Danica Roem

[Angra Mainyu]

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

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??

Why what?
Why have I addressed those questions?
1. There is a common claim by leftists that Roem (and many other) are women.
2. Those who ask for arguments in support of the claim are usually condemned. When arguments are given, they're in my experience extremely weak, and failure to accept them results in strong condemnation if it didn't happen before.
3. People who disagree with the claims are regularly condemned by many.
4. On the basis of the information available to me, I reckon it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

The condemnation behavior appears religions/ideological, and the beliefs held by leftists are, as far as I can tell, held irrationally. So, I'm asking to see whether someone can actually provide some good argumentation. But what I have gotten so farf are condemnations, insults and/or bad arguments. One key point: this is not merely a matter of how people want to be addressed. It's not like picking a name. Dissenters are not merely accused of failing to address people by their name of choice. Dissenters are regularly accused, among other things, of denying science. Their arguments (good or bad) are routinely misrepresented (grossly), they are attributed negative intentions, beliefs, etc., they do not have, etc., and for no good reason. This appears pretty much like religious/ideological behavior, and it happens in the context of the rise of a leftist religion/ideology.
I don't like religions, and I do not like to be condemned for not believing things it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe. It annoys me. Plus, it's a bad thing that such things spread.

 

[none]

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??

Why what?
Why have I addressed those questions?
1. There is a common claim by leftists that Roem (and many other) are women.
2. Those who ask for arguments in support of the claim are usually condemned. When arguments are given, they're in my experience extremely weak, and failure to accept them results in strong condemnation if it didn't happen before.
3. People who disagree with the claims are regularly condemned by many.
4. On the basis of the information available to me, I reckon it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

The condemnation behavior appears religions/ideological, and the beliefs held by leftists are, as far as I can tell, held irrationally. So, I'm asking to see whether someone can actually provide some good argumentation. But what I have gotten so farf are condemnations, insults and/or bad arguments. One key point: this is not merely a matter of how people want to be addressed. It's not like picking a name. Dissenters are not merely accused of failing to address people by their name of choice. Dissenters are regularly accused, among other things, of denying science. Their arguments (good or bad) are routinely misrepresented (grossly), they are attributed negative intentions, beliefs, etc., they do not have, etc., and for no good reason. This appears pretty much like religious/ideological behavior, and it happens in the context of the rise of a leftist religion/ideology.
I don't like religions, and I do not like to be condemned for not believing things it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe. It annoys me. Plus, it's a bad thing that such things spread.

so if she gets married is she married?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

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??

Did you ever think you would see semantic argument about semantics while the country around us slowly, figuratively burns to the ground?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

so if she gets married is she married?

I think so, yes.
There is an argument against gay marriage that holds that the concept of marriage is like "water", "good person", or "ill" in that it exists across all human societies, and one key condition is that it's between a man and a woman. I don't think the semantic argument is strong, though it's the strongest argument against gay marriage and should be addressed with care. A similar argument exists with respect to "woman", and I think it's stronger (i.e., the semantic evidence is better) but still not decisive (plus even if there is such concept, it may be that it's now picked by other words; see my longer posts for details).
Still, some significant differences between the same-sex marriage and transgender claims are:

1. Evidence for present-day usage of the terms "woman" and "man" in the context of transgender claims does not seem to support a change in the meaning of those terms as far as I can tell, aside from the new terms ("transgender woman", etc.); the claims do not seem to be in line with such a change, even assuming the concept of woman (and man) are not present in all human societies.
2. Linguistic evidence in support of the hypothesis that minds/brains are more important than sexual organs when it comes to classifying a person as a woman or a man is inconclusive.
3. Even if evidence of 2. were conclusive, transgender claims include claims about minds/brains that don't seem supported by the available evidence. There is evidence that some (but not all) people with male sexual organs who claim to be women have brains that are more female-like in some respects than those of other males, but that does not imply that the brain/mind is more female-like than male-like, and the evidence is at best sketchy; a further problem are all those cases in which the brains aren't more female-like than usual in some respects.

 

[none]

Strangely I wasn't calling you a small housepet
What's your opinionon semantic change drift progression?
Maybe squeaky wheel but I think I got it right the first time so don't become intellectually dishonest worrying about it
It's a big conspiracy

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, that would be an insult plus a reasonable argument.

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.

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.

That said, if "insult" is construed so broadly that anything used to offend a person is an insult, then just substitute "Instances of name-calling" or "content-free insults" for "insults" in my post, and that captures what I meant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Strangely I wasn't calling you a small housepet

Of course, I never said or suggested you were calling me a small housepet, so this is a strange reply.

What's your opinionon semantic change drift progression?

That's far too vague (and the terminology unusual, but that aside). What part of "my opinion", specifically?
But regardless, I did address the issue of a potential change in the meaning of the word "woman", and explained why the used of the word in the context of transgender claims does not seem to support it. If you disagree, I suggest you take a look at my arguments and come up with a counterargument. And if you mean to ask something different, you should speak more clearly.

Maybe squeaky wheel but I think I got it right the first time so don't become intellectually dishonest worrying about it

And again you're again attacking me for no good reason (by telling me "don't be intellectually dishonest worrying about it"), while making no reasonable argument.

It's a big conspiracy

What do you mean, exactly?
Seriously, I usually get attacked in a less obscure manner. What's up with that? It's not as if making your statements difficult to construe is going to make them any more or less offensive. It's just odd.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From Don's cited article above

When she rallied campaign workers before Election Day, she told them to focus voters’ attention on three aspects of her biography. “I’m a 33-year-old stepmom,” she said, referring to her boyfriend and his child. That was the first aspect. Second was that she’d lived in the district almost her whole life. Third was that she’d worked there for many years as a journalist. “I know about public policy issues, because I covered them,” she said.

She wasn’t making a deeply personal appeal and imploring voters to affirm her. She was making a broadly public one and encouraging them to include her, lest her talents go untapped and her potential contributions unrealized. Her opponent, a Republican, was the one who made a big issue of her gender identity. Roem, a Democrat, let his cruelties roll off her, went back to knocking on doors, defined her common ground with fellow Virginians and planted herself there.

“When people see me doing this, they’re going to be, like, ‘Wow, she’s transgender, I don’t get that,’ ” she told Time, imagining voters’ response to her presence on the political scene. “ ‘But she’s really, really focused on improving my commute, and I do get that.’ ”

That is how a candidate wins an election - connecting with the constituents and talking the relevant issues.

She's also being very professional. But yeah. Most people in Virginia identify as conservative so it's interesting that this transgender woman won. I think her class and taking on the issues were both related to her win. There's also that changing issue in Virginia where they do seem to becoming more blue. Her opponent was a dick, not speaking loudly about local issues like traffic, nor adapting to change. That said, there's an expression "all politics is local," and i think the opponent didn't get the people in his district enough to appeal to them.

 

[RavenSky]

why??

Why what?
Why have I addressed those questions?
1. There is a common claim by leftists that Roem (and many other) are women.
2. Those who ask for arguments in support of the claim are usually condemned. When arguments are given, they're in my experience extremely weak, and failure to accept them results in strong condemnation if it didn't happen before.

Of course, it is helpful to completely ignore the growing body of scientific evidence, and the entire thread devoted to just that, to continue your ridiculously whinging derail in order to pretend there have been no arguments given.

3. People who disagree with the claims are regularly condemned by many.

Yes, condemned for their wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty

4. On the basis of the information available to me

You have wilfully refused to look at the information available to you

I reckon it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

No. You are irrational for refusing to honestly consider the scientific evidence (and the words of the people themselves).

I'm asking to see whether someone can actually provide some good argumentation.

Done and you have ignored it. You are the one acting like a religious ideologue

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the basis of the information available to me, I reckon it would be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

That strikes me as an affectation.

I work with all sorts of people, and have done so since entering the work force 38 years ago.
I have never seen their DNA .
Since leaving the military, I have never seen their genitals. And on those commands with female coworkers, I never saw nor expected to see THEIR genitals. Certainly never with sufficient scrutiny to identify surgical scarring.
If someone presents as a woman, or a man, I tend to take their word for it.
Their dress, hair, the tendency towards profanity, the vocabulary of their profanity, the pronouns other people use to refer to them, all are kind of an unexamined assumption that they are who they say they are.

If Roem did not tell you that she used to be a man, what difference would it make to you? If you were next to her on a subway, or in a conference room, or bumped into her as she exited the ladies room, would you casually accept her status as a woman, or do you imagine that you'd have some sort of DNA-dar pinging, alerting you to his deception?

 

[laughing dog]

No, that would be an insult plus a reasonable argument.

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.

It can be reasonable to insult someone in some circumstances, but it's not a reasonable argument.

That is shifting the goal posts. An insult may or may not be a reasonable argument. I will repeat "The content of an insult is what determines both the reasonableness of it and whether it is an argument or not. "

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.

First is that it could be meant as an attack, but the term "bitch" is no longer necessarily an insult when applied towards a person. Second, whether or not the insult is "unreasonable" is a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[none]

Folks this is a big deal, epistemology is at stake here

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course, it is helpful to completely ignore the growing body of scientific evidence, and the entire thread devoted to just that, to continue your ridiculously whinging derail in order to pretend there have been no arguments given.

First, haven't ignored the evidence. Instead, I have made an analysis both of the linguistic evidence and the evidence from psychological and/or neurological research. No one replied.
Second, after the way you and others have treated me in this thread, I am reluctant to join another one on related matters.
Third, were I to post in the other thread, I risk being accused of derailing it the moment I start trying to assess whether Roem (or any other specific person) is a woman, rather than, say, talking about the scientific studies only. That is because the scientific studies are only a part of the relevant evidence. There are semantic questions as well. There is no thread dedicated from the OP to debating whether Roem or any other person is a woman.

That said, I challenge you to give me a thread in which I will be able to assess all of the evidence about whether Roem and other transgender people are men, women, etc., without accusations of derails.

Yes, condemned for their wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty

No, condemned by people who falsely and irrationally believe that dissenters are ignorant and intellectually dishonest, regardless of whether they opponents are so (some are; others are not).

You have wilfully refused to look at the information available to you

No, that is a false accusation, and it is epistemically irrational of you to believe it is true. In fact, in this very thread, I provided an analysis of the evidence, and I got zero in return.

No. You are irrational for refusing to honestly consider the scientific evidence (and the words of the people themselves).

No. I have provided an analysis of the evidence. In brief, the scientific evidence is not remotely enough to show that Roem has a female brain. And if Roem has a female brain, the linguistic evidence is inconclusive. I haven't addressd the details of the scientific evidence in this thread, since there has been no cogent argument made on the basis of it that would challenge what I said. If you have one such argument, in this or another thread (i.e., supporting the claim that Roem and/or other transgender people are correct, etc.), I would like to see the argument or the link.

Done and you have ignored it. You are the one acting like a religious ideologue

Where is the argument?
Where is even the claim?
Is your claim that Roem and/or all some/other males(females) who claim to be women(men) are so because they have female(male) brains? If so, where is your argument? Will I be accused of a derail if I take a look at more than just the studies you choose, but also at the linguistic evidence, going by the way transgender people and activists make the claims, the way others used the words, etc., in the other thread?

- - - Updated - - -

Folks this is a big deal, epistemology is at stake here

Actually, rationality is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is shifting the goal posts. An insult may or may not be a reasonable argument. I will repeat "The content of an insult is what determines both the reasonableness of it and whether it is an argument or not. "

As I already told you, if "insult" is construed so broadly that anything used to offend a person is an insult, then just substitute "Instances of name-calling" or "content-free insults" for "insults" in my post, and that captures what I meant.

First is that it could be meant as an attack, but the term "bitch" is no longer necessarily an insult when applied towards a person. Second, whether or not the insult is "unreasonable" is a matter of opinion, not fact.

First, in context, the term "bitch" was used as an insult.
Second, you are mistaken. It's unreasonable on none's part to insult me.

 

[laughing dog]

As I already told you, if "insult" is construed so broadly that anything used to offend a person is an insult, then just substitute "Instances of name-calling" or "content-free insults" for "insults" in my post, and that captures what I meant.

I understand what you meant. But you are wrong in thinking that an insult cannot be an argument.

First, in context, the term "bitch" was used as an insult.

Probably, but it may have simply been an empirical observation.

Second, you are mistaken. It's unreasonable on none's part to insult me.

No, you feel it is unreasonable for none's part to insult you. Applying your very same standards to Ms Roem's claim to be a woman, your claim of unreasonableness does not make it so. So either you tacitly agree with the claim that Danica Roem is indeed a woman, or you are employing double standards.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That strikes me as an affectation.

It is not. I suggest you read my posts more carefully, or refrain from making such assessments.

I work with all sorts of people, and have done so since entering the work force 38 years ago.
I have never seen their DNA .
Since leaving the military, I have never seen their genitals. And on those commands with female coworkers, I never saw nor expected to see THEIR genitals. Certainly never with sufficient scrutiny to identify surgical scarring.
If someone presents as a woman, or a man, I tend to take their word for it.

I tend to make an assessment immediately without the need for words - as we do with most categories, which we recognize visually -, but also, that tends to be in line with what they claim. However, that is not always decisive. Other pieces of evidence also matter, at least as far as I can tell.

Their dress, hair, the tendency towards profanity, the vocabulary of their profanity, the pronouns other people use to refer to them, all are kind of an unexamined assumption that they are who they say they are.

That's unclear. Are you saying you count or do not count those pieces of information?

But for example, let's say that someone like Jenner when he first claimed publicly to be a woman is the person making that claim. He looked like a man (at least, as far as I can tell), and has done so for decades. Would you believe that Jenner is a woman?
Roem looks a lot more like a woman, but then, it depends on the picture. In some, he strikes me rather clearly as a man (maybe the size of Adam's apple or face structure, but I mean going by one's intuitive classification by looking at a person), but after seeing other pictures, others are ambiguous or look more woman-like.
Still, in these cases, we have more information than visual cues.

If Roem did not tell you that she used to be a man, what difference would it make to you?

First, as I explained in the previous exchange, you're making an assertion in conflict with standard transgender claims, which hold that Roem was never a man, but a woman all along.
Second, going by the first pictures I saw of him, I would have classified him as probably a man dressed as women usually do. Now, I have found other pictures in which Roem looks more like a woman. In person, I have access to more visual information than in pictures, unless of course I'm not talking to Roem and/or not paying attention, so my guess is my intuitive classification would have been "man".
Third, it would not make a difference to me. What makes a difference is the spread of an ideology not held rationally.

If you were next to her on a subway, or in a conference room, or bumped into her as she exited the ladies room, would you casually accept her status as a woman, or do you imagine that you'd have some sort of DNA-dar pinging, alerting you to his deception?

In those cases, I would probably not pay attention (I'm not even talking to Roem in such scenarios), so just because of the way Roem is dressed or the bathroom Roem is using, I would probably classify Roem as a woman and ignore it. But then again, the same would happen if instead the scenarios involved a cross dresser who very much knows himself to be a man, and says so, or even an actor in character for a movie. I would just not be paying attention. Now, were I to pay attention (like looking at a person because I'm talking to them), I would probably classify them as men. But again, this is not the issue. It's the ideology behind the claims.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I understand what you meant. But you are wrong in thinking that an insult cannot be an argument.

If the meaning of "insult" in English is unique and excludes sufficiently narrow ones, then you are correct (and Spanich-English translations of "insulto" as "insult" are often mistaken, since we do use the word in a much narrower sense, at least in many contexts). But let's go with that. Then, my point about none's behavior remains. I just worded it incorrectly. As I said, you can just substitute "Instances of name-calling" or "content-free insults" for "insults" in my post, and that captures what I meant.

Probably, but it may have simply been an empirical observation.

Actually, no. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that when he called me a little bitch, none was not making an empirical observation.

No, you feel it is unreasonable for none's part to insult you. Applying your very same standards to Ms Roem's claim to be a woman, your claim of unreasonableness does not make it so. So either you tacitly agree with the claim that Danica Roem is indeed a woman, or you are employing double standards.

I assess that it's unreasonable of none's part to insult me. Obviously, my assessment does not make it so. I make the assessment because it's so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not. I suggest you read my posts more carefully, or refrain from making such assessments.

Nah, still it strikes me that you're adopting a stance here that you don't usually even examine with other people.

I tend to make an assessment immediately without the need for words - as we do with most categories, which we recognize visually -, but also, that tends to be in line with what they claim. However, that is not always decisive. Other pieces of evidence also matter, at least as far as I can tell.

it doesn't have to be decisive. it's a good working assumption, though, unless and until you have other information, then the question becomes what you do what that information. If it changes your previous assessment, then why does it?

That's unclear. Are you saying you count or do not count those pieces of information?

I would think it was pretty clear. A close examination of their DNA, their plumbing, is not available to me. THESE things are available to me with all the people around me. So that's what my assessments would be based upon.

But for example, let's say that someone like Jenner when he first claimed publicly to be a woman is the person making that claim. He looked like a man (at least, as far as I can tell), and has done so for decades. Would you believe that Jenner is a woman?

That's a separate issue. I was asking if you did not know about Roem's status. So you bring up someone with a completely different situation?

This would be why I think it's an affectation.

Roem looks a lot more like a woman, but then, it depends on the picture. In some, he strikes me rather clearly as a man (maybe the size of Adam's apple or face structure, but I mean going by one's intuitive classification by looking at a person), but after seeing other pictures, others are ambiguous or look more woman-like.
Still, in these cases, we have more information than visual cues.

And, again, I was asking how it would affect you if you didn't have that information. But you're resisting a straightforward answer.

If Roem did not tell you that she used to be a man, what difference would it make to you?

First, as I explained in the previous exchange, you're making an assertion in conflict with standard transgender claims, which hold that Roem was never a man, but a woman all along.

Well, you are the one insisting on referring to Roem as 'he' in all cases. So this is not YOUR standard claim, and you adamantly reject standard transgender claims. So this would be another strawman you're tilting at. Throwing up a defense that you don't agree with, another affectation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Angra:

Well, you are the one insisting on referring to Roem as 'he' in all cases.

Hmmmm...not the complete story. Note the following:

so if she gets married is she married?

I think so, yes.

For all Angra's ranting about typical word usage, he accepted the alleged non-standard word usage of "she," which is because this situation was non-standard...just like Danica's situation is non-standard. What makes Angra the arbiter of when to apply non-standard usage in non-standard situations or to proclaim that only allegedly standard usage is appropriate? Well, the answer is...........no one cares. Yes, no one cares to be in a debate about semantic quibbling. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive, but yet Angra has contradicted his prescriptions by accepting the word "she" twice and responded in the affirmative. This is the second time he lost his silly debate on semantic quibbling he seems to want so much, if anyone is counting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm asking to see whether someone can actually provide some good argumentation.

Done and you have ignored it. You are the one acting like a religious ideologue

Where are these good arguments you are claiming have been made here in this thread? If they exist at all they are so buried behind the constant personal attacks on AM that observers of the thread are very likely to miss them. AM doesn't appear to have ignored anything. Perhaps you could quote or rephrase what you think were good arguments he ignored?