Playball40
Veteran Member
And yet, that is exactly what you are doing for Danica
-
Features
Danica Roem
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,421
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
This whole idea that people's gender is determined by what they claim to be is missing the point.
Danica Roem is not a woman because she claims to be a woman; she claims to be a woman because that's what she is.
Determining someone's mental state is often very difficult. One clue is what they say; but that's often a poor guide, because people don't always know themselves, and those who do often make untrue or misleading statements for any number of reasons.
Danica Roem is a woman because she acts like a woman, and as far as anyone can determine, she feels like a woman.
When she asks to be treated as the woman she knows herself to be, it is incredibly rude to refuse to do so - it is basically saying 'You are a liar, I know better than you do what your mental condition is'.
When Trausti 'claims' to be a black woman, he actually IS lying; and worse, he is doing so in the hope of making others think that all who make similar claims are also lying. This is beyond rudeness; it's truly disgusting behaviour.
In WWI, men with PTSD were declared to be cowards, and shot. This was due to a flawed understanding of their mental state; they said things like 'I cannot walk', and the officers and medical staff who should have been looking after them observed that they had no injuries to their legs, and declared that they were liars and cowards. But in fact, a physical examination of their legs could never have determined the truth (or otherwise) of their claims - the fact was that they really couldn't walk, due to the state of their brains.
Transsexuality is the name for another condition wherein the brain and the physical body tell conflicting stories.
It's not actually difficult to diagnose; there are large and important differences between PTSD and malingering, and there are equally large and important differences between transsexuality and the mere claim to be of the gender opposite to that suggested by your genital configuration at birth.
But of course there are people who, in pursuit of an easy life, just want to declare that it is all lies, and that punishment of those liars will discourage others from pursuing the same course. Shoot a few men with PTSD, and their colleagues will think twice about getting it, right?
Unfortunately, it turns out that being a vicious and small minded cunt is completely ineffective in preventing people from having whatever state of mind they actually have; and that pretending that people are liars when they describe their actual state of mind to you is not only ineffective, but also makes clear that you are an authoritarian, a simpleton, and an arsehole.
Such arseholes are delighted when people adopt their simplistic pretence that a person's sexuality is determined by what they claim. But it's more complicated than that; and generally it's the other way about. A person's claims are one of many indications of their sexuality - and such claims should be enough of a hint even for the densest moron to grasp that they are begging you to see past the superficialities and look at who they really are.
Transsexuals are not transsexual because they say that they are transsexual. They say that they are transsexual because that's what they are.
Danica Roem is not a woman because she claims to be a woman; she claims to be a woman because that's what she is.
Determining someone's mental state is often very difficult. One clue is what they say; but that's often a poor guide, because people don't always know themselves, and those who do often make untrue or misleading statements for any number of reasons.
Danica Roem is a woman because she acts like a woman, and as far as anyone can determine, she feels like a woman.
When she asks to be treated as the woman she knows herself to be, it is incredibly rude to refuse to do so - it is basically saying 'You are a liar, I know better than you do what your mental condition is'.
When Trausti 'claims' to be a black woman, he actually IS lying; and worse, he is doing so in the hope of making others think that all who make similar claims are also lying. This is beyond rudeness; it's truly disgusting behaviour.
In WWI, men with PTSD were declared to be cowards, and shot. This was due to a flawed understanding of their mental state; they said things like 'I cannot walk', and the officers and medical staff who should have been looking after them observed that they had no injuries to their legs, and declared that they were liars and cowards. But in fact, a physical examination of their legs could never have determined the truth (or otherwise) of their claims - the fact was that they really couldn't walk, due to the state of their brains.
Transsexuality is the name for another condition wherein the brain and the physical body tell conflicting stories.
It's not actually difficult to diagnose; there are large and important differences between PTSD and malingering, and there are equally large and important differences between transsexuality and the mere claim to be of the gender opposite to that suggested by your genital configuration at birth.
But of course there are people who, in pursuit of an easy life, just want to declare that it is all lies, and that punishment of those liars will discourage others from pursuing the same course. Shoot a few men with PTSD, and their colleagues will think twice about getting it, right?
Unfortunately, it turns out that being a vicious and small minded cunt is completely ineffective in preventing people from having whatever state of mind they actually have; and that pretending that people are liars when they describe their actual state of mind to you is not only ineffective, but also makes clear that you are an authoritarian, a simpleton, and an arsehole.
Such arseholes are delighted when people adopt their simplistic pretence that a person's sexuality is determined by what they claim. But it's more complicated than that; and generally it's the other way about. A person's claims are one of many indications of their sexuality - and such claims should be enough of a hint even for the densest moron to grasp that they are begging you to see past the superficialities and look at who they really are.
Transsexuals are not transsexual because they say that they are transsexual. They say that they are transsexual because that's what they are.
What a bizarre response. It is Danica who says she is a woman. By not contradicting her, I'm deciding for her? lol
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
After this thread, I feel reluctant to participate in another one. At least, I see no good reason to expect a civil discussion, and I'm a bit tired of this sort of treatment.J842P said:
But that aside, I would like to discuss what the thread was originally about, if that's okay with you.
Going by the OP, it seems clear to me that the thread was not originally intended to discuss Roem's policies, but rather, to discuss the fact that a transgender woman (classifying by ostentive definition here, assuming that works properly; I haven't changed my position on whether Roem is a woman) defeated a Republican in what is according to Don2 a red state. Indeed, what Don2 said is:
Don2 (Don1Revised) said:
There was no attempt to talk about Roem's policies in the OP (that came much later), and there are no similar threads about other elected Democrat delegates. It seems to me that's clearly because the specifics of Roem's policies aren't (and weren't originally) the focus of the thread - or, indeed, the reason Roem was all over the news in the US after winning -, but rather, it's the fact that a transgender woman was elected (and on top of that, in an allegedly red state, though you already pointed out that that was not the case).
Granted, the thread may have been intended to discuss the change in social conditions in Virginia that result in the election of a transgender candidate, the fact that being transgender is no longer something will keep a person from being elected, and so on. Fair enough, but is that enough to make the discussion of whether Roem is a woman a derail?
Let me try an analogy: Let's say Joe is a YEC. He believes humans did not evolve from monkeys, and that our earliest ancestors are Adam and Eve. Let's say that that is a very important part of his life. Wouldn't the issue of whether Joe is correct, epistemically rational, etc. about that be relevant to the evaluation of his election?
I think that that depends on the context, but probably (i.e., in most contexts) it is, for reasons such as:
1. It may well be that his endorsment of YEC was among the reasons some people voted for him, or at least that they did not count his YEC beliefs against him because they agree with them.
2. It may well be that his religious beliefs will to some extent inform his proposed policies, at least to the extent he is elected to an office that has a say in that. This is because religious beliefs usually include many moral beliefs, and the latter clearly influece a person's political views and proposed policies, sooner or later.
3. Assessing the rationality of a candidate may be important - though, admittedly, almost all humans, candidates or not, are vastly mistaken about something very important to them due to religion/ideology, so that may not set Joe (or Roem) apart.
Now, I don't think of course being transgender disqualifies a person from office, and for that matter, I don't think being a Catholic, YEC, Muslim or Marxist does. But that is a factor to be considered when evaluating whether the election of that person is something positive, and if so, how positive.
For example, given the unjust persecution and behavior against transgender people that has happened for so long, it's positive all other things equal that there are so many people who don't hate or despise transgender people.
On the other hand, it's all other things equal negative that so many people buy into the transgender claims, without any good reason for that - on that note, even if Roem is correct and Roem is a woman, at least the vast majority of those who believe so, believe so irrationally. That's a negative, and it seems pretty probable to me that the acceptance of Roem's claim that Roem is a woman as true played a role in the election.
Granted, Catholicism, YEC Christianity, Islam (in their different variants) and Marxism come with a number of preferred policies attached to them (though there is variation and of course inconsistency among adherents), some (many) of which are disastrous, whereas transgender beliefs do not. Yet, the belief in transgender claims seems to be in most cases the result of leftist ideology (in one or more of its variants), and even if it's not the result of them, it seems that for one reason or another, it is now (in America and most of the West, and over here as well) strongly attached to them. Now, Roem campaigned largely on issues not related to transgender claims or leftist ideology. But surely, the latter also played a role, and it's an open question how big a role, but purely for example, an analyst said before the election:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ht-lose-his-seat-to-a-transgender-journalist/
In short, if this was a victory on issues, then that's very good (assuming Roem's policies are not so bad; I'll have to look for more details), because that shows a lot of voters (enough to get a person elected) don't think a person is disqualified just for being transgender. But to the extent that approval of Roem's beliefs about gender and generally leftism played a role (and no doubt that they had some influence at least), that's a negative.
That aside, perhaps I'm missing what you think the thread was intended for. If so, please let me know (i.e., is there a specific political issue you'd like to discuss and/or think is or was the original goal of the thread?). I offer to discuss any issue of your choosing on the matter. I might also address replies (direct or not) to my previous points, though. If the moderators decide to split the thread, that's not a problem, but I don't think it's a problem to discuss the matters here, either.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I'm just considering options, given the widely varied claims raised by transgender activists and leftist allies, as well as in particular other posters in this thread. But of course, I do not limit my arguments or assessment of the evidence to such hypothesis.bilby said:
That seems to be a claim along the lines of the one I sketched, but lacks the part about the meaning of the words. In order for your argument to succeed, you would need to establish that:bilby said:
1. Danica Roem has a female brain/mind.
2. The meaning of the word "woman" is such that a human individual with a female brain/mind is a woman, even if that individual has male sexual and reproductive organs.
It also lacks any good evidence to back up the claim. I already provided a reasonably detailed analysis of the evidence, and concluded among other things that it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman, at least in the traditional sense of the word "woman" (see https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474639&viewfull=1#post474639). I also considered the possibility of a changed in meaning (see https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474706&viewfull=1#post474706).
No, that is false, and it is also unwarranted, because if you had read the thread, you would have realized that that is not what I'm saying, and moreover, that is not usually what people who say he's a man claim, either.bilby said:
In fact, the most common view among those who say that Danica Roem is a man is that the meaning of the word "woman" in English is such that even if Roem's mind is a female human mind, Roem is a man. Their beliefs about the semantics of "woman" are debatable, but they surely they are not implying that Roem is a woman.
Now, as for Roem's mental condition, you should take into consideration that in order to classify her brain/mind as female, Roem does not need to only know Roem's own mind. Rather, Roem has to compare Roem's mind with the minds of others, and on the basis of that, conclude that Roem's mind is a female mind, as it is at least predominantly like the minds of human females, in those respects in which female and male human minds differ. In order to do that, Roem needs to make an assessment about the minds of others too.
We do know there are differences between female and male minds. One of them is that females are generally predominantly attracted to males, and males to females. Of course, a female that is predominantly or exclusively attracted to females (or a male to males, etc.) is not a man (woman), but this is compatible with the theory that "woman" tracks (at least predominantly) minds, since there are plenty of other differences.
Also, for example, males are more inclined to have sex with strangers. And there are a number of other differences, some of which we know, and some of which (probably many) are subtle and we do not know, but might in the end have a serious impact on the way a person sees the world (or not).
There are also other differences simply resulting from the way we interact with the world, having different sexual organs. In other words, the experience of having a penis, being familiar with that, etc., and the experience of having a vagina, etc., having one's period, and so on, are also differences, and on those, clearly Roem's brain is male-like.
But furthermore, since Roem developed normal male sexual organs and secondary characteristics, one may ask: what is more probable, that all of the things that had to malfunction in order for Roem's brain developed female-like malfunctioned, did malfunction in spite of the fact that Roem developed normal male sexual organs and secondary characteristics, or that the part of Roem's brain that is classifying Roem's mind in the same category as female minds when comparing it, malfunctioned?
Now, perhaps, even if there are many differences between the brain/minds of females and males, development of them does not depend on more than a few things, so maybe the number of things that would have to malfunction is low, actually. But still, why think that the malfunctioning of those things is more probable than the malfunctioning of whatever female/male detector (whether specifically dedicated or the result of more general capabilities) humans have and Roem is using?
Your quotation marks around 'claims' indicates he is not lying. He's being sarcastic, but it's apparent that he's not making that claim. There is no insincerity on his part. But of course, I realize that Roem is sincere in his claims. Then again, when someone claims that he is or has an immortal soul ("is" or "has" depending on the set of beliefs), they're not lying, either. When they claim that they were abducted by aliens, in many cases, they're not lying, either. If someone claims that they are the reincarnation of somee dead person, sometimes they're not lying, either. And when Pentecostals claim that they speak in tongues (and actually make sense, rather than speaking nonsense), they believe it. Well, not all of them; some are insincere; maybe plenty. But surely some of them believe it.bilby said:
The point is that many people (millions; even billions) have wildly mistaken beliefs about themselves. Some of those beliefs are dependent on information about their own minds, mostly (e.g., speaking in tongues), and yet they're still way off. It happens.
One difference is that their assessment that they could not walk did not require them to compare their mind to the minds of others, to classify themselves as having a female or a male mind. It only required the realization that they were unable to walk. Now, people can be mistaken even when no comparison to others is required (e.g., speaking in tongues), but the probability of error is significantly different, all other things equal.bilby said:
But that the brain/mind tells a story does not imply that the story is correct.bilby said:
Sure, but here you are attacking a position which most of the people who hold that Roem is a man (I hold he probably is, but not certainly) do not hold, at least in my experience. At any rate, it's surely not my position. I reckon Danica Roem is sincere when he claims to be a woman. I just believe he's probably in error.bilby said:
Sure, there are people like that, but it's a minority of those who believe Roem is a man, at least in my experience. But regardless of whether they are a minority or a majority, it clearly is not my case.bilby said:
Now, there are also people - like you right now in this very post I'm replying to, in case it's not absolutely clear what I mean - who would declare that their opponents just want the easy way out, that their opponents claim it is all lies, and so on. And they're also willing to attack their opponents' character comparing them with murderers who shot people with PTSD because of their bigotry and lack of willingness to look at the evidence. Those people are taking the easy way out, instead of defending their claims properly.
Fortunately or unfortunately or neither, engaging in character assassination against your opponents by making blanket and badly disparaging statements about them (which you do believe, but that's beside the point; you should know better) gives me no good reason whatsoever to believe that Danica Roem is a woman. Moreover, even the substantive part of your argument is very weak, and that's only an argument intended to show that Roem has a female mind/brain - you haven't even attempted to make an argument about the meaning of the word "woman".bilby said:
Now, that said, I actually provided some argumentation to support a hypothesis about the meaning of "woman" that would help your case. But those arguments are not decisive, as I have already explained in the arguments you just completely ignored before engaging in this attack against me. Now, I do not know whether you even realized you were against me, but I am a member of the group you are targetting en masse, since as I said before and for the reasons I've given, I reckon Danica Roem is probably a man - but even more probably, Roem is not a woman, since the probability that Roem is not a woman is the probability that Roem is a man + the probability that Roem is neither a man nor a woman.
I'm not delighted by that. I just refute that one, and then consider alternative claims made by endorsers of transgender claims. And then, I go further and think about different ways in which the claim that Danica Roem is a woman might be true, what it would take, etc., and assess the evidence, even if transgender activists fail to make good arguments for their claims. And in the end, it would still be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman, for the reasons I've been explaining.bilby said:
Isn't the leftist-approved term "transgender"?bilby said:
But regardless, it's not that they claim to be transgender. It's that they have female(male) sexual organs, and claim to be men(woman). If "transgender" were a word to name their condition and there were no claim of being a man(woman), there would be much less debate and opposition to the claim.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
laughing dog
Contributor
Technically that is not true. An insult may be a reasonable argument as well. It would depend on the content of the insult.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
No, that would be an insult plus a reasonable argument. But regardless, none is not doing that; none is just calling me names.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
That does not appear coherent. Are you drunk, or high?
In any case, if you want to challenge any of my arguments, insults are not the way to go.
laughing dog
Contributor
The content of an insult is what determines both the reasonableness of it and whether it is an argument or not.
none was simply making an observation. Whether or not you are a "little bitch" is an empirical question.
says you
I don't know your gender but those social constructs are accurate, same goes with the transgender woman Roem
there is a difference between a cross dresser and a transgender person
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Danica Roem is really, really boring
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/...nsgender.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/...nsgender.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
laughing dog
Contributor
From Don's cited article above
That is how a candidate wins an election - connecting with the constituents and talking the relevant issues.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
It can be reasonable to insult someone in some circumstances, but it's not a reasonable argument.
In this particular case, none is insulting me unreasonably, but also, it's not an empirical question whether I'm a little bitch - and you should obviously know that -, because the term "little bitch" in this context of usage does not mean something like "a small female dog" (which none is perfectly aware I'm not), but the expression is meant purely as an attack.
FIFY. It's unfortunate, but reality might disagree with you on how people typically win elections.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
If by "says you" you mean that that does not appear coherent, well, yes, I actually can't figure out what you meant. And yes, of course there is a difference between a transgender person and a cross dresser. The fact that you tell me that indicates that you haven't understood my position. The questions I was addressing (mostly) are whether Danica Roem is a woman in the traditional sense of the word "woman" and if not, whether the word "woman" has changed meaning, and trans women (a term that can be defined ostensively) are in fact women.
why??