ZOMG the E-D can drill a 3000km hole in 19 seconds!!!!!!!!!!

[Batman]

Trust me, you can attack Avocado to your heart's consent with no complaints from me. I did and that was merely a Vs debate.
And as Anakin Skywalker put it, 'I'm supposed to be better than that', and I wasn't.

[DudeGuyMan]

But i'll try to give an answer anyway:
Generally, transistioning (for transwomen) pretty much eleminates most of the advantages of a male physique. Antiandrognes are not usefull for building up or maintaining muscle tissue. So there is generally not that much of an advantage.

Yeah, I don't know specifically what was up with this co-worker, what they were taking, or were going to take in the future, or what they had 'under the hood' so to speak. Wasn't any of my business. All I know is that she dressed/lived as female in a public position where it HAD to be rough as hell, but looked like a shitkicker once you ignored the clothes and looked at the outline.

Anyway, thanks for the sincere answer.

[Serafina]

Hey, he managed to post a short part that is not posted in a stupid way.
And before you complain about what i just said, AVOCADO - posting images of text rather than the text itself IS stupid.

Serafina, it totally depends on your answer if I will continue that debate. If your answer does not convince me that you are interested in more than only insulting me, I will not even answer you any more.

Run away then. I have to proove nothing. You are the one who makes bigoted statements. You are the one who should be more interested in making your point (not being bigoted).
Indeed, i am hardly insulting you - i merely say that your statements are bigoted. That someone who makes bigoted statements is likely to be bigoted is hardly a leap in logic.

Either way, your formatting doesn't stop me from quoting you, but still shows that you are deliberately annoying.

I decided to use this format because i do not like your way of debating. The problem is that if you only quote what i have written, you are not really contemplating it.

I do not just quote your posts. I quote the relevant parts and then address them. This is a common form of debate. And it's not like i am only doing short answers to these quotes, i give elaborate explanations where appropriate or necessary.
I would quote your example - but it's just not worth the effort.
However, the statements you quote from me (how ironic) are not contradictory.
Furthermore, you never answered these questions: Why are you supposedly only so reluctant when addressing someone, but not with anything else?

Generally, the vast rest of your posts consists of an attack on the style of my replies, rather than addressing my points.
You attack my spelling and grammar, while your's is hardly the best. Indeed, it is unlikely that anything is wrong with my spelling since i use Operas inbuilt spellchecker.
And YES, i AM objecting to what you are writing - because you do not change your stance at all. Therefore, any objection remains. I won't agree with bigoted opinions, and you are not required to agree with your opponent in a debate automatically - such an agreement depends on his points.

And what questions are you asking that i am not replying to?
You asked whether or not it is OK for a transwoman to visit a female changing room (etc.), i gave an elaborate answer to that.
You asked how it could be possible for any human being to not use someones sex as criteria, i answered that too.
You made a few feeble attacks on gender theory (not a question per se), i rebutted them.
I also addressed your legal points.
Indeed, the burden of proof is on you to show where i did not address and answer any questions you have asked.

Fact is - like it or not - that sex is the only criteria grammar gender is chosen for the addressing of an individual because the grammar gender is sex based and not gender based.

Oh, really? I guess there are no sex-less items then that are addressed with gender-pronouns, eh?
Oh, wait - die Pfeife, der Ball, der Rasen, der Schuh, die Tribüne (since we have that much football around anyway).
Your claim is simply baseless.
Furthermore, my outward appearance is female, yet you are insisting on addressing me as male based solely on my genitalia, which you can not even see. This is self-contradictory.

You go on insisting of treating me as a third gender.
This is simply wrong, and i never made that argument - you made it.
When i am speaking of "multiple genders" i am actually referring to the building blocks of gender identities.
Other cultures indeed recognize a third gender, but that gender is always reserved for what are essentially transsexuals - tough some cultures do not permit them to completely cross the line, hence stuffing them in a third category.
Gender theory uses multiple categories that ultimately create ones gender identity. There are indeed a great many of these categories, and some can not easily be sorted into male or female.
However, this does not apply to me or a significant amount of transsexuals. My identity is female, it's as simple as that.

You then go on to attack my comparison of you to Nazis, white supremacists etc., claiming that i stated that you are similar.
I did no such thing, you are not as bad as them. But that you use identical arguments shows that your arguments are invalid, since theirs are invalid as well. Showing this was the whole purpose of this comparison, you evidently failed to grasp that.

In the second place that shows that you do not understand what discrimination is. It is correct that discrimination means to make a distinction where no distinction is. But on the other side, discrimination is also where no distinction is made although there is a distinction. To treat all people the same without considering their for the treatment relevant peculiarities is a discrimination.

Quite so.
However, it is necessary for my "treatment" that i am treated as female. That's why both the german guidelines for the treatment of transsexuality as well as international guidelines call for an "Alltagstest" before permanent steps are taken, essentially a transsexual person is required to test drive her new gender role to see whether it actually suits her.
Such a test would be impossible if not addressed and treated as female.
Hence, you are fulfilling your own definition of discrimination - you ignore what is necessary for me and other transsexuals.

You go on and state that i ask you to ignore my condition, regardless of my comparison to the needs of handicapped people. (note that i do not say that i am disable, but the comparison still holds).
I do not ask you to do that, neither do i ask you to forget it. Indeed, my point was that i ask you to be considerate of that condition like you would consider a disabled person - but NOT to use the condition in a way that is harmful for me.
That ties into the point above - essentially, you are using my condition to deny me a necessary part of my treatment.
You are basically trying to justify yourself by saying that you can not forget about my condition - essentially, you say that you HAVEv to think of me as male. That's like saying that you always think of disabled people as disabled, rather than thinking "a person who happens to be disabled". Likewise, you are thinking "a transsexual" rather than "a person who happens to be transsexual".

You repeat your grammar argument, which still fails. No new grammar or grammatic change is required, you do not even have to go by anything but outward appearance. All that is required is that you think of me as female, which is obviously unimaginable for you.

But which concessions are you willing to do? (that should be give).
Where are you saying that yes, you can see how the one or the other thing make problems for someone?
Where are you willing to admit that a total equalization of things that are not totally equal is not possible?
Where are you willing to accept a treatment that differs from the treatment of a woman whose sex is female, because there simply is the fact that your sex is not female?

Honestly?
Nearly nowhere.
Why? Because it's not NECESSARY. It is not necessary to establish rules where transwoman are to be treated differently from biological woman, with the obvious exception of their necessary medical treatment.
It is not necessary in sports, changing rooms and whatnot. The worst that can happen there is that a sensitive person is offended, this is not a valid reason to treat the group the person is offended by differently. Simply because i can not change who i am, but peoples bias can be changed.

Indeed, i am quite tolerant of people who feel initially uncomfortable due to prejudices, as long as they are willing to amend that prejudice. See this post by me, answering Batman:

You are not (or i do not see you as one) a bigot for feeling uncomfortable around transsexuals.
The point is how you ACT.
Now, you have admitted that you never met a transsexual person - so your feelings are based on prejudice. That's not bad, that's normal - everyone has prejudices, it's only important that you recognize them as such instead of taking them as facts and trying to justify them.
AVOCADO does the latter. Apparently, you don't.
If you actually meet a transsexual person (well...ok, there are some weird cases - someone more like me), you might very well find that your prejudice doesn't apply, and you would no longer feel uncomfortable.
That's not going to happen if one already took the prejudice for a hard oppinion. That's why i am attacking AVOCADO.

However, a person unwilling to do so is certainly bigoted.

I merely ask to be treated like every other woman (since normal people are not concerned with the medical stuff).
That's hardly an unreasonable demand.
If someone is not willing to do that, he is bigoted. If someone is not capable of doing that, he is prejudiced.
The latter is often something that can be worked out, the former generally not.
As an example, i fully expect that my grandparents will never treat me like they treat my sisters. That is saddening, but i do not call them bigots for that - because they are making an effort to do so, but their old age and upbringing make it extremely unlikely that they will ever fully succeed.
However, you are repeatedly declaring that you are unwilling to make that effort, and that it is unreasonable to demand it. By the same logic, it is unreasonable that people work out their prejudice against foreigners.

Again, it is possible that a person will not succeed in overcoming their prejudices. But that doesn't make them a bigot - not trying in the first place does.
Batman seems willing to try, you are denying that it is even necessary.


You then repeat the argument that some women might be uncomfortable if a transwoman uses womens facilities.
However, that totally ignores my previous answer where i state that it would make males uncomfortable as well, and more easily so - since they would immediately see that a woman entered their facility, while that is not immediately obvious when she enters womens facilities.
Indeed, you completely exaggerate the problem. I have never made anyone uncomfortable by using womens bathrooms, and i have a keen sense for such things.

This complaint is simply irrational, it is based on your personal prejudice and fears. How are women even supposed to recognize that a transwomen just entered their bathroom? And even if, where is the big problem - there are no urinals where you can look at each other in womens bathrooms, you know?
Furthermore, if we are taking a situation at the office, many transwomen live completely "in stealth" - only a chosen few know that they are transsexual. Their colleagues certainly do not know.

Let me illuminate this with another anecdote:
A friend of mine works at a nursing home. Her colleagues did not know that she was transsexual. Now, someone like you would have forced her to adhere to the few distinctions made on sex that exist there (as well as using female facilities).
That would have obviously endangered her position with her colleagues.
Indeed, that's exactly what (would have) happened as soon as her supervisor. The management knew about her being transsexual, but her previous supervisor had treated it as confidential. The new one did not, and outed her with her colleagues.
Now, her colleagues do not treat her any different know - they saw her as the woman she is, and they still do. They even voted that the supervisor was fired for violating an agreement of confidentiality - which got approved since he essentially released sensitive medical data.
Ironically, this happened after her GRS, the new supervisor still saw her as male and even used the same reasoning as you did.

My point is that a transwoman is seen as female, that she IS female. Most people do not give a damn about any appendages in the nether regions. Hence, they will see nothing wrong if she is treated fully as female.
You are clearly totally inexperience with actual transwomen, or else you would not think that this would actually be a problem.



Essentially, your whole point is that a transwoman will always remain male and thus had to be treated as one where we actually differ between the sexes. This is simply not true and ignores all the problems that would arise from this, most of which would make the life of a transwoman immensely harder.

[Batman]

AVOCADO of all people complains about your spelling and grammar?
And how would he know there's anything wrong with it to begin with? I thought his english isn't so hot because he's not a native speaker and all that

[Serafina]

Oh, he's actually back. And i tought he ran away.

Oh, and he is back to "he" now. Anyone surprised that he breaks his own word?

Either way, here we go.

The last post of Serafina has convinced me that he is not really interested in debating that topic but to drag it on ad infinitum.

To give only two examples – and not more because Serafina will use everything I say to try to continue that pseudo-debate:

It's nice to see that you finally answer my points or give some of your own rather than repeating yourself and nitpicking me.
Oh, wait, you don't do that. My bad, bigot.

In his last post he wrote » You then go on to attack my comparison of you to Nazis, white supremacists etc., claiming that i stated that you are similar. I did no such thing, you are not as bad as them. «

Have I misunderstood him?

Let’s see what he has written in his earlier posts:

After I stated that I think that I’m not a bigot because I think to have » a good comprehensible reason for my opinion «, he replied: » So had the Nazis, american-christian fundamentalists, white supremacist, gay-hating groups etc. etc. «

In my next post I wrote that » Now I even get compared with Nazis, American-Christian fundamentalists, white supremacists, gay-hating groups etc. etc. « and he replied » Yes, you are. Because you use stunningly similar rhetoric. «.

Hands up!

Who thinks, after reading that, that Serafina has not compared me with Nazis, American-Christian fundamentalists, white supremacists, gay-hating groups etc. etc.?

Who thinks that I’m comparable bad as Nazis, American-Christian fundamentalists, white supremacists, gay-hating groups etc. etc but not yet as bad as them (maybe because I still haven’t murdered millions or at least haven’t propagandised their murder)?

Of course i have compared you
The two things are not mutually exclusive. I can also compare a rowboat and a supertanker - comparing two things doesn't necessarily make them similar.
You (apparently) do not have enough in common with Nazis to call it "similar". However, you use identical arguments to them. That point still remains, you did not even touch it.

In my last post I wrote » that sex is basically the only criteria when the grammar gender is chosen for the addressing of an individual because the grammar gender is sex based and not gender based. « In the same post, I elaborated, that » the grammar genders of the German language […] are based only on two sexes and a neuter that is basically reserved for non–living things or categories that can’t be seen as only male or female « and that » there are exemption from that rule who cannot be explained but have to be internalised when learning the language. « In an earlier post of me, I provided already an example tor such exemption: » In the German language e.g. a man is masculine (der Mann) and a woman is feminine (die Frau), but while a boy is masculine (der Junge), a girl is neuter (das Mädchen). «

Please notice I stated that sex is basically the only criteria when the grammar gender is chosen for the addressing of an individual. I have not spoken of the grammar gender of things.

And what was Serafina’s reply?

He wrote below the quotation of the first of the above quoted sentences: » Oh, really? I guess there are no sex-less items then that are addressed with gender-pronouns, eh? Oh, wait - die Pfeife, der Ball, der Rasen, der Schuh, die Tribüne (since we have that much football around anyway). Your claim is simply baseless. «

That shows how much he has contemplated what I wrote. Or how much he has contemplated how to reply to what I have written.

I do not see the relevance of which grammar gender sex-less items have when the question is how an individual has to be addressed.

But maybe Serafina wants to argue that he is a sex-less item.

But even if, it ignores that even then the grammar gender of Serafina, the sex-less item, is a question that cannot be answered with a rule.

Because there is no rule that explains why die Pfeife (the pipe) or die Tribüne (the stand) is feminine and der Ball (the football), der Rasen (the lawn) or der Schuh (the shoe) is masculine.

Der Mensch (the human-being), der Hund (the dog), der Leichnam (the corpse) is also masculine while das Wesen (the entity), das Pferd (the horse) or das Organ (the organ) is neuter.

Why should Serafina, the sex-less item, be feminine when it could be masculine or neuter as well? Because he says so?

So, when i say that sex is not an ultimate rule (else we would call everything without it "das"), you reply with...well, ignoring and ridiculing it.
Again, your point was "we always use sex when determining "der/er" or "die/sie" (he or she).
I have shown that this is not an universal rule, and that it only appears to be the rule with human beings because their sex usually is the same as their gender.

Instead of self-assured saying » I’m a transwoman, someone with a male sex and female gender and I do want nothing more of you than that you let me live the way I want to live « Serafina says » Pssst, I’m a transwoman. That means although I have a male sex my gender is female. But please now forget the fact that my sex is male and do not think of me as transsexual, a person with a male sex and female gender, but think of me as a “real” woman. «

Did i already tell you that you are a bigot? I guess i did not make myself clear on that and other points.

You truly do not understand why i find it offensive when you call me male? Or address me as male?
BECAUSE I AM NOT. I do not see myself as male, i do not want to live as one and others do not see me that way either.
Furthermore, you use the exact same arguments as people who want to deny me my gender.
But you want to do more than that - you want to ban me from female faculties. Essentially, that would ensure that i remain an outcast.
That is what makes you bigoted. You show absolutely no sympathy for transsexuals and want to enforce policies that would make it next to impossible for them to live their true gender.

Then he ignored each attempt to explain that it is not possible to willingly forget knowledge and that who knows that he has a male sex will, although the person might pretend to see him only as a “real” woman and will even change the way of speaking to make the act more convincing, always know that he has a male sex and will therefore think of him as someone male (with a female gender).

So, why do you think others are only pretending?
You give no answer to that repeated question, your claim is simply baseless.
Indeed, given that you have zero experience with transsexuals (per your own admission), you can not even base your claim on personal experience. Well guess what - i can, i live with it every day.
And i can also point to all the transwoman/lesbian couples to show that you are simply wrong.

Restating your point while ignoring mine is simply an admission of failure. You failed, bigot.

For Serafina it is not enough to be treated as a transsexual, that means letting him live as he wants and support him where it is necessary, no, he wants to dictate what we have to think or at least that we have to pretend to think something we know to be wrong.

Yes, indeed. I want to be treated like a normal woman.
Given that your "treatment of transsexuals" means making them social outcast by forcing them to adhere to a gender they do not identify with, that's simply not an option.

And you can think whatever you want. I don't want to enforce myself on peoples minds - but when you outright state your bigotry, openly insult me and advocate policies that would ruin my life, you can rest assured that i will oppose you.

We have to pretend that we do not know that he is no “real” woman but a transwoman and have to think of him only as a “real” woman.

You evidently can't do it because you are a bigot.
Lot's of other people can. Who are you to claim that they can't?

Who is not able to forget facts or not willing to pretend something is, by default, a discriminating, intolerant bigot.

Again, no.
Not even TRYING is what makes you bigoted.
If someone feels uncomfortable around a minority (be it black people, handicapped people, homosexual people or transsexual people), i do not call him a bigot. Because more often than not, prejudices are responsible.
But if he does not recognize them as prejudices, if he does not even try to get comfortable around them, then he IS a bigot.

And let’s not forget the demanded abuse of language. The demand to use the female gender when addressing someone with a male sex equals the demand to change the grammar gender of e.g. sex-less items. To say das Pfeife, das Tribüne, das Rasen or die Schuh; die Mensch, die Hund, die Leichnam or der Pferd and der Organ sounds totally wrong because it is a violation of the German language. How it is done right can you see above. Maybe for a English-native-speaker that is not so important because the English language is not using different definite articles as we are [O]. But because we are using such definite articles and it is important to use the right article, we learn quasi from birth the grammar gender of each German word and are not contemplating which grammar gender we are using. We simply know because it is ingrained in our thinking by the German language. It is the same when addressing an individual. We do not really contemplate which grammar gender we have to use. We automatically chose the grammar gender that matches the assumed sex and do not ask for the gender of a person.

Oh noez, someone protect the purity of our language.
Guess what, nearly the exact same argument is used against homosexual marriages - the claim basically is "we can't call it marriage because that would pervert the meaning of the word".
Guess what - linguistical purity is worth exactly as much as racial purity: Nothing.
Indeed, it is a negative force, since it restricts the development of a society.



You answer none of my points.
I asked you what adverse effects would treating a transwoman like every other woman (in regard to facilities) would have. You completely dropped that point without admitting your concession.
You completely ignored my point that equal treatment is indeed medically necessary, you ignored that as well.
You did not actually address my rebuttal of your linguistic argument, thereby ignoring it as well.
You ignored my definition of bigotry, using your own strawman definition instead - which you never define yourself.
You completely ignore that treating a transwoman like you advocate it would destroy her life.

Your argument rests on two pillars:
-A linguistic argument, which is not only false but appeals to raciallinguistic purity.
-Stating that you can not forget that my sex is male, therefore it must be impossible for others as well.

Both arguments are ludicrous and only show how bigoted you really are. You care more for the purity of your language than for peoples rights or well-being, and you think that everyone must think like you - everyone who apparently doesn't must be lying and pretending.

You have failed to bring forth any actual evidence that treating a transwoman like a every other woman would have adverse effects (some perhaps, but you come out on top with positive ones).
However, i have brought forth evidence that doing so improves the life quality of transwomen and therefore of those around them (unless you think that other people would enjoy seeing them being miserable, which would not surprise me).
Essentially you are ignoring evidence, going for an purely subjective (based on your opinion which you assume to be universal) and literary purely semantic argument.

Ultimately, all you manage to do is to show your bigotry by simply being unable to think of the well-being of those who are actually affected.
Now go ahead - run away if you want. Or actually bring forth facts and make actual arguments.




Interesting info on Christian Wulff.
However, our president has luckily next to no authority. His capability to refuse to sign a law is strictly limited, and he can neither introduce, violate or revoke laws. And being president doesn't give him that much moral authority to make a major influence on society.
Besides, Wullfs oppinion is often not that different from Köhler (who is also against the equal treatment law, the AGG). And Köhler had hardly any impact on these matters.

[Batman]

.
..
...
I may post something a bit more contributive once I finish laughing about Avocado actually bringing up the language issue as if it mattered (or were even remotely accurate).

[Serafina]

.
..
...
I may post something a bit more contributive once I finish laughing about Avocado actually bringing up the language issue as if it mattered (or were even remotely accurate).

But mein Fuhrer, we must preserve the purity of the masterracelanguage

Honestly, i have absolutely no idea how anyone can think that that this is even remotely relevant, especially when it is directly used to deny people their rights! We are not talking about "shall we call it computer or make up a new word that suits or language" here, but rather "they must not be addressed (and treated) like they wish, else we corrupt or language".
As i said, linguistic purity is worth exactly as much as racial purity - nothing at all.

But let's see if AVOCADO can actually come up with actual, relevant arguments or whether he will chicken out because i am still callig him a bigot for being a prejudiced bigot.

[Serafina]

Oh, wait, how could i possibly have overlooked this?

To shrink the font is not necessary any more. I will not continue the debate and I don't care if Serafina will quote something out of this post.

Well - i suppose that validates my chicken farm hypothesis. And also that exposure to vile bigotry causes brain damage, hence i overlooked it in the first place.

AVOCADO, you are a lying, intolerant, bigoted bastard full of prejudices. I seriously hope that no transwoman ever has to deal with you or your ilk, and that you are never in any position where you could enforce your segregation policies against us.

I don't actually mind if someone asks the questions you supposedly asked. But you didn't ask them, that were mere rhetoric tools to give your prejudicial answer. Even worse, you ignore it when i answer the question in a way that does not fit with your biased opinion.
If you had asked actual questions, i would have been happy to answer - i did so anyway.
But since any serious effort on bigots like you is lost anyway, i hope that i at least exposed your vile, shameless bigotry.

By the way, you have been promoted to Beta-Bigot:

Beta-Bigots are uncomfortable with a certain group of people and want to keep that group of people from interacting with them on equal terms. Unlike Gamma-bigots, they are open with their bigotry, often claiming that others must be protected from that group, that that group does not deserve "special rights" (especially if those would further equality) and that doing either would be a danger to society. Unlike Alpha-Bigots, they do not call for the direct eradication of that group, rather preferring isolation, banning of certain behavior in public and non-legislation for the rights of such a group.
They are mostly motivated by their prejudiced opinion that equality is harmful when applied to that group, often citing "natural laws" that shall not be broken for this.
Some can be swayed if they are convinced that there is no such harm, but this is rare indeed.
Examples: Segregationists, DADT-advocates.

So why did i move you up to Beta-Bigot?
Quite simply because you advocate a segregationist policy. You want to ensure that transwomen are as publicly visible as possible and you want to deny us basic human rights (dignity). You are unashamed about that as well.
That doesn't fit into the Gamma-Bigot category, since those do not openly advocate such policies.
You also want to make sure that you do not have to interact with me on equal terms, deserving the right to openly insult me (in real life no less) whenever you damn well feel like it. In addition, you want that transsexuals are prevented from interacting with their gender on equal terms.


In three words: Fuck off bigot.

If anyone (actually including AVOCADO) wants to ask any actual questions, i am happy to answer them.

[Serafina]

Well, AVOCADO is back.
Well, he says

I will not reply to what Serafina has written. If at all, his lasts posts have confirmed my decision to end that pseudo-debate.

But why the hell should i care?

But let's see what he wrote, shall we?

Imagine your mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son or anyone else you know comes to you and you are asked to address that person in the future as if the person has the opposite sex to the sex the person really has. The person admits to be a transsexual.

If you love a person, you are willing to change for that person. Heck, you are willing to do that if you respect a person, no love required.
At least i am. Perhaps AVOCADO isn't.

You love that person and you really believe that you understand the problems a transsexual has and you want to help that person. You do not feel uncomfortable around that person. Your feelings haven’t changed. You have no insurmountable problem if that person acts from now on accordingly to its gender (e.g. your father wears woman-clothes) or even makes a gender reassignment. You are even ready to pay for it if it helps that person to find peace. It may be necessary to get used to this, but it is possible.

"Your father wears woman-clothes". Couldn't have picked a better example? Because there is much more than that.

But now you have to address e.g. your mother as if she were a man or your father as if he were a woman.

There are three possibilities: Either you really start to think of this person that way (1), you only pretend to think of this person that way (2) or you are honest if you cannot think of this person that way (3).

Look, this is first of all a total red herring - we were NOT talking about family members, but how two non-related people who do not know each other for years should treat each other.
Either way, you made a point however irrelevant it may be, so here we go:

If you really think of them that way, it is no problem to address the person as requested.

And if you love that person, you will do your damn best to try to think of him/her in that way. Because that's now one of the deepest wishes that person has, especially in regard to family members.

If you still think of the person according to the person’s sex, using another grammar gender is nothing more than an act. You can address e.g. you mother as if she had a male sex, but you will always think of her as a woman.

If "think of her as a woman" in that case means "treat her like one", it will hurt him (the transman) every time you do it.
And if you are only pretending, you will have some slipups - especially between two people who know each other very well.
So, if you do not want to hurt a transperson you love (or just respect, are friends with etc.) you'll better try to do more than just pretending.

And you can say that you will always support the person but that it will be next to impossible to start to think of e.g. your mother as if she were a man. And because you want to be honest with her and not pretend to think something you are not thinking, you do not want to address her as if she were a man. It wouldn’t be real anyway if you do not really mean it – a fortiori if she knows that you do not mean it.

That means that you reject him (again, the transman to avoid confusion). It's the worst thing you can do. It's worse than if, say, you reject your child for being a lesbian, since it affects the whole identity rather than just a large part of it.

Of course, such changes are always hardest for family and people who know the transsexual person very long.
And they will of course take a lot of time to change their minds, unless they are truly exceptional people.
But it will only ever happen if they are willing to change their minds - such things do not happen completely on their own.

Now to my questions:

Do you think you could learn to address that person as requested?

I can. Others can.
Not everyone might be able to do it, but you have to be aware that this can easily shatter the relationship with the transperson. Because a relationship doesn't work if one side is constantly hurting the other.

Do you think it would be difficult to always remember to address that person as requested?

If you are willing to change your mind, you won't have any problems remembering it at some point - you won't need to.
And again, why not make some effort for someone you love?

Do you think that you would only address that person as requested as long as the person is present, but otherwise would speak of that person accordingly to the sex?

That would only interrupt the whole "change of mind". It will of course happen at the beginning of it, but if you are not also willing to change the address when that person is absent, you won't be able to make it - and it shows that you are not really trying.

Do you think you could start to think of that person as requested?

Do you think it would be difficult to start to think of that person as requested?

Why not?
We can also accept other changes in people. I have accepted my fathers new wife, i have accepted that my little sister is no grown up, i have accepted that my aunt is a lesbian - some of these things with more, some with less problems.
Is it hard? Of course it is, it is a radical change. It will take time. But unless you have a closed mind, you will be able to do it.

Do you think that it is honest to address that person contrary to what you are thinking?

What has honesty to do with it?
Nothing, we often lie for the betterment of others, because we do not want to hurt them. In this case, it is also necessary for you to change your mind - you have to start somewhere.

Do you think that it is consequent from this person to be satisfied because the person is addressed as requested by you but knows that it is not real because you do not think that way and the person knows it?

I would not be satisfied if someone only pretends and doesn't want to make an effort for me.
Why not?
Because it hurts to be treated as male. I am not male, i do not feel male.
I am of course fully aware that some people need time to acclimatize - the longer they know me, the more. But it still hurts. And if someone constantly hurts me, whether willingly or not, it will be a tough relationship.
Indeed, i rarely visited my family up until a few months ago, simply because everyone (except my little sister) always called me by my old name automatically. And it hurt every damn time, and it happened very often.
Luckily this has changed, and it is now much easier for me to visit my family.

Do you think that it is reasonable at all to demand to change your thinking?

Why does it have to be reasonable?
Someone you love has a wish, probably the most important wish in his or her life. Why does it have to be reasonable?

Do you think that it is maybe more selfish to demand from you to address that person as requested when this person knows that it would never be real anyway, nothing more than a façade that does not changes anything because you simply can't forget the actual sex of that person and start to think of that person as requested?

Even if the person can not change her mind, i still want her to address me the right (in my case, female) way.
Simply because it hurts when that person doesn't do it, and if someone willingly hurts me, he can not really love me. Or respect me, or be my friend.


Of course, this was one giant red herring.
The situation is TOTALLY different if you are not a family member or close friend. If you and me (or another transwoman) would ever meet, you would see me as female. I behave female, i mostly look female. Others address me as female. You might know that my sex is male, but would that honestly affect you that much?
It doesn't do that to most people. And that includes total strangers as well. I still have two relatively obvious tells (or one or none, depending on my luck), so they know that i am transsexual. But they still see me as female as far as i can tell, and i am usually good at telling this. It's simply easier for strangers, because they do not have a lifetime memory where they saw me as male.

If you have a question now, I’m more than willing to try to answer it.

Of course, I’m also more than willing to read any factual comments or your thoughts on that topic.

I’m not above learning and I’m able to change my mind.

Why should i have questions i have not already asked?
Again, my questions are:

Why are you not willing to grant a transwoman (or transman for that matter) the exact same rights as those of every other woman (or man), including precisely equal treatment (medical needs aside).

What would be the negative consequences of it if you are not willing to do so?
Why would your segregation policies be required?

And why are you, personally, incapable AND unwilling to treat a transperson with respect?

Of course it is always important how an argument is presented. Insults often times have the affect to antagonize someone and are usually not able to create good will or sympathy.

Says the person who, after promising to address me as female (doing so publicly no less) switched back to male pronouns
And of course, i must be the unreasonable one if i call you bigot for doing so or advocating segregation policies.

[Serafina]

If you have a question now, I’m more than willing to try to answer it.

Of course, I’m also more than willing to read any factual comments or your thoughts on that topic.

I’m not above learning and I’m able to change my mind.

Well, i asked three simple questions:

Why are you not willing to grant a transwoman (or transman for that matter) the exact same rights as those of every other woman (or man), including precisely equal treatment (medical needs aside).

What would be the negative consequences of it if you are not willing to do so?
Why would your segregation policies be required?

And why are you, personally, incapable AND unwilling to treat a transperson with respect?

About 24 hours have passed, you have not answered them. You were definitely online during that time and made two posts, none related to my questions obviously.
So, are you going to stand by your word and actually answer my questions?
Or, if you can not actually answer them, are you at least going to address them?

[Serafina]

Well, i suppose he is not honest enough to admit that he can not answer my questions.

Sure, he announced that he will only reply to questions posted on Starfleetjedibigots.Net, but that would mean that he ran away instead.
Well, until things change, will take this as an admission of AVOCADOS bigotry, unwillingness to change and dishonesty due to claiming otherwise.

Furthermore, the Administration evidently supports this, given that JediMasterSpock threatened action if they do not address me as female:

I would strongly suggest that it is generally most productive and polite to refer to someone online with whichever common pronoun won't make a fuss. In the case of Serafina, that is "she."

Which AVOCADO promised to do and actually did until a few posts back:

Respecting the wish of Jedi Master Spock, I will treat Serafina as female - although I think that this is not correct.

Well, given that he has is addressing me as male again and no action has been taken, it seems that the admin is as either as much a chicken as his posters or simply also a bigot.

By the way, image analyses of AVOCADOS "proof" that he is a lawyer heavily suggests that it is indeed not a scan of an actual document, unless that scan has been deliberately altered not to look like a scan (which would be quite stupid, given that that would contradict it's purpose).
Hence, AVOCADO is also a fraud.

So, that's it - unless someone thinks i should actually pursue that matter onto SFJ.Net, tough i do not think that would make any sense.

[Serafina]

Oh, you just have to love that little piece of shit
Still need that barfing smiley tough.

He's still harking on that language argument - but it gets better, just wait for it:

Regardless of his gender, his sex is and always will be male.

And for the addressing of an individual, that is what is important.

Yeah, except that he
-never showed this to be actually true
-sex is determined by more than just genitals - as i have shown before with scientific evidence, not that that ever stopped bigots.

I have given Serafina the chance to explain why I should address someone with a male sex as if that someone has a female sex only because that someone has a female gender.

Respect, fair and simple.
Quality of life for transsexuals.
Not making transsexuals outcasts.
Good enough for you? Naah, evidently you don't give a damn about such things.

Instead of explanations I got insults.

You got both, shithead.
Tough you clearly deserve the latter more than the former.

Why again should I bend my way of thinking and speaking for him or pretend something from which he and I know that it is not true?

Aah, here we go. This is essentially his thinking:
"Why should I change to make OTHER people comfortable?"
Nice going there, bigot. Evidently, you lack respect so much that saying "her" instead of "him" is too much for you.
Keep this in mind, it will explain a lot about him.

Out of courtesy?

Out of respect?

Because he is such a nice dude?

I do not think so.

What i just said. Fascinating, isn't it?

I know he has a male sex and a female gender. He cans life as he wants. But he has to adhere to the rules as every other person too. That means he gets addressed as every other person with a male sex and can do what every other person with a male sex is allowed to do.

So essentially i can NOT life like every other woman, which is what i want.
But your madness goes deeper - because i look female, i behave female and in less than a year, there will be no evidence perceptible to any person (aside from protected documents and slight medical data) that i am anything but female. In other words, you demand that people ignore what they see just to make me uncomfortable.
Again, nice going there shithead.

I even would support the introduction of further categories in the civil status, identification cards, passports etc. Additional to the sex, there can be a column for the gender and in addition to the birth-name, there can be a column for the chosen name. But to make false entries into such documents, to claim that someone with a male sex has a female sex, is simply wrong.

Yes, that's further evidence that he wants to deny the right to be female to transwomen.
We can dress like we want, but you better introduce some new category so that we are not legally female in any way.
Luckily, shitheads like this would and were shot down by our supreme court.

The problem is that Serafina is ashamed to be someone with a male sex and female gender and wants to hide the fact that he has a male sex.

He not only wants to be treated as a woman, he even claims to be a woman although a woman has always also a female sex.

That’s delusional.

So it's delusional now if you want to be treated according to your gender?
In case you are too stupid to get this: Your gender is a substantial part of your identity.
It's not some cultural identity, it's not something that only affects parts of your life - it affects your whole life.
Do you know how hurtful it is to be denied your gender? Evidently not, shithead.

By the way, i posted hard scientific evidence that transwomen are biologically (brain structure) female. You ignored it, plain and simple.

His problem is that he only thinks in man and woman categories and cannot imagine being something between both or something that is neither.

Provide evidence for such a state - since you adhere that much to biological facts, don't you think it's contradictory to make one up?

Usually I wouldn’t even fault him for thinking in that way because his thinking is as much affected by the German language as my thinking. And as there is no other sex in the German language, it is only logical in its own distorted way for Serafina to conclude that if he is no man, he has to be a woman.

I feel like a woman. There is nothing appealing to me in living like a man, i am way happier living as female. NOT some in-between and third state, as you claim without any evidence.

If they start to think that way, one day there may exist two or more commonly used terms for what transgenders are in all Western languages that are not merely derivations of man or woman.

In South Asia there are such terms already: For example in India there are people who are called hijra. These are physiological males who adopt feminine gender identity, women's clothing and other feminine gender roles – or with other words, they are what we would call transwoman. But unlike some Western transsexual women, hijras generally do not attempt to pass as women. Reportedly, few have genital modifications. Their identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation, and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender [O].
Since the late 20th century, some hijra activists and Western non-government organizations (NGOs) have been lobbying for official recognition of the hijra as a kind of "third sex" or "third gender", as neither man nor woman.

This is not scientific evidence.
Indeed, hijra and other such phenomena are simply (biological/genital) men who live like women. That's right in the frigging definition of it. Their are by all definitions transsexuals without the possibility to transition biologically.
Again, you want to deny transwomen their status as women and create a new social class for them, most likely with less rights than women (since that is the case with hijra).

Maybe someday the German language will have similar terms and will have developed further grammar genders respective noun classes as there are in other languages more than two or three genders respective noun classes too (Swahili for example has 18 genders) [O].

You are a moron, do you know that?
These grammatical genders are used for non-human things - i.e. plants might have their own gender, animals another one etc.
It has nothing to do with human gender at all.

Until then in the German and English language a man, even a man with a female gender, stays a man and is addressed like a man.

Yeah, i demolished that claim.
Again, it shows that you are simply unwilling to change your mind.

That has nothing to do with purity of the master-language but with the simple fact that a change in language in a free nation cannot be enforced. The language has to change as it always has changed: By a more or less inartificial development. Some changes need more time than other changes. The introduction of foreign terms may be easier and thus faster than a change in the fundamental grammar of a language.

I do not demand a law or the like.
I simply except that decent people address me as female. If they do not (tough that happens quite rarely), i kindly asked them to do so. If they refuse, i ask them for a reason. If their reason is simply that they do not want to treat my kindly or refuse to accept that i am female, their are simply not decent people.

If Serafina is not satisfied with that, it may be better if he conceals the fact that he has a male gender and deceives others in believing him to be a woman, a person with a female sex.

But honesty is that not.

Honestly - honesty is overrated, and you do not understand it.
Quite simply, lies/deception/etc. are only bad if they harm someone else.
Now, i have asked that question before - what harm comes to someone who addresses me as female?
Furthermore, what harm is inflicted upon someone who sees me as female? What does it matter to a coworker or other person? How are they even remotely influenced (and negatively at that) by that supposed difference?
It could matter in relationships, but i am open to people who are close to me about that.

They are not. No harm comes to them from that "deception". Therefore, it is not morally wrong.
Not doing it would cause me harm, from people like you. Therefore, the "deception" is morally right.



Quite simply, you are a bigot who does not want to see me as female at all costs.
You go as far as inventing third categories for transsexuals without any scientific evidence, and base your whole claim on a ludicrous linguistic argument - which contradicts your own reasoning of creating a third category.
You make no logical sense, you ignore science and worst of all, you lack basic decency and empathy.

[Serafina]

Well, looks like people there actually support that bigot.
That doesn't necessarily make them bigots, he never quotes me after all and they might not read my answers.
Either way, Demolisher incoming.

According to Serafina, I’m a discriminating, intolerant bigot of the worst kind who is comparable to the Nazis, American-Christian fundamentalists, white supremacist, gay-hating groups etc. and who believes in the purity of the master-language. He even used in that context the phrase » mein Führer «.

Huh. It went that far?

Yes it did.
He literary wants to deny transsexuals human rights (dignity) and wants to create a third social class for transsexuals as well.
He might not be a Nazi, he might not be as bad as them (or the other groups), but he is getting damn close.

This, because in the entire history of humanity, it's only been recently and through the "help" of technology, that some very, very few people could chose to be butchered up and down, in and out, and now the overall society should consider normal what looks more like a psychological disorder of someone who can't accept his/her baseline fleshy vessel?

"Butchered up and down". You do not understand anything about transsexuality or transitioning, do you?
Transsexuality is an accepted "disorder" that can NOT be treated psychologically. The only way for transsexuals to live a normal, healthy life is to transition - depression and suicide-rates among those who don't are extremely high.
You have no idea what Transsexuality is (even tough i explained it) - do not talk about things you do not understand.

There is inertia in everything, and it's equally absurd to be so violent against the vast majority of people who still think in ways which have not changed much since we started growing a bigger brain.

I am not mad at people who have a prejudice.
I AM mad at people who do not want to change their minds.
Such individuals are either stupid, bigoted or literary unable to change their minds. If the latter has a reasonable reason, i won't challenge them (such as with my grandparents - old age simply makes this difficult).
AVOCADO claims to be an open-minded intelligent individual, yet he is neither.

I'd also add that we have reached an age when people are really encouraged to hate themselves.
As for the gay hate, perhaps it should be pointed out that not all homosexuals see themselves as gays. Nonetheless, the gays movements have decided they represented all homosexuals. Do not be surprised to hear about homosexuals who come very close to hating gays.

Red herring, since this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
But guess what is the reason if homosexuals hate themselves? Right, bigotry - deeply ingrained bigotry which makes them reject their sexual orientation.
Are you honestly trying to imply that this is good or favorable?
It is not - self-denial is simply a bad and destructive force.

But go ahead - stand on the side of the bigots who ruin other peoples lives.
Or you can choose just to accept other peoples deepest wishes.
Your choice.

[Serafina]

More uninformed speculation, this time by Kor again.
At least it stays with that, so i'll keep this friendly.

Huh. It went that far?
This, because in the entire history of humanity, it's only been recently and through the "help" of technology, that some very, very few people could chose to be butchered up and down, in and out, and now the overall society should consider normal what looks more like a psychological disorder of someone who can't accept his/her baseline fleshy vessel?.

That is a interesting perspective actually:-

Is somebody who desires to have a full gender change mearly a homosexual who hates/cannot their bodies natural,original state?.

It could be i suppose as i know a few guys who are homosexual but have no interest in changing sex in fact i discussed this ver thing with one of them today and mentioned serafinas attitude and showed him a few of the posts and he agreed with me that the contained a lot of rage and hate.

So you are now smarter than psychologists, doctors and scientists now, eh?

Guess what - Therapy is mandatory for me. Without it, i get neither hormones, operations or legal procedures.
One of the primary purposes of this therapy is to figure out whether one is actually genuinely transsexual or just thinks to be - for the reason you named or others.
I hardly think someone who read a couple of posts by me can make a more informed statement about me than a medical professional.

As for hate - i hate bigots, i can't stand them. That's the hate in my posts, it is hardly directed at me.
And believe me, if you had to live in a wrong gender role for about twenty years, you won't be without some bitterness - and if you finally notice what's wrong with you, you will be angry if any people want to stop you from being happy.
But i don't hate myself, the only issues i have with me is when my body screws up my life. But i actually have a low amount of hate for my body, which many transsexuals have. Roughly, i do not care about my body all that much when i am alone - only when it prevents me from being seen or acting female.

Generally, Homosexuality and Transsexuality are two different things.
Homosexuality is quite simply about who you are attracted to - what people you fall in love with.
Transsexuality is quite simply about who you ARE.
Most people never ask that question - and indeed, the only reason transsexuals may think that their gender is identical with their sex (which it isn't) is because society forces them to. That can be everything from silent indoctrination to outright forcing it. But like everyone else, you do not decide on your gender identity if you are a transsexual - you merely discover it. Most people do not have to do that, since it is clear anyway.
There are, of course, homosexual transsexuals (i am a lesbian for example) - and again, checking whether one is merely a repressed homosexual instead of transsexual is one of the primary purposes of therapy.

[Serafina]

The last 20 of your years are your problem not mine or anybody elses and claiming that i or any other poster can "deny you happiness" is just a very weak excuse for you to unleash some of your bottled up hate.......we have no ability to deny you anything simply by posting on a forum unless you wish to control our opinions and in that case you do need some serious help.

Oh, so complaining about bigotry is now totally unjustified?
Say, if you were black (or any other minority) and someone said "we should create a new social class for blacks", how would you react?

Because AVOCADO did just that: "transwomen are not women, we should create a new social class". Better yet, he uses the Hijra as an example, which are simply transwomen in a society that doesn't accept them as women. They have nearly no legal rights - they can't marry, they have nearly no chance of getting a job etc. (yet they still do it - shows how important it is to them).
And that what AVOCADO wants to do to transwomen in western societies as well - deny them the right to be a woman and create a new social class for them.
But if such a class is created, it will inevitably have less rights than women - else, why create it in the first place?

While you hate is obviously directed outwards and SDN seems to be a perfect forum for you to vent it on you do scream "bigot" a lot even when it does not apply.

Sorry, but such a person gets nothing but my contempt. He IS a bigot by every definition of the word.

[Serafina]

Fell, FYI, i have issued a formal challenge to AVOCADO. Let's see whether he will accept or can defend his POV in a logical debate.

[Norade]

Unsurprisingly the bigot backs out while comparing you to murders and other such people.

[hunter5]

Well this fell apart quickly. Why is it that the crazies always go after something completely unrelated to the topic when they run out of ideas?

[Ghost Rider]

Well this fell apart quickly. Why is it that the crazies always go after something completely unrelated to the topic when they run out of ideas?

Because it is dead. It is fueled for the last 7-8 years after said death on as far back as ASVS to the inception of this board and only the die hard fanatics kept at it for all this time.

[Serafina]

Well this fell apart quickly. Why is it that the crazies always go after something completely unrelated to the topic when they run out of ideas?

Because they ran out of ideas.
First they try to shift their argument, and then they just make up something new.

As they say:

Because it is dead. It is fueled for the last 7-8 years after said death on as far back as ASVS to the inception of this board and only the die hard fanatics kept at it for all this time.

Well, to be fair, the phaser-drilling argument was kinda new.
Of course, it just has waay to many inconsistencies and there is no way to put up a good explanation for it other than just saying so - which is of course not a good explanation

[Aaron]

It did accomplish something; when push comes to shove, some of the members there are no better then what they accuse members here of being: ignorant, biased, bigoted trash. And made a mockery of "Unlike some of the other places on similar topics, we do try to make sure SFJ is open, friendly, and polite."

[Serafina]

Since JMS is apparently starting to delete posts, i will save some of them over here.


Kor, Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:08 pm

Did you read what i wrote?
Because you are not addressing it.

Such a treatment (on an adult or child, tough maybe not a baby) would destroy ones personality and cause deep disorders and traumas. You just can't change gender identity like that.

But the preferance is basedin essance on a brain anomoly and would not the change mean that the person would now react to external stimuli in a more standard manner AND in the way that was in keeping with the way they were raised and treated all their lives?.

The brain is by all means healthy, it is not broken - it just works slightly different.

I would say that healthy in regards to the brain is not the same as any other organ due to its function.

Besides, the ability to do so is speculative at best. Testosterone and other Androgens evidently do not fix the "damage", else there would be no older transsexuals (the "damage" would have been fixed due to androgens). And such a massive change of the neurons inevitably causes problems unless you have some sort of magi-science.

Perhaps but im not a doctor, geneticist or a psycologist.

Now, as i said previously - if you can prevent transsexuality from occuring, go for it. But don't mess with working brains - and the brain of a transsexual is working just fine.

I would say that it is working fine from a certain perspective but that argument could be make for many other conditions.

Are you saying that a transsexual would not be capable of making such decisions?
Sorry - but that's monstrous!
A transsexual is very well capable of making her or his own decisions.
The same logic has been used to force homosexuals to undergo anti-homosexual "therapy" - "they are sick and therefore we must make the decision for them".

In most regards a transsexual can make perfectly reasoned decisions but in regards to the issue we are discussing by showing scientifically that the issue is caused by a brain disorder the decision to change gender is a symptom.

Again, that's WRONG.
Transsexuality is not a disorder that affects your decision-making ability.

In most circumstances you are correct your decision making ability i would think is unaffected, however if the science is proven correct and transsexuality is a symptom of a brain anomoly/disorder then in regards to transsexuality your decision-making ability is coloured by it.

Who are YOU to decide that they have no RIGHT to make such a decision - or how could anyone else make that decision?.

I seriously hope you see what's wrong with this. You can't just decide to take the decision away from them.

I am not taking the decision away from anybody, i already told you i would support a change even if the sceience showed it was mearly a personal preferance, in fact that is the very foundation of my concern.

Look at it this way, IF a transgender could take a treatment that "cured" the initial brain anomoly and put the hormone levels in the individuals body to the point of a standard male then after a period of physical and emotional adjustment that person still decided to switch genders i would be more comfortable with my support.

However as we know it is all about the brain and that is a big unknown.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the damage such a "brain-fix" would cause. You either wind up destroying ones personality, causing deep traumas or both. Gender identity is just too fundamental in ones personality.

I am not a doctor as i said so i have no idea if any damage would result or not but in regards to my concern i am assuming a treatment that does not.

Myself, Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:34 pm

But the preferance is basedin essance on a brain anomoly and would not the change mean that the person would now react to external stimuli in a more standard manner AND in the way that was in keeping with the way they were raised and treated all their lives?.

So instead of respecting their wishes, you want them to conform?
How they are raised is hardly an issue, given that they would still have memories of feeling female. That's far more important than how they were raised.

I would say that healthy in regards to the brain is not the same as any other organ due to its function.

So you are saying what?
A transsexuals brain works just fine in every regard, except that it has a gender identity that does not fit with the body.
Why is changing the body the less preferable option to you, especially since it would be far less dangerous and is already possible?

I would say that it is working fine from a certain perspective but that argument could be make for many other conditions.

Then show me what is wrong with a transsexuals brain that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity is fixed just as well by adapting the body.

In most regards a transsexual can make perfectly reasoned decisions but in regards to the issue we are discussing by showing scientifically that the issue is caused by a brain disorder the decision to change gender is a symptom.

As i said - what gives you the fucking right to decide that?

In most circumstances you are correct your decision making ability i would think is unaffected, however if the science is proven correct and transsexuality is a symptom of a brain anomoly/disorder then in regards to transsexuality your decision-making ability is coloured by it.

So what, even if that is true?
You essentially say:
"What she wants is wrong, therefore her decision making ability must be impaired, therefore she must not be allowed to make that decision."
That is not only a gross violation of morality, but flat-out contradicts that you advocated freedom of that choice even if it was proven that it was no biological issue!

Look at it this way, IF a transgender could take a treatment that "cured" the initial brain anomoly and put the hormone levels in the individuals body to the point of a standard male then after a period of physical and emotional adjustment that person still decided to switch genders i would be more comfortable with my support.

Uhm...why?
Are you essentially advocating that a transwoman would have to undergo radical brain alteration just to test whether she actually wants to be female? What the fuck?!
Such a change would be permanent, that's not something you toy around with!

Transsexuals do not switch genders. My gender has always been female. I only took the decisions to start acting accordingly.

I am not a doctor as i said so i have no idea if any damage would result or not but in regards to my concern i am assuming a treatment that does not.

I am not using any medical terms here either.
And a treatment that can just flip a switch in ones brain would still be wrong - because if you want to avoid any traumata, you would have to remove all memories as well.
Indeed, it is morally evil even if we disregard that - you would literarly strip ones identity away.
Ask yourself a simple question:
How would you feel if you would suddenly wake up with a female identity and body?
Would that still be you? Can you even imagine such a change?
And how would you feel if someone forced that on you?

[Serafina]

Saving deleted posts, part two.

Mr. Oragahn, Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:16 pm

I get that the brain happens to be the source of what is defined as abnormal in the articles you and others have provided, and that's quite logical since the sexual organs grow according to the sexual chromosomes, but the brain seems to go bonkers at some point.
So obviously, the construction of the brain is the issue. So why not hate the brain instead of the rest?

Because it's not about hate.
You completely ignored what i said, not that that surprises me.

Call it distaste, or disliking your brain, or having some kind of negative opinion about your brain.
I looked at some of your posts at SDN and one had you being confused about your own position on this, at some point clearly showing that you wished you didn't have to deal with that improper body for like 20 years.
Perhaps hate is too strong as a work, but if it's not dissatisfaction, then what the hell do you call it?

And the brain prevents the trans-whatever to act like the his/her genotype should have him/her act like.

Honestly - don't you get that that's their personality?
But obviously, it's better to conform, just like in Trek.

A personbality that results from a mistake in the construction of the brain apparently, certainly in the construction of the rest of the body.
In Trek, McCoy would have have made a scornful comment about the primitive methods of our "science" and would have probably already came with a technology that permits your brain to attain the proper structure it should have reached without having to butcher your anatomy.
Especially since you have the cranium of a man, the brain is only asking to fit that cranium properly.
If a virus can destroy a brain, I bet another one can build it properly. If brain cells keep being regenerated, it's theoretically possible to transmit the right blueprint. That's, however, something we don't know how to do.

Because the impaired body is the clear source of the problem. Yet all your articles
show that the brain is when it comes to transies.

You still don't get it.
You can't fix the brain. Even if you could, that would be monstrous brainwashing.

Your brain cells keep being regenerated, but that does not constitute brainwashing. The trick is to tell them to be built or assembled slightly differently in certain parts of the brain. I don't think you'd lose your memory and probably very little of your personality, aside from the will to act like a woman.
Of course it's in the realm of SF.

You can fix the body without major problems.

Well you mau consider this a fix but it doesn't take a physionomist to see how certain fixes leave something to be desired.

From the standpoint of the drive for reproduction, you are an error. It doesn't mean I wouldn't help you. If I treated you like you were an ape, or a dog, or that you had no soul, I wouldn't even bother debating with you.
I see you has a human with a biomechanical defect. It doesn't mean you're stupid. You could have an IQ considerably higher than mine for all I know.

And you don't think it is offensive to call someone an error?

You're only an error under a given light. Try being less emotive about it.
The point initially being that it's rather presomptuous from you to call most people biggot as I'm sure most people tend to go by instinct. You'll meet many, many more biggots.

Have you tried male hormones btw?

Besides, i am still perfectly capable to reproduce and raise children, so even that fails.

If you keep your testes and penis, right. That hardly makes you a woman though. And it keeps pumping testosterone into your body, which you want to avoid.
So I'd really like to see evidence that you could reproduce sexually after a necessary genital operation, without help of the same technology that enabled you to achieve your complete transformation.
Without the balls, it would be rather hard.
Any species which can't reproduce without the help of technology is to be considered on life support, and in certain ways, almost dead.

This is useful how? There's no consensus on how the people like you shall be called, nor which pronouns should be used, and you whine because I actually make suggestions?
You realize you're not helping your case, right?

How about using the actual term? Transwoman? Or just woman, because that's not wrong either.
If you can not handle such a "long" term, then you are intellectually lazy.

I thought we couldn't call you a woman. From the couple of articles I've read by now, it's rather clear that your suggestion wouldn't be in agreement with the general trans view.
Transy, that's all (I've read that trans is even rejected, good god). Like I say dad instead of daddy. Is this intellectual laziness? No.
But then there's a need for a pronoun that matches this uniqueness.

And Serafine discovers the internets...

So you think that transsexuality is about sexuality now? About fucking.
You are WRONG.

----- my point ----->
|list]your head[/list]

That's a concession from you then. You just have nothing better to say to the fact that your argument is blasted because you fully know that a transwoman could wear male clothes.

And therefore ruin her passing. Great idea there - are you advocating segregation as well? Who the fuck do you think you are to dictate or demand what i wear?

Besides, the whole "female seductress" reeks so much of sexism that it just stirs my stomach.

Seductive attire is seductive attire.
Call me when when your stomach turns into a vortex.

Who spoke of morality? The mechanical technicalities of the surivval of a life form don't care about morality.

Oh really?
Then why did morality evolve, eh?

I believe you're using words rather randomly at this point. It is getting silly.
What's that shit about evolution of morality? It's not the same use of the word evolution, it's apples and oranges.

Natural evolution has nothing to do with that. It has to do with head count.
By the wording of the articles, it appears that the phenomenon is growing significantly, while populations in occidental societies tend to stagnate, if not literally recede.
If the real percentage of transies in a society doesn't evolve, then you can ignore my point. But the article clearly suggested it not to be the case.

Completely ignoring what i said, good move right there.
Repeating myself:
The number of transsexual might appear to rise because more transsexuals can express themselves without fear of being made outcasts.
That doesn't mean that the actual number of transsexuals (be it genes or whatever) rises.

I got your point.
The numbers were obtained from counts, mostly in clinics, of people who had gone through a surgery. So unless this method, for some reason, missed large numbers of operated patients, there is no reason for a rise of post-op transexuals, unless more people undergo surgery. It has little to do with expression and is all about down to earth bodily change in a clinic.

The whole .25~1% estimation is from the NCTE. However this document also makes a strict difference between transgender and transsexual, the former having not gone through any transition.

The question is, has the real count changed, or is it just a reflection of the change of counting standards and perhaps greater coming outs?

Parsimony.
We have an observed cause that explains the effect on one side, and an unknown cause that doesn't fully explain the effect on the other.
Guess which side is which.

Not until you decide to be clearer in your replies. Cause this and cause that is just too vague.

Ah, because thinking positively about the idea of a growth of gender fluidity is a good thing? Gotcha.
(clue: no, it is not, otherwise it means you wish more and more people were like you)

Where did i say that?
Oh, right, i did not.
Now listen:
There is nothing wrong with breaking gender barriers. There is nothing wrong with seeing that gender is a complex construct and not a black/white fallacy, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping to judge people solely on their sex.

It seems that we missed each other's point.
My point is that I see nothing good abou the growth of gender fluidity.

As for genders, there's no fallacy. There's nature, and that's all. All curious cases, as notably explained on page 1 & 2 of the NCTE document, prove the existence of exceptions confirming the rule.
It's not a fallacy, not even a dilemma at all since there's no conscious choice. There's just randomness between two possibilities. Mere statistical probabilities.

Conflict between the sources you and others cited, genius. *sheesh*

Like i said: Just like a creationist.

You're being silly. You call me creationist because you're incapable of even reading the very stuff that's been posted for you.
I'm refering to the studies, not a Bible.

Pro-tip: you didn't debunk my hypothesis with facts based on psychology but based on sheer issues abou the biological basic template at birth, which do not involve the shaping of the personality over the years.

What hypothesis? And how are you qualified to put up an hypothesis in the first place?

1. Read former post.
2. There's no need for qualification. The qualification will only define the chances of the hypothesis to be verified.

That's bull. The repulsion comes from the fact that a transwoman tries to look like a woman, but traits betray the former male traits.
The vast majority of the profiles available on this page illustrate my point.
Isis King is one of the few transwomen who don't really show their original traits.
That said, the work to be done was less considerable considering her original traits as a boy.
Lynn Conway would also totally fool me, from this picture. But one picture is not all. Picking Estelle Asmodelle's wiki page, she seems okay, but when you see her here, the bell rings.
Asians also seem to make easier transitions, but it's not always the case either.
Now, the case that's highlighted on the wiki page just says it all as far as my former claim went.
For example, this lady looks like a man wearing a wig, fake breasts and a ton of make up. The jaw is the betrayer here.
Sometimes it's the muscles (and guess what, excessive musculature in women is not attractive to most men), the broad shoulders, something with the jaw, the cheeks or else.
The point stands. As far I'm concerned, only well done ops would fool me. Sorry to use the word fool btw, perhaps convince would be better?

In other words:
You judge and treat people solely on their looks.

Coming from the person who wonders what's wrong about a system that drives you to shape up via plastic surgery and copious use of chemicals, I find it amusing.

Plus, call it bigotry all you want, but I cannot consider a transwoman a true woman who still has male traits that stick out. This cannot be ignored. This not MSN or Facepoop. My position is from the case of seeing the people for real.

Besides, some random pictures from the Internet hardly constitute enough material to judge the whole population of transsexuals.

Then provide a better set of examples. Something tells me you'd just be lying if you'd find many near-perfect transwomen. In a way, you'd only do what Vogue does, and you would only conform. Which again, is largely confirmed by your position on the values of natural physical beauty.

Beyond reason?

You are, quite evidently. Or are you trying to imply that there is a reason for that beyond reason? Nice paradox there, are you a Time Lord now?

What about you actually try to figure out how this confettit quoting started like? What the hell "you are, quite evidently" supposed to mean, when the question I replied to was "Tell me, what's bad about trying to look good?"

Tss tss.

Abuse (because we must call a cat a cat) of cosmetics and plastic surgery to look "better" is good?

Oooh, so the abuse of something is bad, therefore the thing itself must be bad!

Well I knew that point flew above your head as well. No matter how obvious it is, it seems that you have missed that the occidental society, especially in the US, doesn't really encourage you to be moderate about the use of those products. Add to the magic suntan/antifat pills and other faniful creams the whole diet market.

By that logic, pretty much everything is bad. By your logic, the Internet, computers, TV, food, sex, speech, schools, cars, taxes, government and the whole of modern technology are bad as well.

No, because you missed the point. And your analogy sucks big times, to say the least.
It would be better you don't continue down that route before I begin to call you names.

I'm trying to find a solution and somehow this drives you to act like an idiot. If you want to call me Ora, fine, do so. Like I give.

Here is a solution:
I am female. I want to be addressed as female. Why not do it?

And I tend to consider that female is not just about what's in your head, but what in and out of your body, down to the very little genes that compose you, those you can't... erm... cheat.
That's why I don't feel 100% comfortable to call you a woman. But I can eventually work around that for this discussion board, and already proposed doing so.
In real life, it's different.

[Serafina]

Saving deleted posts, part three:

Kor_Dahar_Master, 10:18 pm

So instead of respecting their wishes, you want them to conform?

Conform? no, confirm? yes.

How they are raised is hardly an issue, given that they would still have memories of feeling female. That's far more important than how they were raised.

Many psycological conditions that can be cured can be remembered by the person who had the condition, they would have memories of feeling what they think was female but the fact is ppl get over much more traumatic memories all the time.

Imagine all the awkwadsness of growing up and the confusion suddenly all making sense and becoming understandable on a emotional level?, hows that a bad thing?.

So you are saying what?
A transsexuals brain works just fine in every regard, except that it has a gender identity that does not fit with the body.
Why is changing the body the less preferable option to you, especially since it would be far less dangerous and is already possible?

If a safe alternative could cure the brain anomoly causing the issue then i would be more conforatable supporting ANY decision either way is what i am saying.

Then show me what is wrong with a transsexuals brain that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity is fixed just as well by adapting the body.

show me what is wrong with a transsexuals body that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity may be fixed just as well by curing the brain anomoly if it could be done safely.

As i said - what gives you the fucking right to decide that?

I have not decided anything i am following a logical progression that started with your assertion that transgeners are caused by a brain anomoly.

So what, even if that is true?
You essentially say:
"What she wants is wrong, therefore her decision making ability must be impaired, therefore she must not be allowed to make that decision."

No that is not what i am saying.

What i am saying is that a anomoly in the individuals brain is the ultimate cause to why the individual thinks that way so solve the anomoly give the individual time to adapt to the changes and if the individual still wants to change then fine.

That is not only a gross violation of morality, but flat-out contradicts that you advocated freedom of that choice even if it was proven that it was no biological issue!

Actually no it confirms it as somebody making decisions on a subject that is directly caused by a anomoly in the brain is making a decision based on a symptom of the anomoly.

Uhm...why?
Are you essentially advocating that a transwoman would have to undergo radical brain alteration just to test whether she actually wants to be female? What the fuck?!
Such a change would be permanent, that's not something you toy around with!

Actually i am saying that it would be brain repair as in the correction of the anomoly, if such repair results in the alteration of the individuals perspective on the subject that is mearly the result of fixing it.

Transsexuals do not switch genders. My gender has always been female. I only took the decisions to start acting accordingly.

Actually if the science you posted turns out to be correct then they do change gender at a early stage of development due to a brain anomoly, correctling such is hardly a crime.

And a treatment that can just flip a switch in ones brain would still be wrong - because if you want to avoid any traumata, you would have to remove all memories as well.
Indeed, it is morally evil even if we disregard that - you would literarly strip ones identity away.

You do not need to remove memories or strip a identity, IF the science is correct we are repairing a issue that would make all the confusion of growing up siddenly come into focus.

Ask yourself a simple question:
How would you feel if you would suddenly wake up with a female identity and body?
Would that still be you? Can you even imagine such a change?
And how would you feel if someone forced that on you?.

What kind of a question is that?, if i got drugged while sleeping and the physical part of that happened to me overnight then of course id still be me, id be a very annoyed me for being kidnapped and surgically altered but id still be me.

But then i am not a transgender with a brain anomoly looking to get it sorted so i can at least make a decision about my futurre gender without the brain anomoly colouring my thought process.

You cannot compare a forced physical gender and brainwashing change to......somebody with a brain anomoly wishing to cure it so they can make a clear decision about their future.