Danica Roem

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trans-racial, etc also come into play, and are dismissed here as "too fringe"... but so was transgender not more than a decade ago.

Not that I care to defend anything I will write or engage in a debate but I want to point out this minor point that someone else already brought up...

There is an underlying premise somewhere in your argument that fraudulent trans-persons are equivalent to those with some kind of material difference. So, for example, Trausti or Rachel Dolenzal may be frauds...maybe even deliberately so for both. There's another class of persons, though, who have some small bit of something physical. There are people whose recent sub-saharan African ancestry is much less than their recent European ancestry but are still called by society as "black." For example, at some level 3/4 of Sally Hemmings recent ancestors had come from Europe while 1/4 of her recent ancestors had come from sub-Saharan Africa but she was still called "black" without anyone batting an eye. She also may have been called mulatto by some or even the same people in different contexts. So the vast minority of the physical (but still some) were "black" but she was called "black" and maybe that is because she also was a slave, i.e. met the social role of black at the time in Virginia in addition to the small bit of material things. Now while I do not wish to engage in this semantic debate ad infinitum I thought it was important to bring to your attention that Sally Hemmings might be a more appropriate analogy even though she might not be classified as trans-racial because Danica Roem may also fulfill a social role (gender) as well as have some kind of material difference from "men" and some other, atypical material similarities to "women."

We could render all of this moot if we simply stopped with all the identity politics that have so overwhelmed our societies. It wouldn't matter if you are "man" or "woman" or "black" or "white" if we didn't treat each other differently based on those labels.

What I find especially interesting is that many of the same people who push for the trans stuff also push for the identity politics, so they are bringing the conflict onto themselves.

Is that a derail upon the derail or would you rather address the point? By the way, I updated the post.

 

[Juma]

So let us go back to topic:

What does ”man” and ”woman” mean?

Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.

Rest of the gang seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

The question I find more pressing is to what degree should we be able to force other people to play along with our delusions. If I can force you to call me "she", then why can't the religious force you to acknowledge the existence of their God? It seems a rather slippery slope. Trans-racial, etc also come into play, and are dismissed here as "too fringe"... but so was transgender not more than a decade ago. I have no issue with trans. I think people should have the right to live as whatever gender they want to express. It gets dicey when they want to force me to play along or if they were to demand special rights to go with it. If there were no separated or special rights, then that wouldn't be as much of an issue, but many of the same people who push for trans also push the identity politics of separation and of special rights.

If separate rather than unisex bathrooms are pushed for, then I can understand why some people may have a problem with men ("trans women") in the women's bathroom. If we can all agree on unisex bathrooms (my prefrence), then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Will the day come where I can declare myself black and not asian and have lower requirements for university admissions? Sounds laughable now. But will it someday be something actually under consideration?

The transgenders problem is to be met as the gender that have. Your problem is? Pffft.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do Trans Women qualify for shelters for abused women, while there are so few such shelters for abused men?
Do Trans Women qualify for affirmative action programs or scholarships exclusive to women?
Do Trans Women get preferred treatment in family courts?
Are Trans Men eligible for military draft and compulsory military service? (if that exists in or returns to the reader's particular country)
Do Trans Men pay less than women for haircuts?
Do Trans Women get in free on ladies night?

Why again is transgender ok but trans-racial not?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not that I care to defend anything I will write or engage in a debate but I want to point out this minor point that someone else already brought up...

There is an underlying premise somewhere in your argument that fraudulent trans-persons are equivalent to those with some kind of material difference. So, for example, Trausti or Rachel Dolenzal may be frauds...maybe even deliberately so for both. There's another class of persons, though, who have some small bit of something physical. There are people whose recent sub-saharan African ancestry is much less than their recent European ancestry but are still called by society as "black." For example, at some level 3/4 of Sally Hemmings recent ancestors had come from Europe while 1/4 of her recent ancestors had come from sub-Saharan Africa but she was still called "black" without anyone batting an eye. She also may have been called mulatto by some or even the same people in different contexts. So the vast minority of the physical (but still some) were "black" but she was called "black" and maybe that is because she also was a slave, i.e. met the social role of black at the time in Virginia in addition to the small bit of material things. Now while I do not wish to engage in this semantic debate ad infinitum I thought it was important to bring to your attention that Sally Hemmings might be a more appropriate analogy even though she might not be classified as trans-racial because Danica Roem may also fulfill a social role (gender) as well as have some kind of material difference from "men" and some other, atypical material similarities to "women."

We could render all of this moot if we simply stopped with all the identity politics that have so overwhelmed our societies. It wouldn't matter if you are "man" or "woman" or "black" or "white" if we didn't treat each other differently based on those labels.

What I find especially interesting is that many of the same people who push for the trans stuff also push for the identity politics, so they are bringing the conflict onto themselves.

Is that a derail upon the derail or would you rather address the point? By the way, I updated the post.

A derail on the derail of the derail of the derail? Perhaps it was. I'm not sure. My head is spinning. I'm not totally clear on what your point was though to be honest. Are you arguing that gender is a social role only? That Danica Roem in particular has some physical male DNA or attributes such that we should medically classify her as male? What was your question to me? Or was it a mere observation I do agree that it is weird how you define "black" in the USA.

If we all decide (and I'm not sure we will) that "gender" is a social role only, then you should indeed be able to switch from gender to gender as you wish, but that undoes all of the gender politics people fight so hard to create. I don't think we will get there. Feminism is moot if we are all women or all men when it suits us.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm sorry, I should have written "No one in this thread is forcing anyone". Danica Roem is not forcing anyone to use the term woman as a descriptor for her(or his, if you prefer) gender. Hence your concern is out of place in this thread.

Ok, then to clarify, I do not know Danica Roem, have nothing against Danica Roem and don't put any words in Danica Roem's mouth. Nothing I have written here is specific about or directed at Danica Roem. I had never heard of him/her prior to this thread and I am not particularly interested in him/her. This thread transitioned multiple times away from being merely about Danica Roem a long time ago. You were part of some of those transitions.

Is your intent to start another derail in order to deal with an irrelevant issue of yours?

 

[laughing dog]

Do Trans Women qualify for shelters for abused women, while there are so few such shelters for abused men?

I don't know - whether they qualify is a good research question. The availability of shelters for men is irrelevant to that answer.

Do Trans Women qualify for affirmative action programs or scholarships exclusive to women?
Do Trans Women get preferred treatment in family courts?
Are Trans Men eligible for military draft and compulsory military service? (if that exists in or returns to the reader's particular country)
Do Trans Men pay less than women for haircuts?

All good research questions. Come back with the results when you get them.
Do Trans Women get in free on ladies night?

Why again is transgender ok but trans-racial not?

Wow, another attempt at a derail to deal with an irrelevant issuel of yours.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is your intent to start another derail in order to deal with an irrelevant issue of yours?

Sorry to derail from your analysis of what is and is not a personal attack on AM derail. But now you have derailed my derail of that derail of the derail that derailed from the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

Is your intent to start another derail in order to deal with an irrelevant issue of yours?

Sorry to derail from your analysis of what is and is not a personal attack on AM derail. But now you have derailed my derail of that derail of the derail that derailed from the OP.

Participating in an existing derail is not the same as starting a new one. One would think anyone would be able to comprehend that basic difference.

More importantly, if working out your problems with what to call transgender people has genuine therapeutic value, then please go ahead with your derails. Otherwise, why not start a new thread?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Participating in an existing derail is not the same as starting a new one. One would think anyone would be able to comprehend that basic difference.

Didn't say that it was, but it is interesting that you would participate in this derail in one post and criticize it in another.

More importantly, if working out your problems with what to call transgender people has genuine therapeutic value, then please go ahead with your derails. Otherwise, why not start a new thread?

Ok, I started a new thread. That should make you happy. I also note that you have created a further derail with the above text, trying to make the topic about me and my troubled little mind.

 

[laughing dog]

Participating in an existing derail is not the same as starting a new one. One would think anyone would be able to comprehend that basic difference.

Didn't say that it was, but it is interesting that you would participate in this derail in one post and criticize it in another.

What is more interesting your apparent need to create straw man after straw man.

Ok, I started a new thread. That should make you happy. I also note that you have created a further derail with the above text, trying to make the topic about me and my troubled little mind.

The irony of that straw man is lost on you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So let us go back to topic:

What does ”man” and ”woman” mean?

Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.

Let me address some of those points:
First, finding a definition of "man" and "woman" in terms of other words that respects the meaning in everyday usage is at least extremely difficult, and perhaps not even doable. This is not because of any particular property of the words "man" and "woman". One would have the same trouble with "fish", "car", "bug", etc., and most words. Their meaning is determined by usage, but it seems what people mean is (generally) "one of those" (pointing at a man/woman/fish/car/bug).

Second, it is not the case that I seem to hold the position that "man" and "woman" should be reserved for some biological properties of our bodies, at least if you had read my analysis of the meaning of the term, I actually cast doubt on that as a matter of meaning. For example, let's say that in a movie, Alice and Bob swap bodies. I don't think this is possible if they're humans, but when it comes to the meaning of the terms, even some impossible scenarios can be used properly. Even so, a question is whether, given what "one of those" men/women actually happen to be, whether it's metaphysically possible for a person with male sexual organs to be a woman, and if it's metaphysically possible, whether it's actual. But I have considered this and related matters in reasonable amount of detail in some of my posts (see https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474533&viewfull=1#post474533, https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474639&viewfull=1#post474639, https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474706&viewfull=1#post474706), and I'm willing to go into further detail if someone were to ask me about them, about my position on specific issues, or if someone were to present an argument challenging my points. But none of that has happened, and though I appreciate you want to discuss the issue, it seems clear that you do not understand my position and the reasons for my assessments (otherwise, you would not say that "Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.")
Side note: To clarify any potential misunderstanding, I'm actually a man, though I don't really care what pronoun you use to talk about me.

Rest of the gang seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.

That does not seem to be the case. Their position seems to be all over the place, but in any event, it does not seem in line with your hypothesis. Let me provide two strong pieces of evidence against your hypothesis about what their position seems to be:

1. In the past, Caitlyn Jenner was called "Bruce" by everyone else, and by Jenner too. And Jenner functioned socially as men generally do. So, going by the "social context" hypothesis, Jenner would have been a man before Jenner claimed to be a woman. Granted, some of the posters here thought that that was precisely the case, but that was before I pointed out to them that the hypothesis that Jenner was a man and became later a woman (as opposed to having been always a woman) is not consistent with standard claims by transgender activists and leftists in general. The claims that Jenner changed his gender have not been repeated after I pointed that out (well, not by the posters to whom I pointed that out).

2. I have been repeatedly accused of ignoring scientific evidence about brains. But if the matter depended on how people function in a social context, the issue of evidence from brains should not arise, as there is no paper or other study connecting any of the findings about brains with specific functioning in a social context.

Maybe you have a solution, or you mean something else by "social context". If so, please clarify.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Actually, the solution is to go with whatever the evidence indicates the words actually mean, and if their referent is determined by how empirical facts turn out to be (e.g., water and H2O, for any philsophically inclined readers), then on those empirical facts, and so on. If that's what you mean by "makes most sense", sure, let's go with that.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

If a woman's brain were to be put in the rest-of-the-body of a man, at least at first the individual would remain a woman, and vice versa (whether this is nomologically possible I do not know, but it's not the point). So, whether a person has a penis is not decisive (also, eunuchs are men).

But that aside, here you say it makes most sense "to relate to gender". But what does that mean?
It appears that you're siding what you believe is the "rest of the gang" hypothesis. But that hypothesis is not true.

Moreover, would you be willing to say that Jenner was in fact a man, and then become a woman (based on the "how we function in a social context") theory?
I know, you might say that you mean something else by "social context". If you tell me how to determine whether a person is a man or a woman in accordance to your theory, I offer to test the theory further. And just in case, I'm not asking how we usually determine that, but what factor or factors you propose to be decisive, or if you have no proposal, at least how I could go about learning the meaning of those terms.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are conflating a fact (Donald Trump is the POTUS) with a probabilistic assessment (it was necessarily an insult). So, you are wrong.

No. In both cases, and others, we make probabilistic assessments. We assess whether Donald Trump is POTUS, and whether none was making an empirical observation when he called me a "little bitch", on the basis of some information we have. I reckon that it would be epistemically irrational on your part, on the basis of the information available to you, to fail to judge that Donald Trump is the POTUS, and also, to fail to reckon that none was not making an empirical assessment. And I have made other assessments, but my point is that in making those assessments (including assessments about what it would be epistemically irrational of you to believe, etc.), I make no claim of infallibility. One of the assessments I make is that you should realize that I make no claim of infallibility.

Nope, and here you are doing it again, just like a dogmatic religionist.

No, I am asserting that that is a fact, and the evidence is openly available in the thread for any interested reader to check for themselves.

Wrong again, as shown in previous posts.

No, you're wrong again, as shown repeatedly in previous posts.

You are wrong - I have shown it repeatedly. Your refusal to accept reality is just another dimension of your religious viewpoint.

No, you are wrong, and I am right, and the evidence is in the thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

but it got much worse from there, mostly at the hands of laughing dog (not unexpected) and Ravensky (a little more surprising - and she was called out on her uneven standing as a mod for it as well).

That did not happen until after AM characterized their posts as religious. I would also like to point out that the calling out of Ravensky came from Bomb#20, who has made it something of a habit to follow her around and cast aspersions at her actions (or non-actions) as a moderator.

That's a figment of your imagination. If you disagree, quote me.

It appears you both misunderstood my point. I didn't call RS out on her uneven standing as a mod; I called her out on her behaving like a complete jerk. She was (and is) acting like a jerk in ways unrelated to actions or non-actions as a moderator. My point about her being a moderator was only that unlike the rest of us, RS is in a position to know whether Danica Roem is participating in this thread under a pseudonym. Danica Roem is almost certainly not participating in this thread. Therefore it is a near-certainty that when RS accused AM of addressing Roem wrongly, she was just pulling that accusation out her ass -- one of the many jerk-like ways she behaved in. I brought up RS's moderator-hood in order to acknowledge the faint possibility that RS's accusation was truthful, on account of one of the people addressed by AM in this thread really being Danica Roem, and this fact being known to RS. I do not wish to claim certainty about what I'm calling RS out for, when near-certainty is all the evidence warrants. (Of course, in the unlikely event that Danica Roem really is someone AM addressed his comments to, RS ought to have taken into account the fact that AM couldn't have known this.)

 

[Juma]

Let me address some of those points:
First, finding a definition of "man" and "woman" in terms of other words that respects the meaning in everyday usage is at least extremely difficult, and perhaps not even doable. This is not because of any particular property of the words "man" and "woman". One would have the same trouble with "fish", "car", "bug", etc., and most words. Their meaning is determined by usage, but it seems what people mean is (generally) "one of those" (pointing at a man/woman/fish/car/bug).

Second, it is not the case that I seem to hold the position that "man" and "woman" should be reserved for some biological properties of our bodies, at least if you had read my analysis of the meaning of the term, I actually cast doubt on that as a matter of meaning. For example, let's say that in a movie, Alice and Bob swap bodies. I don't think this is possible if they're humans, but when it comes to the meaning of the terms, even some impossible scenarios can be used properly. Even so, a question is whether, given what "one of those" men/women actually happen to be, whether it's metaphysically possible for a person with male sexual organs to be a woman, and if it's metaphysically possible, whether it's actual. But I have considered this and related matters in reasonable amount of detail in some of my posts (see https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474533&viewfull=1#post474533, https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474639&viewfull=1#post474639, https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474706&viewfull=1#post474706), and I'm willing to go into further detail if someone were to ask me about them, about my position on specific issues, or if someone were to present an argument challenging my points. But none of that has happened, and though I appreciate you want to discuss the issue, it seems clear that you do not understand my position and the reasons for my assessments (otherwise, you would not say that "Angra (and some with her) seems to hold the position that ”man” and ”woman” should be reserved for some bioogical properties of our bodies.")
Side note: To clarify any potential misunderstanding, I'm actually a man, though I don't really care what pronoun you use to talk about me.



That does not seem to be the case. Their position seems to be all over the place, but in any event, it does not seem in line with your hypothesis. Let me provide two strong pieces of evidence against your hypothesis about what their position seems to be:

1. In the past, Caitlyn Jenner was called "Bruce" by everyone else, and by Jenner too. And Jenner functioned socially as men generally do. So, going by the "social context" hypothesis, Jenner would have been a man before Jenner claimed to be a woman. Granted, some of the posters here thought that that was precisely the case, but that was before I pointed out to them that the hypothesis that Jenner was a man and became later a woman (as opposed to having been always a woman) is not consistent with standard claims by transgender activists and leftists in general. The claims that Jenner changed his gender have not been repeated after I pointed that out (well, not by the posters to whom I pointed that out).

2. I have been repeatedly accused of ignoring scientific evidence about brains. But if the matter depended on how people function in a social context, the issue of evidence from brains should not arise, as there is no paper or other study connecting any of the findings about brains with specific functioning in a social context.

Maybe you have a solution, or you mean something else by "social context". If so, please clarify.

I think the solution to the matter is to go with the usage of these words that makes most sense.

Actually, the solution is to go with whatever the evidence indicates the words actually mean, and if their referent is determined by how empirical facts turn out to be (e.g., water and H2O, for any philsophically inclined readers), then on those empirical facts, and so on. If that's what you mean by "makes most sense", sure, let's go with that.

Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.

If a woman's brain were to be put in the rest-of-the-body of a man, at least at first the individual would remain a woman, and vice versa (whether this is nomologically possible I do not know, but it's not the point). So, whether a person has a penis is not decisive (also, eunuchs are men).

But that aside, here you say it makes most sense "to relate to gender". But what does that mean?
It appears that you're siding what you believe is the "rest of the gang" hypothesis. But that hypothesis is not true.

Moreover, would you be willing to say that Jenner was in fact a man, and then become a woman (based on the "how we function in a social context") theory?
I know, you might say that you mean something else by "social context". If you tell me how to determine whether a person is a man or a woman in accordance to your theory, I offer to test the theory further. And just in case, I'm not asking how we usually determine that, but what factor or factors you propose to be decisive, or if you have no proposal, at least how I could go about learning the meaning of those terms.

And you are obviously clueless to what this is about.

I have no knowledge of how long jenner was a women to itself.

Maybe jenner always saw itself as a woman or maybe it came slowly over time.
But what most people mean when we say that jenner became woman is the OFFICIAL change.

 

[laughing dog]

No. In both cases, and others, we make probabilistic assessments. We assess whether Donald Trump is POTUS, and whether none was making an empirical observation when he called me a "little bitch", on the basis of some information we have. I reckon that it would be epistemically irrational on your part, on the basis of the information available to you, to fail to judge that Donald Trump is the POTUS, and also, to fail to reckon that none was not making an empirical assessment. And I have made other assessments, but my point is that in making those assessments (including assessments about what it would be epistemically irrational of you to believe, etc.), I make no claim of infallibility. One of the assessments I make is that you should realize that I make no claim of infallibility.

I am going to use a clinching argument that you should comprehend and accept - you are wrong, and I am right, and the evidence is in the thread.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And you are obviously clueless to what this is about.

I have no knowledge of how long jenner was a women to itself.

Maybe jenner always saw itself as a woman or maybe it came slowly over time.
But what most people mean when we say that jenner became woman is the OFFICIAL change.

Actually, you made some claims about the meaning of the terms "woman" and "man", and also make some claims about my views on that, and about the views of others. You provided no arguments in support of your claims - you still have not -, and I provided some good counterarguments. But you have missed the point. Your claims were about the meaning of the words "man" and "woman", not about some sort of "official" change. What does that mean? When others come to know that?
Also, you say "maybe Jenner always saw itself as a woman or maybe it came slowly over time". But that also challenges your theory. If "man" and "woman" in everyday usage were about "is not such a simple matter of biology but about how we function in a social context.", then "maybe Jenner always saw itself as a woman or maybe it came slowly over time" would be a statement about how Jenner saw Jenner functioning in a social context. But Jenner obviously was not in doubt about how Jenner functioned in a social context, even if Jenner did not like it. So, it seems the hypothesis about the meaning of "woman" (and clearly, also "man") that you endorse is not supported even by our own usage.

But let me be clear: the lack of precision of your posts is a difficulty, but still, I have concluded that you almost certainly endorse the theory that you attribute to the "rest of the gang" when you say that "Since the use of these concepts in everyday usage (pronomes etc) it makes most sense to relate to gender, not wheter the person has a pecker.". If that's not the case, then I would ask you to state your theory in a way precise enough for a reader to understand it, and also that you defend your theory with some argument, linguistic evidence, etc.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not at all; I claimed (and I stand by that claim) that the question is indeed empirical, and that new information makes the old system of categorization impractical - therefore, like Newtonian Mechanics, it was always wrong (despite being, and remaining, good enough for most purposes).

But Newtonian mechanics is wrong because it makes incorrect predictions, most famously the precession of Mercury. No predictions follow from deciding to call Pluto a "planet".

I have not had an opportunity to give due time to replying to your response to my earlier post, and the thread has moved on over the last few days, but now that I do have the time, perhaps I can clarify my comments, and address your concerns about them:

Pluto should never have been considered a planet, because the purpose of the category 'planet' is to describe a set of objects that orbit the sun in such a way as to identify only the ones which are of greatest importance to us. If we accept Pluto as a planet, then we are forced to include in our category a very large number of objects - certainly dozens, perhaps hundreds - rendering the category unfit for its purpose. We knew that there were myriad sub-planetary objects orbiting the Sun before Pluto was discovered; But what was not initially known was that Pluto belonged with these, and not with the planets.

The people who categorized Pluto as a planet were wrong, in that they imagined that there were no other more similar objects in the Solar System than the eight planets; They thought (wrongly) that Pluto shared more in common with the eight other objects already in the category 'planet' than it shared with other classes of objects orbiting the sun.

The value of a categorization scheme lies in its utility - few categorization schemes are completely non-arbitrary.

But this just proves my point. Your judgments of "impractical", "greatest importance to us", "we are forced to", "unfit for its purpose", "belonged with", "more similar", and "more in common with" aren't objective. Thinking your subjective opinions are empirical doesn't make them empirical. When you tell somebody his opinion is factually wrong because he disagrees with you about the purpose of a categorization or disagrees with you about which considerations are most important in determining whether Q is more similar to P than it is to R, that's an argument from authority, not an argument from evidence. You are treating "Is Pluto a planet" as a special question to be decided by authority, not a normal question to be decided empirically, even though you believe you're treating it as an empirical question.

Moreover, you are almost certainly mistaken about the factual historical question of whether the people who categorized Pluto as a planet imagined that there were no other more similar objects in the Solar System than the eight planets. Planet hunting was a major obsession in those days -- finding the next one was the way to become the most famous astronomer of your time. It was 65 years from Uranus to Neptune, 84 from Neptune to Pluto. Finding Eris 75 years later would have surprised nobody transplanted from 1930. (And no, we would not have been forced to include dozens of other objects as planets. That would have been a choice. We could perfectly well have decided Eris was the 10th planet and Haumea was an asteroid. That would have involved no inconsistency, just alternative criteria.)

Moreover, your proposal that we define our astronomical categories based on which population an object is most similar to means your perception of similarity is just weird. How can you feel Mercury is more similar to Neptune than it is to Pluto? As you say, we knew that there were myriad sub-planetary objects orbiting the Sun before Pluto was discovered; but if we were trying to cut nature at its joints, the obvious division would be between gas giants and rocks, not between "planets" and "dwarf planets".

(btw I have never heard of Garth Hill/Mountain, so I have no opinion on that).

It's the real-life bump on the surface of Wales that "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain" was loosely based on. A perfect metaphor for the Pluto controversy.

All this talk of Pluto is for the purpose of clarifying the difference between empirical and non-empirical questions. Point being, if you think the question of whether Danica Roem is a man or a woman really is, as you say, "rather like when Pluto was declared not to be a planet", then that puts you squarely in the "decided by authority" camp, not in the "show me the evidence" camp.

To force all humans into one of two gender categories is overly simplistic, and lacks utility; as such it is wrong - despite having been mostly good enough in the past, when less interest was paid to those who did not fit well into the binary categorization scheme; And despite remaining good enough in a majority of cases.

It was certainly easier to categorize all humans as either 'male' or 'female'; but the existence of a number of edge cases shows that this categorization is useless when dealing with those persons who are difficult to classify in that way. So to do so is empirically (as well as morally) wrong.

So, yes, I do have a justification for that opinion, and I apologize if my analogy was insufficiently clear about that justification. I hope that the above clarifies things for you.

The trouble is, that's what you accused NMN of, but that's not what NMN did. You accused him of forcing all humans into one of two gender categories even though all he did was force Danica Roem into one of two gender categories. Nothing NMN said was incompatible with the existence of intersexed people. Now, if Danica Roem's issue were that she's intersexed, and if this were common knowledge, then you'd have had grounds for your accusation. But there's nothing scientifically unreasonable about making a distinction between people who are biologically intermediate between the two primary sexes and people who have garden-variety gender dysphoria. For you to call NMN stupid and immoral because he thinks it takes more than inner feelings to make a person not fit the meaning of "man" is an ideological opinion, not a scientific opinion. That's why I said you were the first in this thread to decide agreeing with an ideology is morally obligatory and treating heretics fairly is not morally obligatory. You called him "a slow learner, who would rather cling to his old errors" without producing any evidence that he'd made an error, because his contrarian views led you to make unwarranted assumptions about what was going on in his mind.

That's something you do quite a lot, actually. You should stop doing that to other posters.

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.

That is a groundless and grossly unfair accusation. Trausti is clearly implying that Roem and others in her situation are delusional. What evidence do you have that he's making them out to be liars?

Unfortunately, it turns out that being a vicious and small minded <snip> is completely ineffective in preventing people from having whatever state of mind they actually have <snip>, but also makes clear that you are an authoritarian, a simpleton, and an arsehole.

Practice what you preach.

 

[Trausti]

So this is where the Orwellian nonsense leads.

Laurier university accused of censorship after TA reprimanded for playing gender pronoun debate clip

Listen to this: https://globalnews.ca/video/3867811...d-laurier-university-grad-student-and-faculty

In the US we at least have the First Amendment. But every religion seeks to silence its heretics.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So this is where the Orwellian nonsense leads.

Laurier university accused of censorship after TA reprimanded for playing gender pronoun debate clip

Listen to this: https://globalnews.ca/video/3867811...d-laurier-university-grad-student-and-faculty

In the US we at least have the First Amendment. But every religion seeks to silence its heretics.

Yikes. That really hits home for me. I did my undergrad at Laurier. Glad I went through before all this craziness assaulted our campuses.

After listening to this whole audio clip, it is amazing that this could happen. the lady being grilled is 100% in the right here. And if this was made public (rather than leaked) Jordan Peterson would have had grounds to sue for slander. They painted him as the big evil and even tried to equate him to Milo, and Hitler. The last few seconds were "I remained totally neutral" (regarding Peterson's arguments), "That's kind of the problem".

When are we going to stop lettering these crybullies push us around?

 

[J842P]

So this is where the Orwellian nonsense leads.

Laurier university accused of censorship after TA reprimanded for playing gender pronoun debate clip

Listen to this: https://globalnews.ca/video/3867811...d-laurier-university-grad-student-and-faculty

In the US we at least have the First Amendment. But every religion seeks to silence its heretics.

Yikes. That really hits home for me. I did my undergrad at Laurier. Glad I went through before all this craziness assaulted our campuses.

After listening to this whole audio clip, it is amazing that this could happen. the lady being grilled is 100% in the right here. And if this was made public (rather than leaked) Jordan Peterson would have had grounds to sue for slander. They painted him as the big evil and even tried to equate him to Milo, and Hitler. The last few seconds were "I remained totally neutral" (regarding Peterson's arguments), "That's kind of the problem".

When are we going to stop lettering these crybullies push us around?

Jesus. How can people on the left defend this Orwellian madness. To claim that this TA created an "unsafe learning environment" is not only the height of stupidity, it highly, highly immoral.