim that Roem is a woman instead of launching personal attacks, I will consider your argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That depends on the word. But the reason it has to be ordinary is that the usual claims that Roem (or Jenner, etc.) is a woman are made under the understanding that that is the usual meaning of the word "woman" in English. It is why the people who make such claims also tend to claim that those who say that Roem is a man are making a false claim.
If the claim is merely that there is some atypical sense of the word "woman" in which Roem is a woman, that may be true (or not; I would have to test it further, but let's say it's true), but surely, that would not warrant claims such as the claim that Roem realized that she was a woman (in the usual sense in which such claims are made), or that people who say that Roem is a man are making a false claim.

How should I know? You made it sounds like I authored what was clearly written by someone else into Wikipedia...

I don't make it sound like that. You provided a source, and I'm arguing it does not give me good reasons to believe that Roem is a woman. I do so by pointing out some of the reasons why it gives me no good reasons. One of them is that it does not provide good evidence (or even makes clear claims) about the meanings of the words (i.e., it lacks on the linguistic evidence department).

Why are you so hung up on "ordinary?"

Because that's what the claims are about - the ones that are frequent; the ones on which the accusations are based, and so on.
Imagine a conservative were to claim "Roem is not a woman", and liberals reply "Maybe on the ordinary sense of the word 'woman', Roem is not a woman. But there is an atypical sense on which Roem is a woman."
Surely, that would result in a totally different sort of debate. It's not what is happening here in this thread, or generally in the US, or for that matter over here and in many other countries.

I don't have a goal except to educate as to what some people think with a quote from Wikipedia. Do you agree with them or disagree with them that there is such a thing as gender role? What about gender identity?

According to Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role

A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality.

In different societies, there are different prevalent moral beliefs, including in many cases beliefs about what is acceptable, appropriate or desirable for males or females. If one wants to call that a "gender role", sure, gender roles exist. If you mean something else, I would need more info.


As for gender identity, Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Gender identity is one's personal experience of one's own gender.

That's rather unclear. If it means roughly that generally, a human person has a belief as to whether he or she is a man or a woman (or neither), sure, that seems to be the case. But the claims that the article keeps making seem at best unwarranted.
That aside, as for gender identity?
If that's meant to say each person has a belief as to whether they're a man or a woman or neither, sure, at least nearly everyone has a gender identity.

But I was asking for (good) evidence that Roem is a woman. I'm not sure how this is relevant. I realize Roem believes that Roem is a woman. But I don't share that belief.

Also, why are you so literal?

The claim is that Roem is a woman. There is huge social pressure to believe, or at least pretend to believe it. Those who fail to do so are regularly punished with all sorts of insults. And yet, on the basis of the available evidence, it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Roem is a woman. That's problematic enough.

I haven't even read the entirety of this post because i note you know what a gender role is. There is therefore no need for a useless derail on word usage and semantics.

 

[RavenSky]

Third Gender: A Short History

various cultures have long recognized members who buck the biological binary. The ancients wrote of people who were neither men nor women; individuals have been swapping genders for centuries; and intellectuals have fiercely debated the connection between the body and the self. Today, there are many populations with alternative identities, such as hijras in South Asia, kathoeys in Thailand, and muxes in Mexico.

Gender is a construct, and people should be able to define it for themselves.

 

[RavenSky]

10 Examples Of Non-binary Genders Throughout History

Sulawesi is a small island that is part of Indonesia, usually known for paradise beaches and leisurely vacations. It is also a place with radical views on gender and sex in their people. The Bugis (or “Buginese people”) of Sulawesi recognize four genders and an important fifth “metagender.”The first two genders are male and female, but the next two are the calalai and calabai. The calalai are anatomical females who behave as men traditionally do, but they do not desire to be men. They fall into a gray area between the two sexes. An example of a calalai might be an anatomical female who works as a mechanic, wears men’s clothing, and lives in a way that is typical of a man. In contrast, the calabai are anatomical males who behave as women traditionally do. But while the calalai largely conform to the roles of men, the calabai do not consider themselves to be women. They don’t accept the restrictions that society places on women, either. Instead, the calabai have a unique niche in society. For example, weddings are an extravagant affair in Sulawesi culture, and the calabai are usually the brains behind the operation. The “metagender” of the Sulawesi people is known as the bissu. Bissu (pictured above) are seen as a combination of all genders. They have a distinctive way of dressing that is neither “male” nor “female,” and they also have their own specific roles in society. A bissu functions as a sort of shaman or priest who leads spiritual rituals for others, which is an important and coveted role in Sulawesi life. They are seen as beings who “bestow blessings” upon others who are not as attuned to the spirit world.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I haven't even read the entirety of this post because i note you know what a gender role is. There is therefore no need for a useless derail on word usage and semantics.

There's been no derail on my part.

 

[RavenSky]

Native Americans have always recognized a third gender called “two-spirited people.” In fact, two-spirited people were revered by at least 155 tribes across North America as healers, caregivers, nannies of orphans, and visionaries.But they weren’t deemed “two-spirited” simply because of their appearance. They were truly thought to have the spirit of both a man and a woman, which gave them abilities beyond those of “regular” men and women. Two-spirited people can be men who dress as women, women who dress as men, androgynous folks, and so on. The term encompasses many identities outside of “male” or “female.” There were many native rituals and ceremonies that helped to determine if a child was truly two-spirited. In one ritual, a child was placed in the middle of a circle where adults sang songs. If the child started to dance in a feminine manner and continued for at least four songs, the child would be deemed “two-spirit.”

and

In beautiful Hawaii, there has long been a tradition of a third gender of people named the mahu who fall somewhere between “male” and “female.” Mahus had their own roles in society and were respected as healers, teachers, and caretakers. Through the generations, they passed down knowledge on hula, songs, chants, and other Hawaiian wisdom. One reflection of the mahu people is evident in Hawaiian music, which often displays love stories that don’t conform to traditional Western gender norms.

With very little effort, it is easy to see that "gender" is and always has been purely a social construct, while there have always been people who do not fit a binary gender model. The variations exist whether some people/religions want to accept that or not.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I haven't even read the entirety of this post because i note you know what a gender role is. There is therefore no need for a useless derail on word usage and semantics.

There's been no derail on my part.

You are not a victim. Go away.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Gender is a construct, and people should be able to define it for themselves.

I'm not sure what "gender is a construct" means, and what is the basis for the moral claim that "people should be able to define it for themselves.", or who the person with the moral obligation would be (given that it's a passive voice moral claim, and the subject of the obligation appears unclear).
Regardless, the fact is that the English words "man" and "woman" have meaning, as nearly all words.
If I say I'm a Vulcan, that's not true. If I say I'm a Jedi, that's not true. If I say I'm an AI, that's not true. If I say I'm a car (say, KITT), that's not true. And if I say I'm a woman, that's not true. This is so regardless of whether I want any of that to be true.

Sulawesi is a small island that is part of Indonesia, usually known for paradise beaches and leisurely vacations. It is also a place with radical views on gender and sex in their people. The Bugis (or “Buginese people”) of Sulawesi recognize four genders and an important fifth “metagender.”The first two genders are male and female, but the next two are the calalai and calabai. The calalai are anatomical females who behave as men traditionally do, but they do not desire to be men. They fall into a gray area between the two sexes. An example of a calalai might be an anatomical female who works as a mechanic, wears men’s clothing, and lives in a way that is typical of a man. In contrast, the calabai are anatomical males who behave as women traditionally do. But while the calalai largely conform to the roles of men, the calabai do not consider themselves to be women. They don’t accept the restrictions that society places on women, either. Instead, the calabai have a unique niche in society. For example, weddings are an extravagant affair in Sulawesi culture, and the calabai are usually the brains behind the operation. The “metagender” of the Sulawesi people is known as the bissu. Bissu (pictured above) are seen as a combination of all genders. They have a distinctive way of dressing that is neither “male” nor “female,” and they also have their own specific roles in society. A bissu functions as a sort of shaman or priest who leads spiritual rituals for others, which is an important and coveted role in Sulawesi life. They are seen as beings who “bestow blessings” upon others who are not as attuned to the spirit world.

By that description, it seems that calalai are in fact women, in English. The calabai are very probably men. The fact that some other language uses 5 categories instead of 2 (if that's what's happening, but I'll go with that for the sake of the argument) does not mean that the people who fall into those 5 categories can't properly be categorized in the 2 traditional categories we have in English.

But let's say that that is not so, and the calabai are neither men nor women. That would mean the traditionally categorization in English is not precise enough for their cases. I don't know that this is true, but even if it is, it's not the issue. For that matter, there are people with sexual characteristics of males and females who may well have also mixed brains/minds, and there is no proper way of categorizing them. But the fact that a categorization fails for a small percentage of people (it's not precise enough for them) does not imply it's a bad categorization in most or nearly all contexts, let alone provides good reason to believe that Roem is not a man, let alone that Roem is a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

There's been no derail on my part.

You are not a victim. Go away.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not going away for now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not sure what "gender is a construct" means, ...

...and yet in your previous post you conceded to know what gender role meant. So, transGENDER ought to be obvious it refers to gender. Of course, such persons may also be in process of changing their bodies, but that's a different issue.

Regardless, the fact is that the English words "man" and "woman" have meaning, as nearly all words.

Yes, they have meaning and so when it says MEN on the bathroom door, children should go in the other bathroom that says WOMEN. Also, people who are not GENTLEMEN or LADIES need to go outside.

Wow, society is discriminatory when one is a literalist.

Make sure you keep going on and on about semantics.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

With very little effort, it is easy to see that "gender" is and always has been purely a social construct, while there have always been people who do not fit a binary gender model. The variations exist whether some people/religions want to accept that or not.

What does it mean to say that ' "gender" is and always has been purely a social construct '?
Are cars a social construct? Computers? Legal dispositions? I would like to see some examples of the category "social construct" to try to grasp the meaning of that expression in your usage (I haven't been able to find a common usage). But regardless, it's not the point. If I define "lak" and "ñak" as "humans over 1.8 meters tall", and "humans not over 1.8 meters tall" respectively, I came up with 2 categories, and nearly every thing that has ever existed can be properly classify as a lak, or a ñak, or neither. I say "nearly", because the word "human" is not precise enough for some ancestors, and the way to measure height is not sufficiently precisely described for the cases of some people. But that does not change the fact that it's usually a good categorization, and it's a fact that Donald Trump is a lak, not a ñak. If someone were to claim he's a ñak, they would be mistaken. And if someone were to willingly accuse me of wrongdoing for claiming he's a ñak, they would be acting immorally.

Again, I'm not asking for evidence of different categorizations in other languages. I'm asking for evidence that Roem is a woman.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

...and yet in your previous post you conceded to know what gender role meant. So, transGENDER ought to be obvious it refers to gender. Of course, such persons may also be in process of changing their bodies, but that's a different issue.

In my previous post, I said that according to to Wikipedia, "A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality."
I added that in different societies, there are different prevalent moral beliefs, including in many cases beliefs about what is acceptable, appropriate or desirable for males or females. If one wants to call that a "gender role", sure, gender roles exist. If you mean something else, I would need more info.

But of course, that does not tell me what a social construct is.

Yes, they have meaning and so when it says MEN on the bathroom door, children should go in the other bathroom that says WOMEN. Also, people who are not GENTLEMEN or LADIES need to go outside.

Wow, society is discriminatory when one is a literalist.

Make sure you keep going on and on about semantics.

Your beliefs about me are both epistemically irrational and false. I made no claims about doors. I pointed out that the words "man" and "woman" have meaning.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In my previous post, I said that according to to Wikipedia, "A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality."
I added that in different societies, there are different prevalent moral beliefs, including in many cases beliefs about what is acceptable, appropriate or desirable for males or females. If one wants to call that a "gender role", sure, gender roles exist. If you mean something else, I would need more info.

But of course, that does not tell me what a social construct is.

 

[J842P]

With very little effort, it is easy to see that "gender" is and always has been purely a social construct, while there have always been people who do not fit a binary gender model. The variations exist whether some people/religions want to accept that or not.

The idea that "gender is purely a social construct" has not been evidenced in this thread, and indeed, I don't think any social behavior can really be termed "purely a social construct", or even know what that's suppose to mean. And that is an honest question, because, if it is suppose to mean "gender has no association with biology", or "gender is not related to biological sex", then I think that is clearly false.

Of course, there exist people who do not fall into a binary gender category scheme. Well, there are also people who do not fall into a binary sexual scheme, i.e. intersex people, but it would be absurd to state that sex is therefore purely a social construct, no? Or that sex is if not purely binary is at least bimodal?

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not sure what "gender is a construct" means, and what is the basis for the moral claim that "people should be able to define it for themselves.", or who the person with the moral obligation would be (given that it's a passive voice moral claim, and the subject of the obligation appears unclear).
Regardless, the fact is that the English words "man" and "woman" have meaning, as nearly all words.
If I say I'm a Vulcan, that's not true. If I say I'm a Jedi, that's not true. If I say I'm an AI, that's not true. If I say I'm a car (say, KITT), that's not true. And if I say I'm a woman, that's not true. This is so regardless of whether I want any of that to be true. .

1. You continue to conflate "gender" and "biological sex"
2. Your entire argument hinges of the definition of the word "woman" yet the meanings of words change all the time.
3. It is not the fault of someone like Danica Roem that our specific society has failed to create additional words to describe additional genders; but that is why the modifier "transgender" is tacked on ahead of the word "woman" in spite of the fact that it causes hoozit to have a hissy-fit

 

[LordKiran]

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former preconceptions might have been false?

That's both false and epistemically irrational for you to believe. But no matter, if you want to make an argument in support of the claim that Roem is a woman instead of launching personal attacks, I will consider your argument.

I'm just putting it out there as a distinct possibility.

 

[blastula]

Gender is a social construct, but then that means it's not individually self-defining, the construct is about agreement among society and the individual. But I see no reason not to defer to the individual's self identification, unless the identity claim isn't serious or is otherwise somehow unreasonable.