Could anyone who claims (or anyone interested) Danica Roem is a woman provide an argument and/or sufficient evidence of that?
I have read plenty claims made by transgender people and their advocates, and I have not seen enough evidence to make it not epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Roem is a woman.
One argument for Danica Roem to be a woman would be something along the lines of:
1. There is such thing as a male brain/mind and a female brain/mind.
2. Danica Roem has a female brain/mind (close enough; it doesn't have to be a perfect match to a typical female brain/mind).
3. The ordinary meaning of the word "woman" is such that it tracks brains/minds rather than, say, sexual organs, or it tracks several things but in case of conflict, brain/minds prevail (as opposed to, say, the person being still a man, or neither a man nor a woman, etc.), or something like this.
Establishing 1. should be easy, though it's usually in conflict with a common leftist ideological view, which actually denies it, so left-wingers usually avoid it. That's not a problem for my assessment of 1., but it tends to block advocates of the claim that Roem is a woman from arguing in the only way it seems it has any shot.
Leaving that aside, 1. is true, but I don't see sufficient evidence to warrant the belief that 2. is true. Anyone could provide that evidence?
Roem has/had male sexual and reproductive organs, which almost always go together with male brain/minds, so that's strong evidence to overcome.
Roem's observations about Roem's own mind could provide counter evidence, and so do some studies about people with male sexual organs who claim to be women. But it's not nearly enough - at least, what I've seen - to warrant belief that 2. is true, though it seems enough to leave that possibility open (i.e., to make the belief that 2. is false unwarranted). Still, maybe I have not seen enough evidence.
As for 3., there is some evidence from fictional characters and the way viewers treat them that support 3., but there is also counter evidence from the usage of other people, and further, there is evidence that e different people using the word "woman" differently so that in the usage of some, it tracks (at least predominantly) brains/minds, whereas in the usage of others, it does not. It's hard for me to establish whether there is a clear majority here.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the argument above is usually given by people who claim that Danica Roem is a woman. Usually, those who make such claims give no argument whatsoever, or if they do, they don't make any claims like 1. But I just haven't seen any other argument that has any chance of working.
Also, I'm not asking for evidence that Danica Roem is a woman according to the usage of the word "woman" among a minority of English speakers (or native English speakers). If the claim is that only that Danica Roem is a woman according to the usage of the word "woman" among a minority of English speakers (or native English speakers), that's another matter, but such claim would not warrant concluding that the claim that Danica Roem is not a woman - made by people who doesn't use the word "woman" in that sense - is false, or that Danica Roem should not have been classified as a male when born, or that people in the past who called anyone with a penis a man were mistaken, or that Danica Roem or anyone else with male sexual and reproductive organs realized that she was a woman (as opposed to something like "he decided to use the word 'woman' differently, and called himself a woman even though he was a man by the way the word was used previously", etc.).
Still, another way to argue for the claim that Danica Roem is a woman might be to argue that the word "woman" has changed meaning, and now predominant usage among English speakers is that anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman, or something along those lines. That does not seem warranted, though I'm open to the evidence. But if that were true, that surely would not warrant claim that someone realized she was a woman, etc., or that those who said otherwise in the past were in error, etc.
