Danica Roem

[Trausti]

Since the medical and legal facts say they have changed their gender, you are engaging in a religious argument.

I'd be interest on what these "medical" facts are. "Legal" facts are irrelevant here. The law cannot change biology. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. How someone feels inside doesn't matter.

Not just about sex: throughout our bodies, thousands of genes act differently in men and women

Source study: here

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

You claimed:

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.

You were making false and irrational claims about me, implying my beliefs implied anything like what you said.
I replied "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. "
By "I made no claims about doors", I'm pointing out that my claims have nothing to do with my replies, and that it should be obvious that your accusations are unwarranted.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

First, I didn't deny change, but the claim that they were changing "all the time".
Second, let's say that Hernán is from Argentina, and hasn't learned much English yet. So, he asks you: "What's a woman?". If you reply "A woman is a person who feels, looks and acts like a woman", Hernán is going to be puzzled due to the circularity.
Third, Roem does not look like a woman to me. Moreover, transgender claims are often made regardless of looks· Your position seems to contradict that.
Fourth, what is to "feel" like a woman?
That sounds like having a female mind (or part of the mind). But if so, I would like to see decisive evidence of that claim.

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.

Actually, I would think that Roem is a man by looking at Roem. But regardless, the claim of behavior is interesting, because this looks like an implicit claim that Roem in fact has a female mind. Now, what's the evidence of that?
It's true that if a person manages to look like a woman and also dresses like women usually do, etc., most people are not going to figure out that the person has a penis or wonder whether they have a female or male brain, but that's because most people use looks as a guide to assessments of "man" and "woman", and that's usually successful.
The question about the mind is not, however, whether one can tell whether Roem is male by looking at Roem. Nor is it whether Roem can dress or otherwise match behavior that in some society is usual for women but not for men. The question would be whether on the actual differences between female and male brains/minds, Roem is female, or male, or something in between.

Now, the fact that Roem developed male sexual and reproductive organs, even male secondary traits, provide very strong evidence of a male brain/mind, simply because those characteristics nearly always go hand in hand with male brains/minds (else, those wouldn't be male brains/minds in the first place). What's the counter evidence? Roem's own claims, plus some evidence that in some respect, self-identified transgender people have some female brain/minds traits.
That is enough evidence to make it not certain that Roem has a male mind. But it's not enough to establish that Roem has a female one. A mixed set of features is more likely. So, the issue is again the evidence. As I said earlier, one argument would be:



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.

1. is true.
I used to think 3. was true, but on the basis of observations of the use of others, now I think there is a considerable variation in usage. I'm not sure what the majority usage is.
Now, if 3. is false and - as conservatives generally believe - the words track sexual organs (or sexual organs prevail over minds in case of conflict, even if they normally track a large bundle of properties), then Roem is a man.
But what if 3. is true? (which may well be the case; I give it 0.5 approximately).
Then, the problem is the evidence in support of 2. is weak. In fact, it's more likely that Roem's brain is somewhere in between. So, even if 3 is true, given a mixed mind and male sexual organs, it seems likely that he's a man.

So, counting all of the linguistic and other evidence, my overall conclusion is that Roem is probably a man, though I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

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"

You're fine calling Roem a woman, but on the basis of the available evidence, you should not conclude that Roem is a woman.

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

The claim is that Roem is a woman. But the evidence does not warrant the claim. You can claim it's not my business. For that matter, a Born Again Christian can claim it's not my business whether he was born again.

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

You have not provided any good reason to think that "woman" fits Danica Roem better than "man". On the basis of the available evidence, probably "man" fits better. But if "man" does not fit, still the evidence does not warrant a claim that "woman" does. I don't know whether he's a man. I would go with "probably" a man, because that's what the evidence warrants.

 

[RavenSky]

Let's say that Hernán is from Argentina, and hasn't learned much English yet. So, he asks you: "What's a woman?". If you reply "A woman is a person who feels, looks and acts like a woman", Hernán is going to be puzzled due to the circularity.

I will show him a photo of Danica Roem

Third, Roem does not look like a woman to me. Moreover, transgender claims are often made regardless of looks·

A lot of people you would insist are "proper women" wouldn't meet your personal opinion of what looks like a "woman" either. Too bad.

Fourth, what is to "feel" like a woman? That sounds like having a female mind (or part of the mind). But if so, I would like to see decisive evidence of that claim.

Hernán is from Argentina. He claims to be in love with Cynthia. What is to "feel" like he is in love? That sounds like having a loving heart (or part of the heart). But if so, I would like to see decisive evidence of that claim.

 

[RavenSky]

So, counting all of the linguistic and other evidence, my overall conclusion is that Roem is probably a man, though I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not your call to make

You're fine calling Roem a woman, but on the basis of the available evidence, you should not conclude that Roem is a woman.

Not your call to make

The claim is that Roem is a woman. But the evidence does not warrant the claim.

Not your call to make

You have not provided any good reason to think that "woman" fits Danica Roem better than "man". On the basis of the available evidence, probably "man" fits better. But if "man" does not fit, still the evidence does not warrant a claim that "woman" does. I don't know whether he's a man. I would go with "probably" a man, because that's what the evidence warrants.

You have not provided any good reason to think that "Angra Mainyu" fits you better than "Roy Moore". On the basis of the available evidence, probably "Roy Moore" fits better. But if "Roy Moore" does not fit, still the evidence does not warrant a claim that "Angra Mainyu" does. I don't know whether you are a Roy Moore. I would go with "probably" a Roy Moore, because that's what the evidence warrants.

 

[RavenSky]

Starting in 2019, nonbinary citizens across California can identify as nonbinary on their driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and other documents. The bill also allows parents to change their child’s gender marker on their birth certificate, so transgender children can have their official documentation updated while they’re still minors.

Requirements needed to change gender markers on IDs will be less strenuous under the new law, too. Now, transgender people will no longer need to receive a medical opinion—aka a letter affirming one has successfully undergone gender transitioning—to alter said markers. Nonbinary and transgender people won’t have to appear in court to change their gender markers, either.

“I want to thank Gov. Brown for recognizing how difficult it can be for our transgender, nonbinary, and intersex family members, friends, and neighbors when they don’t have an ID that matches their gender presentation,” the bill’s co-author Sen. Toni Atkins (D) explained, BuzzFeed News reports. “The Gender Recognition Act will eliminate unnecessary stress and anxiety for many Californians, and it exemplifies the leadership role that our state continues to take in LGBTQ civil rights.”

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

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you behave like that?

Yes, acting like a rational person and accepting the facts of reality is difficult for the religious mindset to deal with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is this a proper analogy to the argument we are hearing? If not, how is it substantively different?

Some human males identify as romantically liking other males (identify as gay) and some human females identify as romantically liking other females (identify as lesbian). Biologically a male can only mate with a female. Therefore, everyone is really actually straight and we shouldn't let them identify as gay or lesbian.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is this a proper analogy to the argument we are hearing? If not, how is it substantively different?

Some human males identify as romantically liking other males (identify as gay) and some human females identify as romantically liking other females (identify as lesbian). Biologically a male can only mate with a female. Therefore, everyone is really actually straight and we shouldn't let them identify as gay or lesbian.

Not remotely, as you should realize.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you behave like that?

Yes, acting like a rational person and accepting the facts of reality is difficult for the religious mindset to deal with.

You're being irrational. It makes discussion extremely difficult. It's your religion that Roem is a woman. It's not something you assessed on the basis of evidence of any sort, as your behavior here indicates. And your attacks, misrepresentations, etc., are all clear religious behavior (or ideological behavior; one can discuss whether religions are a subclass of ideologies or pretty much the same thing, but psychologically, there does not seem to be anything that sets them apart from other ideologies not usually called "religion".

 

[laughing dog]

You're being irrational. ..

I'm not the one denying medical, scientific and legal reality - you are. You are employing a reality-denying position - which is irrational.

It makes discussion extremely difficult. It's your religion that Roem is a woman.

No. All I have pointed out is that it is possible to choose their gender. You, on the other hand, have persisted in denying reality with an extremely narrow-minded and irrational approach - the hallmark of a religious position. It is you, not me, who started characterizing people's positions as religion/ideology. I have been using your stated standards and applied them correctly to your position and arguments.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since the medical and legal facts say they have changed their gender, you are engaging in a religious argument.

I'd be interest on what these "medical" facts are. "Legal" facts are irrelevant here. The law cannot change biology. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. How someone feels inside doesn't matter.

Not just about sex: throughout our bodies, thousands of genes act differently in men and women

Source study: here

The Clown fish is also transgender achieving this without surgery. The change is from male to female as a standard biological process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I will show him a photo of Danica Roem.

That's not a good way to go, unless you pick the photo carefully.
For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-transgender-person-elected-state-legislature
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nder-elected-official-20171107-story,amp.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/danica-roem-virginia-transgender.html

He doesn't look like a woman in those - at least, not the impression I get.
But regardless, let's say that Roem looks like a woman, at least his face, neck and shoulders. It's not a problem. That part of my reply was to address your statement

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.

Now, that's not a claim of meaning but reference, but it does seem to have a circularity problem. At any rate, let's test that theory (there are good reasons to suspect it may be incoherent, but let's assume otherwise, and see where that leads). Jenner had always been considered a man, and called "Bruce". He looked like a man. But he claimed to be a woman, and chose the name "Caitlyn". Now, if your theory is correct, and since Jenner still looked like a man (he still does, I would say, at least in the pictures I've seen, but whatever; at least, he sure when he first claimed to be a woman), he was still a man. So, your theory implies that Jenner was mistaken in his initial claim that Jenner was a woman. Do you agree?

A lot of people you would insist are "proper women" wouldn't meet your personal opinion of what looks like a "woman" either. Too bad.

First, that's not how it works. Once we learn to use the words "man" and "woman", we can properly categorize nearly any person as a man or a woman just by looking at their face. In some cases, that's not enough, and either we don't get an intuitive impression just by looking at the face, or we get the wrong impression. But that's a minuscule proportion. Moreover, if we look at more than the face - say, neck and shoulders too -, our accuracy increases. But it's not infallible, and I never claimed or suggested otherwise - which should be very, very obvious to any reader paying attention to the exchange.

Second, you implied that the word "woman" refers to a person who feels, looks, and acts like a woman. It was not my claim.

Hernán is from Argentina. He claims to be in love with Cynthia. What is to "feel" like he is in love? That sounds like having a loving heart (or part of the heart). But if so, I would like to see decisive evidence of that claim.

I think that if he makes such a claim, he is very likely correct, because that's what usually happens (i.e., people who claim to be in love, usually are), unless we have specific reason to suspect he's lying, or confused. But then again, this is not what the evidence about Roem says, for the reasons I explained in my earlier reply.

Not your call to make

This is probably the worst part of the reply. And you repeat that 3 times in the post I'm replying to. You made the same accusation earlier.
Regardless, it would still be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

You have not provided any good reason to think that "Angra Mainyu" fits you better than "Roy Moore". On the basis of the available evidence, probably "Roy Moore" fits better. But if "Roy Moore" does not fit, still the evidence does not warrant a claim that "Angra Mainyu" does. I don't know whether you are a Roy Moore. I would go with "probably" a Roy Moore, because that's what the evidence warrants.

The name "Angra Mainyu" is a proper name of choice to be used on line. Just as I picked "Angra Mainyu", I could have picked "Roy Moore", or whatever. But by picking "Angra Mainyu" I made no claim about myself; I just picked a label. On the other hand, Roem keeps making a claim about Roem when he claimed to be a woman (yes, she might be a woman, but he's more likely a man, so I'm using the pronoun that is more likely correct).
As for his choice of "Danica", that's not a claim, either, though conversational implicatures can lead to confusion, since it might be implicit that the person is a woman. Regardless, conversational implicatures can be canceled, and I called him "Danica Roem" or "Roem", not "Daniel". You're mistaken about this too if you think this is in any way similar.

 

[sharon45]

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.

That's the point, because I don't want to decide for others, just for myself.

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.

Again, I have no problem with this either.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not the one denying medical, scientific and legal reality - you are. You are employing a reality-denying position - which is irrational.

That's 100% false. I challenge you to pick one statement of mine in which I deny any medical, scientific, or legal fact.

No. All I have pointed out is that it is possible to choose their gender.

You claimed that it is. I claimed that, in the usual sense of the words, a man cannot (with present leves of tech) choose to be a woman, and actually become a woman, and similarly, a woman can't become a man. If you claim otherwise, you are mistaken. And moreover, you're probably also contradicting your own beliefs. Let's test that.
In the past, Jenner - up to then known as Bruce - claimed to be a woman, and picked the name Caitlyn. Now, when he claimed to be a woman, there had been no legal change whatsoever. Moreover, there had been no surgery whatsoever. Do you believe that his claim to be a woman was false?
If you believe he was not making a false claim and he was actually a woman, it follows from your own beliefs that Jenner did not become a woman by means of surgery, or by means of a legal change. Rather, any such changes were irrelevant as to whether Jenner is a woman.
Now, perhaps, you think that while Jenner never chose to change from man to woman, others did. If so, I will ask you to provide an example of someone who was a man, but now is a woman, or an example of someone who was a woman, but now is a man..

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Before the next round begins, I would like to stress a point:

When I first posted in this thread, I was not fighting. I was asking for evidence supporting the claim that Danica Roem is a woman. I got plenty of accusations coming my way, but not a single reasonable argument in support of the claim. It would still be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is this a proper analogy to the argument we are hearing? If not, how is it substantively different?

Some human males identify as romantically liking other males (identify as gay) and some human females identify as romantically liking other females (identify as lesbian). Biologically a male can only mate with a female. Therefore, everyone is really actually straight and we shouldn't let them identify as gay or lesbian.

it's not even similar, as you should know. But still, let me explain why it's substantively different.
Some human males are in fact predominantly or exclusively sexually attracted to other males. Some human females are in fact predominantly or exclusively sexually attracted to other females. There are words in English to describe them, such as "homosexual" (or "bisexual", perhaps, in the "predominantly" case; there is some vagueness as usual), or "gay". Whether a male can only mate with a female is irrelevant. Moreover, sexual activities are not limited to mating in the technical sense you seem to have in mind.

The argument here is substantively different because the question is whether Danica Roem has the properties that fit the description "woman", under the usual meaning of the word in the English language. I asked for any good arguments in support of the claim that Roem is a woman, and got nothing - well, I got plenty of unwarranted resentment and accusations, but nothing substantive in that department.

 

[laughing dog]

That's 100% false. I challenge you to pick one statement of mine in which I deny any medical, scientific, or legal fact.

You deny that someone can choose their gender. Duh.

You claimed that it is. I claimed that, in the usual sense of the words, a man cannot (with present leves of tech) choose to be a woman, and actually become a woman, and similarly, a woman can't become a man. If you claim otherwise, you are mistaken.

You are wrong. Medically, people can change their gender.

And moreover, you're probably also contradicting your own beliefs.....

Two observations. First, Jenner has undergone gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment. Second, it doesn't matter to me or to most rational people when Jenner realized she was a woman. Caitlyn Jenner was a man and is now a woman. To most rational and humane people, this is not a big deal. But to the narrow minded and/or the religious minded this is a big deal.

Furthermore, it is pointless to discuss such issues with people who not only do not literally know what they are talking about, but who deny reality: nothing can get them to change their religious views.

 

[LordKiran]

You deny that someone can choose their gender. Duh.

You claimed that it is. I claimed that, in the usual sense of the words, a man cannot (with present leves of tech) choose to be a woman, and actually become a woman, and similarly, a woman can't become a man. If you claim otherwise, you are mistaken.

You are wrong. Medically, people can change their gender.

And moreover, you're probably also contradicting your own beliefs.....

Two observations. First, Jenner has undergone gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment. Second, it doesn't matter to me or to most rational people when Jenner realized she was a woman. Caitlyn Jenner was a man and is now a woman. To most rational and humane people, this is not a big deal. But to the narrow minded and/or the religious minded this is a big deal.

Furthermore, it is pointless to discuss such issues with people who not only do not literally know what they are talking about, but who deny reality: nothing can get them to change their religious views.

Angra is going to be pretty disappointed when organ growing/printing becomes sufficiently advanced that trans women can give live births. Some predict it will be possible by the end of the 2020s

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Two observations. First, Jenner has undergone gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment.

That is irrelevant, because I'm asking you whether you believe that Jenner was a woman when Jenner first claimed to be a woman, which was before any surgery.

Second, it doesn't matter to me or to most rational people when Jenner realized she was a woman. Caitlyn Jenner was a man and is now a woman.

No, in the context of a debate in which you are accusing me, the consistency of your position surely matters. Was Caitlyn Jenner a woman when he claimed to be a woman, but had undergone no surgical treatment?

But leave that aside. Your claim that Caitlyn Jenner was a man and is now a woman implies that Jenner's own claim that he was always a woman and realized he was a woman, is false. Do you agree that Jenner is mistaken in believing that Jenner was always a woman?

For example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-4425642/Caitlyn-Jenner-loathed-man.html

Maybe that’s the best and only answer: to die the woman I always was, wearing what I had always wanted to wear (for more than 20 minutes in a hotel lobby or driving around aimlessly).

Jenner is not an exceptional case in making such claim. In fact, it's usual for transgender claims to be like that -i.e., that they were always a woman, or a man depending on the case.

Furthermore, it is pointless to discuss such issues with people who not only do not literally know what they are talking about, but who deny reality: nothing can get them to change their religious views.

Yes, but I can expose them in the eyes of readers. Obviously, you're not going to provide reasonable arguments in support of the claim that Danica Roem is a woman - which is what I have asked in the first place -, but I will settle for exposing your religious beliefs as irrational.

 

[laughing dog]

That is irrelevant, because I'm asking you whether you believe that Jenner was a woman when Jenner first claimed to be a woman, which was before any surgery.

It is relevant because you claimed he had not undergone surgery. In other words, it is more evidence that you literally do not know what you are talking about.

No, in the context of a debate in which you are accusing me, the consistency of your position surely matters...

No, it is irrelevant to the issue that you deny medical reality.

Yes, but I can expose them in the eyes of readers.

While that is conceptually possible, it is not operationally true in this case. Your narrow and religious views make rational discussion impossible.

For some obscure reason, you feel the need to have evidence that Danica Roem is a woman. For some pathetic reason, you feel the need to judge her gender. Given your inability to acknowledge reality, your request for evidence appears more as an invitation for you to engage in some sort of twisted attempt at religious conversion.