Danica Roem

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the case of Danica, she began physical transition in 2012. So while her gender is female through self identification, liberal social convention, and societal role, it is also most likely she is either intersexed or now a biologically sexed female.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Who are you to decide that binary gender constructs are the "proper" way to do it? Clearly, it isn't. People do exist and have always existed that do not fit into your pre-conceived notion of only two genders. That tells me that it is your notion of words that is in error... not the people themselves.

 

[RavenSky]

a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/social-3

Religion would be another example of a social construct

Race is another

 

[sharon45]

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.

Who are you to decide that binary gender constructs are the "proper" way to do it? Clearly, it isn't. People do exist and have always existed that do not fit into your pre-conceived notion of only two genders. That tells me that it is your notion of words that is in error... not the people themselves.

It's a part of free expression, where we all get to decide for ourselves.

 

[RavenSky]

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, who are you to determine that there are two, and only two, "proper" words to describe the wide variety of humans.

It is a fact that people have always existed that do not fit under either of the two labels you are determined to force them to. That is why I showed you other societies that have more than just two words.

As I said, the problem is NOT Danica Roem calling herself a transgender woman. The problem is your insistence that there are only two "proper" words.

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

Because the english language currently only gives her two choices of words, and she lives and breathes her life as a woman - with the modifier of "transgender" to be even more precise.

If you were to insist she is actually a man, you would be both wrong and immoral.

 

[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.

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.

Your beliefs about me are both epistemically irrational and false. I made no claims you made claims about doors. I only pointed out that a man is an adult and so is a woman. So when bathrooms have these categories, children who are not adults, don't fit. On average, due to statistics, children would be safer to go in the Women's restroom. Of course, doors sometimes say Gentlemen and Ladies, too. With all the pussy grabbing and sex assaults lately, it's difficult for men to prove they are Gentlemen. Ladies are noble, too. What labels are these things as they don't really connote biological sex but some idea of "proper" categorization and behavior. That is, the bathroom doors are not labeled male and female biological sex but something else.

 

[RavenSky]

Underseer started a separate thread on this, but I thought it would be good to point it out here as well:

Germany must add third gender option, court rules

Transgender and gender nonconforming people have just landed a major victory in Germany. Earlier this week, the country’s highest court ruled that the national government must create a third gender option on legal documents for people who do not identify as male or female. The ruling comes as a victory for an intersex citizen who challenged the government’s legal gender binary in court, after they wanted to use the terms “inter” or “divers” on public documents.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/german-court-third-gender/

 

[Angry Floof]

Who are you to decide that binary gender constructs are the "proper" way to do it? Clearly, it isn't. People do exist and have always existed that do not fit into your pre-conceived notion of only two genders. That tells me that it is your notion of words that is in error... not the people themselves.

It's a part of free expression, where we all get to decide for ourselves.

But you don't get to decide for others. I know that goes hard against the grain of right wing thinking, but it's true.

As for the thread topic, there are no restrictions or conditions for gender or sex in the US for running for office. The argument about whether Danica Roem calls herself a woman is merely the typical reaction of people who think they get to decide for others.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

}

Your beliefs about me are both epistemically irrational and false. So when bathrooms have these categories, children who are not adults, don't fit. On average, due to statistics, children would be safer to go in the Women's restroom. Of course, doors sometimes say Gentlemen and Ladies, too. With all the pussy grabbing and sex assaults lately, it's difficult for men to prove they are Gentlemen. Ladies are noble, too. What labels are these things as they don't really connote biological sex but some idea of "proper" categorization and behavior. That is, the bathroom doors are not labeled male and female biological sex but something else.

They're not epistemically irrational, and not false. You now add more false beliefs about me. I didn't say you made claims that I made claims about doors. I pointed out that your reply was not addressing anything I said, and that your claims about me were both epistemically irrational and false.

In any case, it's clear (to a reader being rational) that you're being irrational, and I'm not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

1. No, I do not conflate "gender" and "biological sex". I'm talking about the words "man" and "woman". One theory is that they refer to male human beings, and female human beings, in the usual sense of the terms. But I make no assumptions. I look at the evidence. And the evidence is not supportive of the claim that Roem is a woman.
2. Words don't change the meaning all the time. Sometimes, they change meaning. But many words keep their meaning for a very, very long time, even centuries.
3. This is not a matter of a fault. Just as the classification of individuals in female and male works for nearly most animal species we encounter and for nearly all intents and purposes, and allows us to predict how an individual will look like, behave, etc., in a wide range of contexts - despite the existence of some abnormal individuals -, the categories of "man" and "woman" do seem to work, and usually match (if not always; that's debatable) those of human males and females.
But regardless, if you think that the classification of humans between men and women is not precise enough to classify someone like Roem, then it's improper to claim that Roem is a woman. Rather, what you should say is precisely that "woman" and "man" are not precise enough to be used in this context, and provide evidence in support of your claim. Of course, if that is correct and the classification is not precise enough to be used when it comes to people like Roem, it would be also improper to claim that someone discovered that she was a woman, or something along those lines.

The modified "transgender" tacked ahead of "woman" does not help, because it's a claim that a transgender woman is a type of woman. Again, it's not a claim that the words "man" and "woman" as traditionally used are not precise enough, so you're changing the meaning of those words, and add more words, like "transgender woman". Rather, you're saying that Roem is a woman. That is obvious from the exchange:

A transgender woman male Democrat beat not just a Republican, but an incumbent Republican in a red state blue district.

Facts matter.

Your reply was not something like 'the words 'man' and 'woman' are not precise enough to be properly used in this context; we need other words, with other meanings, and we picked the term 'transgender woman''.

No, your reply was:

And the FACT is that Danica Roem is a woman.

Suck it up Bob Marshall

And the exchange went on further:

Even referring to "her" as a transgender woman betrays the fact that he is a man.

How about we take a look at his birth certificate?

The FACT is that Danica Roem is a woman. That is all that matters.

Again, this is a claim that she's a woman in the ordinary sense of the words, because there is no indication to the contrary. If we're coining new words by the way, instead of "transgender woman" one might as well pick "x-gender man", or whatever.

Moreover, you also said:

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

Again, I'm not sure whom the obligation allegedly falls upon (the "should be able" is passive voice, and context is not clear enough), but even if the old classification is not precise enough and there is a new one in place, that claim is unwarranted, and does not seem to be in line with the coining of a new category scheme, under which allegedly Roem is a "transgender woman". Does "transgender woman" tracks whether people utter "I'm a woman"?

Who are you to decide that binary gender constructs are the "proper" way to do it? Clearly, it isn't. People do exist and have always existed that do not fit into your pre-conceived notion of only two genders. That tells me that it is your notion of words that is in error... not the people themselves.

That's not at all what I said. I said that even if other people classify in 5 categories, that does not mean that the people that fall in those categories can't be properly classified by the usual two in English. Whether they can be properly classified depends on whether the concepts involved are precise enough to make a distinction applicable to the cases in question.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that Alice classifies people in 5 categories: C1 is for people under 1.3 meters tall; C2 is from 1.3 to 1.6 meters; C3 is for people from 1.6 to 1.9 meters, and C5 is for people over 1.9 meters. Even if people can be properly categorized in that fashion, they can also be properly categorized in the "lak" and "ñak" binary categorization system (which applies not only to people).
My point is: even if other societies have other categorization systems, that does not mean that Roem is a woman, and provides no good reason to think Roem is a woman.

Because the english language currently only gives her two choices of words, and she lives and breathes her life as a woman - with the modifier of "transgender" to be even more precise.

Evidence of that?
You say "she lives and breathes her life as a woman". What does that mean?
Surely, if we're going with the usual meaning of the words, that Roem wants to be a woman would not make her a woman, or indeed provide any good reason to believe that Roem is a woman. You're back to making a claim that Roem is a woman in the usual sense, or at least Roem is closer to matching the concept of a woman than that of a man. That I'm asking for evidence of.

If you were to insist she is actually a man, you would be both wrong and immoral.

I would not say that the evidence is conclusive, so she might be a woman - but more probably, he's a man.
If someone could provide evidence to the contrary, I would consider it. So far, all I have gotten from the left is irrationality and unjust attacks.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's a part of free expression, where we all get to decide for ourselves.

But you don't get to decide for others. I know that goes hard against the grain of right wing thinking, but it's true.

As for the thread topic, there are no restrictions or conditions for gender or sex in the US for running for office. The argument about whether Danica Roem calls herself a woman is merely the typical reaction of people who think they get to decide for others.

If someone claims to be Imago Dei, or be Born Again in Jesus, etc., I'm not buying it. It's not about deciding for themselves. It's about whether their claims about themselves are true or false. They are false. I don't see any good evidence that Roem is a woman. She might be, but I reckon it's more probable that he's a man, on the basis of the available evidence. At any rate, if Roem is a woman, it's certainly not because Roem so decided. It's not a matter of personal choice whether you fall into a category picked by a word (well, except to the extent the word tracks personal choices; in this case, it surely does not).

 

[laughing dog]

But you don't get to decide for others. I know that goes hard against the grain of right wing thinking, but it's true.

As for the thread topic, there are no restrictions or conditions for gender or sex in the US for running for office. The argument about whether Danica Roem calls herself a woman is merely the typical reaction of people who think they get to decide for others.

If someone claims to be Imago Dei, or be Born Again in Jesus, etc., I'm not buying it. It's not about deciding for themselves. It's about whether their claims about themselves are true or false. They are false. I don't see any good evidence that Roem is a woman. She might be, but I reckon it's more probable that he's a man, on the basis of the available evidence. At any rate, if Roem is a woman, it's certainly not because Roem so decided. It's not a matter of personal choice whether you fall into a category picked by a word (well, except to the extent the word tracks personal choices; in this case, it surely does not).

You are factually incorrect - people can and do choose their gender.  Sex_reassignment_surgery is an example.

But your contributions in this thread have piqued my curiosity - do you feel the need to have proof of everyone's gender?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If someone claims to be Imago Dei, or be Born Again in Jesus, etc., I'm not buying it. It's not about deciding for themselves. It's about whether their claims about themselves are true or false. They are false. I don't see any good evidence that Roem is a woman. She might be, but I reckon it's more probable that he's a man, on the basis of the available evidence. At any rate, if Roem is a woman, it's certainly not because Roem so decided. It's not a matter of personal choice whether you fall into a category picked by a word (well, except to the extent the word tracks personal choices; in this case, it surely does not).

You are factually incorrect - people can and do choose their gender.  Sex_reassignment_surgery is an example.

But your contributions in this thread have piqued my curiosity - do you feel the need to have proof of everyone's gender?

First, no, you are incorrect. A person does not become a man or a woman by means of surgical alterations. If I were to be surgically modified and my sexual organs were made to somewhat resemble a vagina, I would be a man with surgically altered sexual organs, but still a man. In order to become a woman, I would have to undergo a transformation that is far beyond currect technology. I do not know whether future technology will make it possible.

Second, it's not a "need". But of course, like all humans, I do classify objects in the world in different manners. One category is classifying people as men or women. Nearly everyone falls into one such category (there are some exceptions, like intersex people with minds that also have both female and male categories; maybe some others, like Roem. Or maybe not). In nearly all cases, I do have sufficient evidence. In fact, by looking at a person's face, in nearly all cases, I can tell whether that's a female or a male human, and also whether that's a woman or a man.
But no, I don't feel any need to have evidence. There are a few people that I look at, and I don't know whether he's a man or she is a woman. I usually do not care, and keep going. But when someone makes a claim that a person is a woman, and I see no good evidence of that, that piques my curiosity, especially where there is a demand to agree with the claim or at least refrain to contest it, on pain of moral condemnation. It looks like a religion/ideology.

 

[laughing dog]

First, no, you are incorrect. A person does not become a man or a woman by means of surgical alterations. If I were to be surgically modified and my sexual organs were made to somewhat resemble a vagina, I would be a man with surgically altered sexual organs, but still a man. In order to become a woman, I would have to undergo a transformation that is far beyond currect technology. I do not know whether future technology will make it possible.

Unfortunately for you, neither the medical profession or the law takes your opinion as gospel.

Second, it's not a "need". But of course, like all humans, I do classify objects in the world in different manners. One category is classifying people as men or women. Nearly everyone falls into one such category (there are some exceptions, like intersex people with minds that also have both female and male categories; maybe some others, like Roem. Or maybe not). In nearly all cases, I do have sufficient evidence. In fact, by looking at a person's face, in nearly all cases, I can tell whether that's a female or a male human, and also whether that's a woman or a man.
But no, I don't feel any need to have evidence. There are a few people that I look at, and I don't know whether he's a man or she is a woman. I usually do not care, and keep going. But when someone makes a claim that a person is a woman, and I see no good evidence of that, that piques my curiosity, especially where there is a demand to agree with the claim or at least refrain to contest it, on pain of moral condemnation. It looks like a religion/ideology.

I know what you mean. Denying that someone can choose their gender in the face of the medical and legal facts looks like a religion/ideology.

 

[RavenSky]

Words don't change the meaning all the time. Sometimes, they change meaning. But many words keep their meaning for a very, very long time, even centuries.

throughout all of history and in every language, the meanings of words change/evolve. The words themselves change. If you are so hung up on the word "woman" referring to a person who feels, looks and acts like a woman, then the problem is you, not the word.

This is not a matter of a fault. Just as the classification of individuals in female and male works for nearly most animal species we encounter and for nearly all intents and purposes, and allows us to predict how an individual will look like, behave, etc., in a wide range of contexts - despite the existence of some abnormal individuals -, the categories of "man" and "woman" do seem to work, and usually match (if not always; that's debatable) those of human males and females.

And if you did not have knowledge that Danica Roem is transgender, the label of "woman" applied to her would "predict how an individual will look like, behave, etc., in a wide range of contexts" with you none the wiser.

But regardless, if you think that the classification of humans between men and women is not precise enough to classify someone like Roem, then it's improper to claim that Roem is a woman. Rather, what you should say is precisely that "woman" and "man" are not precise enough to be used in this context, and provide evidence in support of your claim. Of course, if that is correct and the classification is not precise enough to be used when it comes to people like Roem, it would be also improper to claim that someone discovered that she was a woman, or something along those lines.

YOU are the one having the problem. YOU can call for different additional words. I'm fine calling Danica Roem a women... especially based of your own conditions: "predict how an individual will look like, behave, etc., in a wide range of contexts"

The modified "transgender" tacked ahead of "woman" does not help, because it's a claim that a transgender woman is a type of woman.

I agree it should not be necessary because frankly it is none of anyone else's business... especially yours.

We have currently two words. Of those two words, "woman" fits Danica Roem best and is her preference, therefore that is what I will use. EOD

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't say you made claims that I made claims about doors.

Really, here is what you wrote:

Your beliefs about me are both epistemically irrational and false. I made no claims about doors.

A non sequitur then. Since once sentence bares no relation to the next of yours, welcome to ignore.

 

[Trausti]

Other societies had groups that cut off their genitalia and wore dresses. Some were called eunuchs. In Imperial Russia they were the  Skoptsy. But there's no basis for this contemporary unscientific belief among a few that cutting off your pecker makes you a woman. You're just a man with a mutilated pecker. That shouldn't disqualify you from public office; all that should matter are your positions on this and that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Unfortunately for you, neither the medical profession or the law takes your opinion as gospel.

That is irrelevant, but regardless, let me ask you something.
Do you think that if I were to undergo sex reassignment surgery, I would then become a woman?
Do you think that people with male sexual organs who have not undergone such surgery but claim to be women, are not women?

I know what you mean. Denying that someone can choose their gender in the face of the medical and legal facts looks like a religion/ideology.

No, I'm not denying any medical or legal facts, obviously. I'm talking about whether they can actually choose to be a different gender, and succeed in bringing about that change. I make no claims that they wouldn't succeed in having the surgery done. But the result of the surgery would not be a vagina (or, in the other direction, a penis, but let's simplify), but a surgically altered penis (and other sexual organs). That's a matter of language, not a matter of medical science.

That aside, your own position here conflicts with rather frequent transgender claims. In fact, you're implying here that a person transforms from man to woman or from woman to man through surgery. But - purely for example - Jenner claimed to be a woman before having any surgery. Such claims are usual among transgender claims. They claim that they discovered they were men or women, etc., and it's also common for some transgender people and their supporters to claim that gender is unchangeable (then again, conflicting claims are the rule here).

 

[laughing dog]

That is irrelevant,

It is religion to dispute reality and insist of metaphysical explanations.

Do you think that if I were to undergo sex reassignment surgery, I would then become a woman?
Do you think that people with male sexual organs who have not undergone such surgery but claim to be women, are not women?

I don't think about these cases at all. Frankly, I do not care about other people's plumbing at all.

No, I'm not denying any medical or legal facts, obviously. I'm talking about whether they can actually choose to be a different gender, and succeed in bringing about that change....

Since the medical and legal facts say they have changed their gender, you are engaging in a dogmatic religious argument. I find dogmatic religious arguments rather pointless because the holders of such views are so narrow minded that they are unable to accept that reality extends beyond their narrow imagination or thought.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/social-3

Religion would be another example of a social construct

Race is another

Race is real. Religion is real, though it makes false and unwarranted claims regularly. Male and female are concepts that do represent reality, and are effective classifying nearly all individuals of nearly all species of mammals, reptiles, etc. And the concepts "man" and "woman" might track human males and females. If they don't, though, they still track some feature of reality. If they were not, there would be wide disagreement about whether someone is a man or a woman. And in nearly all cases, there is and there's always been agreement. Even if the classification is not precise enough for all cases, it's precise enough for nearly all, and that requires a feature of reality that it's tracking.


From your link:

Games are an example of socially constructed entities and often exist because of certain sets of conventional rules. These sets of social conventions and agreement to abide by them give games their meaning in any given social context.

Okay, so the game of chess is a social construct. But that does not change the fact that this is a chessboard, and this is not a chessboard, and if someone claims otherwise, they are mistaken.

There are facts about chess. There are valid and invalid moves. And it's also true that Carlsen is the World Champion.
Sure, other societies did not have a word for "chess". But that does not change the fact that there are facts about chess. And that we can classify objects into chessboards vs. non-chessboards, etc.
Now, it seems probable that all human societies had a classification based on concepts very close to "man" and "woman" (unlike chess), but even that's beside the point. If gender is a social construct, my points remain.

- - - Updated - - -

It is religion to dispute reality and insist of metaphysical explanations.

Do you think that if I were to undergo sex reassignment surgery, I would then become a woman?
Do you think that people with male sexual organs who have not undergone such surgery but claim to be women, are not women?

I don't think about these cases at all. Frankly, I do not care about other people's plumbing at all.

No, I'm not denying any medical or legal facts, obviously. I'm talking about whether they can actually choose to be a different gender, and succeed in bringing about that change....

Since the medical and legal facts say they have changed their gender, you are engaging in a dogmatic religious argument. I find dogmatic religious arguments rather pointless because the holders of such views are so narrow minded that they are unable to accept that reality extends beyond their narrow imagination or thought.

Why do you behave like that?