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

[Batman]

Not funny enough. At this point I wonder if they're not going out of their way to hurt you on purpose because you (just like everybody else they ever debated outside their little circlejerk forum I suspect) made them look like complete and utter morons.

[Serafina]

Not funny enough. At this point I wonder if they're not going out of their way to hurt you on purpose because you (just like everybody else they ever debated outside their little circlejerk forum I suspect) made them look like complete and utter morons.

Eh, i have to laugh about these things. It helps getting over the insults.
And you are propably right, given that they have been increasing since i admitted that they actually hurt me.

[Batman]

You're a better person than I am (yeah, okay, so maybe that's not much of a compliment).
Me, I'd be setting fire to that stupid No Killing agreement I signed when I decided to work for DC Comics.

[Serafina]

AVOCADO again.

I only want to clarify something: I have not insulted Serafina in respect to his transsexuality. At least not willingly.

Yes you have. Right in this very sentence.
Addressing me as male shows that you have absolutely no respect, and only wish to insult me.
For someone who claims to be polite, that's hardly honest.
So fuck off, bigot.

I have merely presented the legal situation in Germany as far as I know about it.

I have never had to do with he Transsexuellengesetz before and I have never read any decisions to it because that is not a very important topic. I bet that most lawyers haven't even heard of that law.

I was capable of looking it up in three seconds, and i have no formal education in law.
Quit trying to find excuses for your incompetence.

On the other side, Serafina has accused me (or, if not outright accused, at least insinuated)

Yes i have. I always named examples.

to lie several times,

You did it. Including above.

to not think scientifically,

Appealing to the unknown as a solution is hardly scientific. You do that whenever you ignore evidence, fail to provide it on your own or claim that unseen capabilities are sufficient explanation.

to construct strawmans out of her arguments,

You did, and i showed how and why.

to be incapable of honest debate,

Distorting evidence and lying is hardly honest.

to have slept during my biology classes when I should have learned basic taxonomy,

I can still hardly believe that you required no taxonomy for an abitur in biology.

to have written bullѕhіt,

Well, certainly. Just look at the other points.

to have no scientific knowledge whatsoever,

Given that you once claimed that a melting snowflake releases energy and do not understand that plasticity is a property rather than a state of matter - yeah, i think so.

to not be intelligent,

Self-evident, given that intelligence determines learning capability, which your lack of knowledge betrays to be missing.

to not be able to apply scientific principles,

Given that you do not do this, you evidently can't or do not want to.

to be a scientific layperson who never had to operate in an environment where his conclusions came under direct scrutiny,

Are you a scientist? You yourself claim to be a lawyer. Lawyers are NOT scientists.

to be uneducated and to throw some gathered scientific catchphrases around,

Given your severe gaps in knowledge, you appear uneducated.

to know nothing about the basics 101 for academic discussions,

Given that you routinely fail to present your own theory, that's most likely true.

to ignore what he (Serafina) has written,

Given that you nearly never quote me, that is self-evident.

to be a dumbass,

Well, not technically

to go for for semantic nitpicks,

Given that you routinely base whole posts on semantics, this is self-evident.

to be incapable of using lexica,

Failure to look at basic principles shows either incapability or unwillingness.

to have said something that caused him (Serafina) to imagine the use of a blunt object on me,

Quite. Due to usage of creationists phrases (kinds of animals).

to not even know what he (Serafina) has already learned in her 10th class when he was 16,

Evidently. Might be exlained due to me having a good teacher and you going to school earlier than me. Does not explain how you do not know this when making an abitur in biology.

to be a creationist,

You certainly argue like one, and misunderstand evolutionary biology like one.

to be a dispshit, to demonstrate scientific ignorance,

Repeating yourself much?

to be a chickenshit,
to be chickening out,

You certainly attempted to do so, due to splitting your posts to another thread and declaring that you no longer want to debate.
Evidently, a lie.

to be a bigot,

Given that you let (lack of knowledge based) prejudice rule your actions against minorities, the shoe fits.

to not be a decent person,

Given that you are unwilling to call a transwoman female unless legally required, you are hardly decent or polite.

to have a damn emotionless ass,

See above.

to be incompetent as a lawyer,
to deserve it to get fired and my license revoked,

Given that you claimed that there is no legal precedence in Germany, quite so.

to be an idiot,

Given that you behave like on, quite likely.

to be disgusting,

I find bigotry and intolerance disgusting.

to be an emotionless troll who apparently loves to batter minorities,

You do it right now by constantly referring to me as male against my explicit wish.

to be a fucktard,

Yes, given your intolerant behavior.

to be intolerant and parade this intolerance,
to be proud of being a bigot and

Given that you try to defend your intolerance towards transsexuals with laws, i think this is highly appropriate.

to be an inbred intolerant goatfucking retard.

Standard description for bigots.

In addition to that, he is calling my AVOCADO, although my username is Who is like God arbour. Obviously he wants to say something with that. And it is interesting to see, that his against me directed hostility started with the first time he addressed me with that name.

Merely adressing you with your old nickname. Don't like it? Say so.

Somehow I have problems to see, why attacks on Serafina's transsexuality, attacks I have never done, are supposed to be more personal than all these insults.

You are doing it in this very post!
Referring to me as male is one of the gravest insults you can throw at a transwoman. It directly says that you do not see me as female, that you do not tolerate me as one.
How does that not qualify as an attack on my Transsexuality bigot?

Furthermore his belonging to a minority is probably not the reason why he gets insulted. He gets insulted because he insults others too. His problem is that as someone who is afflicted he is an easy target for insults. That his affliction makes him a member of a minority has nothing to do with it. Yes, it is not decent to insult him because he is afflicted. That's why I would never do it. Fact is, that I feel sympathy for him. But this sympathy is kept within a limit. Because it is not decent to insults people at all and that's what he is doing all the time. It's no wonder that some people are retaliating.

Liar. You are doing it RIGHT NOW.
And transsexuality is not an affliction. Go fuck off, asstard.

You are constantly attacking me by calling me male. You are constantly showing that you are not tolerant of Transsexuals. You are constantly trying to defend this. You are unwilling to even consider that you are wrong.
And you can put your so-called sympathy up your ass. I hope it gets bloody. A sympathetic person would stop the deeply personal attacks.

Now go fuck off. And don't even think about making another half-assed justification attempt or a half-assed apology.
Neither will do for such grave bigotry and intolerance.

[Serafina]

Well, let's see what the administrator and owner has to say to two of his board members displaying rampart intolerance.

This is actually true, although becoming less so as the gender ratio on the internet tilts towards even. It's actually a time-honored trolling tactic - old men looking to stir up trouble on internet forums will pretend to be young women so they can instantly get a following from horny teenage boys.

It's also quite common on chat communities (although there, you're more likely to run into law enforcement officers of any sex pretending to be underage girls), and also on MMORPGs (because if you're playing a female character and pretend to be female, it's easier to get free stuff from other players).

Conversely, women pretend to be male online in order to avoid untoward attention. Actual sex and assumed sex are so loosely related that "you sound like a teenaged male" didn't even register as an insult on my radar. That said, this discussion is clearly going nowhere productive now that it's been side-tracked to Serafina's person.

There's really no winning in the ad hominem game. I don't have any reason to believe either one of you is lying about yourselves, but what was a discussion about Star Wars and Star Trek has clearly turned into a conversation about Kor and Serafina, and that makes me sad.

Fuck off.

I have shown my "claim" to be true.
And it's quite notable that you do not even understand how hurtful their conduct has been. That either betrays lack of knowledge (understandable, it's a rare theme) and unwillingness to sympathize (less so) or being intolerant yourself (not excusable). I don't want to excuse you of either - but any decent person who read my posts should understand why and how much their behavior was deliberately harming me.

A very apt post. Serafina sowed ad hominem and eventually reaped discussion of her own person that she was sensitive to. Of course, SDN can be expected to rally behind Serafina and provide her emotional support now that she appears distraught. The dastardly SFJers have struck her to her soul, after all. Perhaps eventually SDN will be a place where insults based on gender, sexuality, and orientation, such as "cockgoblin," are not casually thrown around.

More likely not; in my opinion, they will most likely continue hypocritically spouting insults indiscriminately at anybody outside their tightly-knit online community whilst taking offence whenever one of their members' sensitive spots is pricked.

You honestly believe that attacking someone due to identity is comparable to attacking someone due to behavior?
Stick your so-called politeness up your ass. If you can get DarkStars cock out first.

Stardestroyer.Net has actually been a great help for my transition. I got both advice and support, including from Mike Wong himself. I do not have to worry about being attacked for who i am, and i can freely express it.
I doubt your forum could offer something like this to anyone.

And i have NEVER seen an insult on SD.Net due to sexuality or gender without moderator action being taken.
Apparently, you actually WELCOME bigots. You know what we do with them? Ban them. No excuses, no second chances. Not even for long-term members if they pull off something like this.

Unfortunately, the law in other places is not always so clear - or as friendly to transsexuals, for that matter.

That said, while the nature of address across national borders over the internet may not be in any way enforced by law, what constitutes good manners for the purpose of productive discussion is another matter. 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."

If you think it would be improper to do so, you might use a neutral pronoun when you're talking about someone whose sex is unclear or in dispute for whatever reason. One would be well-advised to do so, and particularly one should avoid turning the discussion into a shouting match about whether some poster somewhere else on the internet is truly male or truly female. (Kor, please take note.)

So i am an item now? Neutral pronouns are an even greater insult, since they deny me both my gender identity AND humanity.

Sorry, Spock, but "i would strongly advocate" doesn't cut it. I appreciate the gesture but this is hardly a momentary lapse. Both Kor and WILGA demonstrated extreme bigotry and prejudice. Just stopping the express it won't do anything against that, nor will it convince anyone that you do not tolerate such behavior.
Essentially, you are saying "please shut up, you are embarrassing us" instead of "you guys did something wrong, apologize or be punished". That's hardly what someone who cares about a benign conduct would do.

[Wyrm]

to be incompetent as a lawyer,
to deserve it to get fired and my license revoked,

You didn't even know the precidents regarding the very law you cite that "enables" to call Sarafina a man contrary to her wishes. If you had to go to court regarding this law that you didn't research, you would have gotten your ass handed to you, and your client would have been legally skewered by it. Your client relies on you to give competent legal advice and representation. Knowing the legal precident is VITAL to good representation. So yes, you are an incompetent lawyer, if you are one at all.

[Aaron]

What difference does it make what she is? If someone wants me to call him a her when he's a man, then just shrug and get on with it.

[Wyrm]

GODDAMN TIME LIMIT!

In addition to that, he is calling my AVOCADO, although my username is Who is like God arbour. Obviously he wants to say something with that. And it is interesting to see, that his against me directed hostility started with the first time he addressed me with that name.

You would be despised just the same even if we called you 'Who is like God arbour'. If you proved to be a competent and thoughtful poster, you would still be part of SDN and 'AVOCADO' would have been an affectionate nickname. As it is now, it is an unpleasant reminder of just how much of a douchenozzle you are.

And I'm still waiting for that solidus curve.

=====

What difference does it make what she is? If someone wants me to call him a her when he's a man, then just shrug and get on with it.

Because the SFJ-tards think that it's such a devistating attack on her character that they cling to it like a liferaft. Or a blow-up doll. Sadly, it is a baldfaced ad hominem fallacy.

[Batman]

The difference is, they're doing it for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of hurting her. That SFJ are ignorant morons is something we knew the moment any of them showed up here. Or any of us tried to go THERE.
Oh and Aaron? if somebody calls you to address them as she, maybe NOT addressing them as he might be the smart thing to do?

[Serafina]

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

So you still do not see me as female.
In other words, you are still intolerant.

There is a reason for the requirements in the Transsexuellengesetz before her by the transsexuality imprinted gender is recognized as her only gender. Because many questions are not solved. What is e.g. with sports? Does a transwoman participates in sport as a woman or as a man? Or as what is a transwoman to be treated in changing rooms? Goes a transwoman with all her male genitals into the changing rooms for women or for men? Or as what is a transwoman to be treated in a prison, where genders have to be separated? Gets a transwoman a special ward?
All these questions are not so relevant when the requirements of the Transsexuellengesetz for the recognition of the by the transsexuality imprinted gender are fulfilled.

Fuck off with your legalese. None of this applies here.
And it's brilliant how you champion tolerance here /sarcasm

As soon as Serafina meets the requirements of the Transsexuellengesetz for the recognition of the by the transsexuality imprinted gender and has the necessary court decision, I would address her as female anyway. Because I have no problems with transsexuals and have no problems at all with tolerating them. But I'm the opinion that as long as a person is considered by law to be male, the person is not to be treated as a female and vice versa.

Fuck off.
I am living as a female, i am applying for work as female, everyone i know treats me as female, i AM female. The law has absolutely no bearing on how a private person treats me. But sheer decency calls for treating a person like she wishes to be treated.

If all people would think like you, transitioning would be even harder. Luckily, most people are at least tolerant.

By addressing Serafina accordingly to the by the law recognized gender, I may ignore Serafina's wishes, but I have no intention to insult Serafina.

The law has no fucking bearing here. The law never demands that you address me as female, since both you and me are private persons. At most, i could sue your for insulting me, with questionable outcomes.

But I wanted to quote something about the binding effects of court decisions in Germany:

1.2 The practice of precedent in a civil law jurisdiction: Germany

In civil law jurisdictions there is not such a system of precedent as it can be found in the English legal system. In Germany, for example, there is no precedent at all.
As a result of the German experiences with the legal system during the Third Reich, the judge of modern Germany has every freedom in his decisions. As long as his judgments are within the legal framework, especially the "Grundgesetz" (constitution), he is provided by the "Grundgesetz" (Articles 97 I and 20 III) with the biggest independence in his work, being bound only by statute and law, whilst previous decisions in other (similar) cases are not binding on the courts. Thus judicial decisions are not a binding formal source of law at all.
But, in fact, there are some decisions of the "Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)" or "Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG)" (Federal Constitutional Court), which in practice are almost binding, at least as far as the interpretation of the statutes is concerned. But, and I have to lay emphasis on this, the judges are completely free to interpret the statutes in a way different from the one the BGH proposes, as long as they obey the rules of interpretation and as long as they do it within the legal frame of statute and constitution. Here you can see, that the decisions of the highest German courts are not binding in the sense a precedent is binding; the situation a judge is in when he has to make a decision is a completely different one. At first he looks at the new case, then at the statutes and afterwards, if he wants to have a clear picture of how a particular part of a statute might be understood, he tries with the help of "Kommentaren" (commentaries) to discern the general trend of decisions on this particular point including the decisions of the highest courts, if there are any related to the statute in question. Of course, most of the courts in Germany follow those decisions in their way of interpreting certain unclear statutes or those, which contain "unbestimmte, auslegungsbeduerftige Rechtsbegriffe". These are paragraphs, which need a certain framework to be useable, and this framework consists of an interpretation, which is related to some kind of recent understanding of a certain word, the society as such has, a good example is paragraph 242 BGB (performance according to good faith). These "unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe" make the statutes quite flexible, but they can be misused as well, as you can see in the fact that the "Buergerliches Gesetzbuch" is in use for 101 years now; it is not difficult to see, that this period includes the Third Reich with its inhuman ways of interpreting the law.

For all practical purposes, there IS legal precedent in Germany.
It's not absolutely binding as it is in anglistic law, but if we are talking about decisions by our supreme court or similarly high instances there is practically no difference. We have Grundsatzentscheidungen und Präzedenzfälle. A lawyer would know that, yet you said:

There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.

The bolded part is blatantly untrue - a Grundsatzentscheidung has more bearing than just on one case.

Serafina demanded an apology of Kor_Dahar_Master.

I wonder if I'll get one of her. After all, she was very determinate in her conclusions:

Bullshit. And you claim that you have studied law?
These decisions were made by the bloody BVerfG (supreme court again). You claim to be a lawyer and do not understand legal precedence? Or the significance of a Grundsatzentscheidung?

Fuck off, AVOCADO. If you actually are a lawyer, i hope someone fires your damn emotionless ass and revokes your license. You deserve it for not understanding legal precedence alone.

Yes, some of these insults are hurting - schnief.

You still do not see the difference between attacking someone for being who she is and attacking someone for doing something.

And it continues:

Are you a scientist? You yourself claim to be a lawyer. Lawyers are NOT scientists.

Ever heard of legal science? In Germany it is called Rechtswissenschaften. And coincidentally that's exactly what I have studied. I feel insulted to not be considered a scientist.

Given that actual science studies natural phenomena, legal science is at best borderline science.

We have thousands and thousands of laws in Germany. No lawyer can know all laws. That's an impossibility.

True. But every lawyer would recognize the potential significance of a decision by the supreme court. You did not and claimed that they have no bearing on other cases, which is just idiotic.

It's as if one would demand from each physician to be at the same time a specialist in Anesthesiology, Cardiology, Cardiovascular surgery, Clinical laboratory sciences, Clinical Neurophysiology, Dermatology, Emergency medicine, Endocrinology, Family Medicine, Gastroenterology, General surgery, Geriatrics, Hematology, Hepatology, Infectious disease, Intensive care medicine, Maxillofacial surgery, Nephrology, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Obstetrics and gynecology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Orthopedic surgery, Otolaryngology, Palliative care, Pathology, Pediatrics, Pediatric surgery, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Plastic surgery, Proctology, Psychiatry, Pulmonology, Radiology, Rheumatology, Surgical oncology, Thoracic surgery, Transplant surgery, Trauma surgery, Urology and Vascular surgery.

I mean, get real: What to you think how much relevance the Transsexuellengesetz can have for a lawyer?

There are estimated to be 10.000 transsexuals in Germany and only 300 of them in a year are willing to do what is necessary to have the gender recognized by law as the be the transsexuality imprinted gender [O].

These statistics are blatantly outdated - they are based on extrapolations from 30 years ago.
And the two GRS-specialists in Munich together see more transsexual patients than 300 PER YEAR. You clearly falsified the statistics, or do not know how to read one, since the latter is clearly PER YEAR.

At the same time, there are over 150.000 attorneys, more than 20.000 judges and more than 5.000 public prosecutors in Germany, not counting thousands of legal advisers and corporate counsels. These all are lawyers.

Only if there would be a transsexual client who has a legal problem regarding that law, an attorney would start to read that law and look for commentaries and adjudication.

To find the law in the internet is easy.

But to find commentaries and adjudication is not so easy.

For this there are special databases or literature to which one has to have access.

Usually attorneys do not have these things at their home and usually such a research is not done in a few minutes. It is very extensive and very expensive work.

After all, the attorney is not knowing in advance what he is looking for at all. He does for example not know, before he has looked, if there are any court decisions or legal opinions already to this very small topic he has never dealt with before.

So excuse me if I'm not ready to do such research for free in my spare time.

I told you that it was about a decision of the supreme court about the first part of the TSG. Really not hard to find.


You have absolutely no tolerance for transsexuals. You would only call me female if the law required you to do so (or i JMS forces you to do so, same thing). You try to justify that intolerance with laws that have absolutely no bearing on how two people adress each other in private.
You continuously attacked my for my gender, without even seeing or accepting that it is wrong.
You display all the signs of a bigot. Unless you change that, you ARE bigot.
If you want to change that, inform yourself about Transsexuality. It doesn't get that much time to grasp that a transwoman IS female and that a transman IS male, regardless of any current legal or biological states.

[Aaron]

The difference is, they're doing it for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of hurting her. That SFJ are ignorant morons is something we knew the moment any of them showed up here. Or any of us tried to go THERE.
Oh and Aaron? if somebody calls you to address them as she, maybe NOT addressing them as he might be the smart thing to do?

Err...isn't that what I just said?

[Serafina]

And Kor_Bigot_Master continues to miss the point and parade his bigotry.

This HE/SHE topic as it is going nowhere.

Indeed it is rare that a bigot recognizes his own fault.

Ah.
So you are an intolerant retarded bigot who thinks that a transwoman is not female.

Actually you are wrong about that fella.

Oh really? We will see about that later.

I thought you were male pretending to be female, then you mentioned this transgender issue and if its true things make sense.

Not what you said. This is what you said:

Show how a correct observation without a negative judgement either way is intolerant or prejudiced?.

Your "observation" was "Serafina is male". This is not true, asshole.

How about shoving it down my throat that you think that i am male all the bloody time?

Medicine, taste, own....

You still don't get it, bigot!
You insult me for who i am. You choose your insults due to who i am. Your insults have nothing to do with the actual argument and are just intended to hurt me.
I insult you for what you do. I choose my insults based on what you do. My insults have something to do with the actual argument - they are supposed to show how wrong your statements are.

There is a fucking difference. You attack me because you are intolerant of transwoman. You think that i still behave male, do not tolerate that i am female regardless of that and hence attack me. There is nothing i can do against that.
I am intolerant of stupid actions. I think your statements are stupid, and i want to show that they are. You can stop making stupid statements.

There is a fucking difference between attacking me for being who i am and attacking you for what you do.

Of your slurs regarding the mentally retarded?, no i have reached my limit of your use on mental illness slurs.

Fuck off.
I DO NOT insult mentally handicapped people. I use words that would be insulting IF i was talking to a mentally handicapped person. I am not. If i would, i would not use them
You ARE talking to a transsexual, and you use your insults for exactly that reason.

1. True but all i had to go on was yor avatar.
2. I said your posts had a adolesant male vibe about them and said so, if you wish to infer predjudice from that then do so but it only exists in your head.

A prejudice is by definition a judgement based on incomplete information. Posting style in one thread is hardly sufficient information. Thus, you ARE prejudiced.

3. True i did give you a taste of your own medicine and will continue to do so as long as you use mentally ill/retardation slurs. But you are wrong i do not consider a transitioned male still a male.

I do not directly insult mentally handicapped peopled because they are mentally handicapped.
You directly insult transsexuals because they are transsexual.

4. I will continue to call you a HE as long as you use your disgusting slurs regarding mental incapacities.

Fuck off. Everyone can see that i am not insulting mentally handicapped people.

If they read your prefered type of insults how do you think they would feel about you?...

They are not directed at them, are they?
If they ask me to stop regardless, i would do so.
But go ahead - show me that a mentally handicapped person is actually offended by my insults towards you.
I am offended by your insults towards me.

YOU KNOW i am not suffering from mental retardation but YOU reinforced your attacks!!!!!!!!!.

Getting it yet bigot?.

And that's the fucking difference.
You are not mentally handicapped. I do not attack you for being mentally handicapped (since you are not).
I am transgendered. You attack me for being transgendered.

1. Im not a fully transitiond transwoman is a womwn, a transwoman partly through transition i suppose i would say is a transwoman not fully transitioned.

Fuck off. I am a woman regardless of any legal steps or genital operation. But that's typical for bigots "still has a dick=still male". Fuck off bigot.

2. I am perfectly capable of looking past it.
3. medicine, taste, own.

You are not, and you do not even see the fucking difference.

What to defend ypourself against being told you are something you are not?.

Still claiming that i am not female, eh bigot?

Like me NOT suffering from mental retardation along with other mental disabilities that you actually use deliberatly and known predjudicial words to describe?...but you continuing to claim i am?.......yea i know.

Yeah, that's the point - you are not mentally handicapped, therefore my insults do not attack you for who you are.
If you are offended by them, you can stop saying stupid things. I can not stop being transgendered.

Have i ever used any slang words to describe your circumstances?, you do know you use a lot of those sort of words to describe mental illnesses right?...

Getting it yet?.

No, you have done worse. Calling me male is worse. Fuck off, bigot.

You are right im not, so you call me mentally ill when you know im not to piss me off....so i call you a bloke when i know you are not to piss you off....

Getting it YET?.

You honestly think that if something fits someone, it's not an insult - but if it doesn't fit it is?
By your logic, if i call a mentally ill person stupid or an idiot, it's not an insult. Guess what bigot - it IS.

Right so you are the only one allowed to be hurt by insults?...how many posts packed with mental illness slurs amoung other disgusting language did i have to SUFFER through of yours HEY?...

GETTING IT YET!.

Fucking difference by orders of magnitudes.
Unless you are telling me that my insults hurt you so much that you have to concentrate to even see enough to type or gave you fucking nightmares.
If they actually do, i would stop my insults as well. But i doubt it.

I would honestly say that i would consider somebody "part way through transition" to be well "part way through transition". In fact the very word transition means "Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another".

Fuck off. My brain is fully female, and you have NO right to decide otherwise.

And il stop calling you a HE as soon as you stop disrespecting the mentally handicapped.

I am not. Stop pretending i do. Show me where i ever did this, bigot.

Noticing a decidedly adolesant male vibe in a few of your posts is not the same as saying you MUST BE anything.

Noticing it would have been ok. Saying "you know that you still post like a male" would be ok.
Constantly calling me male is NOT.

Unlikely considering im not a christian and my ethnic background is none of your business.

So what? Are you a member of a minorty that has to constantly fight for acceptance?

Then we can agree to both stop using our prefered insults yes or no?....il find it easy as i am not a natural when it comes to it in fact i had to edit my post from female to male comments as i kept forgetting.

Honestly?
Fuck you. Preferably with something spiky.
Unless you apologize, i won't stop calling you a bigot.

I know that if one branch of my family read your posts and insults it would upset them to see some of the words you casually throw around and even try to find creative phrases to use them in as "enhancments" to the insults.

So you think there is no difference between using a word that MIGHT offend somebody, or using a word that DOES offend somebody? (in both cases someone who is actually affected - i.e. me or an actually mentally handicapped person).

Look who is talking, go shout at a person using your normal insults near a downschild or his/her parents family members and then get back to me ok?.

You actually think i would do that? Fuck off, i would never insult a mentall handicapped person for being mentally handicapped.

You need to stop posting and speak to a psychologist me old fella.

I do. I am legally required to.

ANYWAY

Now that is settled and a agreement can be reached where insults on both sides stop do you wanna go back to getting your butt kicked in regards to ST vs SW instead?.

Fuck off, bigot. You still did not apologize, you still do not see where you are wrong.

If you actually do that and post a theory to discuss like i repeatedly challenged you to do, then we can talk.

[Serafina]

The difference is, they're doing it for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of hurting her. That SFJ are ignorant morons is something we knew the moment any of them showed up here. Or any of us tried to go THERE.
Oh and Aaron? if somebody calls you to address them as she, maybe NOT addressing them as he might be the smart thing to do?

Err...isn't that what I just said?

Don't worry Aaron. You expressed it a bit clumsy, but it's pretty clear that it was not an intolerant statement.
Of course, i could now rant that i am female - but i don't chew out people for lack of knowledge, as long as they are open-minded and tolerant.




Anyway, WILGA.
Thanks to another member of the board, i now have even more proof that you were blatantly wrong when claiming that there is no legal precedence in Germany, at least as far as the Bundesverfassungsgericht is concerned.

§31 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz:

§ 31

(1) Die Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts binden die Verfassungsorgane des Bundes und der Länder sowie alle Gerichte und Behörden.

(2) In den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 6, 6a, 11, 12 und 14 hat die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Gesetzeskraft. Das gilt auch in den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 8a, wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht ein Gesetz als mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar oder unvereinbar oder für nichtig erklärt. Soweit ein Gesetz als mit dem Grundgesetz oder sonstigem Bundesrecht vereinbar oder unvereinbar oder für nichtig erklärt wird, ist die Entscheidungsformel durch das Bundesministerium der Justiz im Bundesgesetzblatt zu veröffentlichen. Entsprechendes gilt für die Entscheidungsformel in den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 12 und 14.

EVERY decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht is LEGALLY BINDING. A lawyer should really know that.

They can even count as a law:

§ 13
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht entscheidet
....
6. bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten oder Zweifeln über die förmliche oder sachliche Vereinbarkeit von Bundesrecht oder Landesrecht mit dem Grundgesetz oder die Vereinbarkeit von Landesrecht mit sonstigem Bundesrecht auf Antrag der Bundesregierung, einer Landesregierung oder eines Viertels der Mitglieder des Bundestages (Artikel 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 des Grundgesetzes),
6a.
bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten, ob ein Gesetz den Voraussetzungen des Artikels 72 Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes entspricht, auf Antrag des Bundesrates, einer Landesregierung oder der Volksvertretung eines Landes (Artikel 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 2a des Grundgesetzes),
11. über die Vereinbarkeit eines Bundesgesetzes oder eines Landesgesetzes mit dem Grundgesetz oder die Vereinbarkeit eines Landesgesetzes oder sonstigen Landesrechts mit einem Bundesgesetz auf Antrag eines Gerichts (Artikel 100 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes),
12. bei Zweifeln darüber, ob eine Regel des Völkerrechts Bestandteil des Bundesrechts ist und ob sie unmittelbar Rechte und Pflichten für den einzelnen erzeugt, auf Antrag des Gerichts (Artikel 100 Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes),
14. bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten über das Fortgelten von Recht als Bundesrecht (Artikel 126 des Grundgesetzes)

You are technically right when talking about every court BUT the BVerfG. Given that we were explicitly talking about a decision by the BVerfG, you were WRONG.

[Serafina]

WILGA:

According to each definition of female I know, you are not female. You have male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome. That's a fact that is not changed by your wishes or affliction. If you want to be treated as female, prove that you are female. Show that there is an accepted definition according to which you could be considered female.

If you think that tolerance has to go so far that I have to ignore objective facts, that's your problem.

Fuck off, you small-minded bigot.
Gender is determined by someones brain, and by nothing else. If you are not willing to accept people that do not fit your small-minded definitions, you ARE a bigot.

Ah, it is a legalese if I wonder if a transwoman with male genitals should be allowed to participate as a woman in sports and to use changing rooms for women. I think it is a practical problem that should not be ignored because you wish so.

It doesn't apply HERE, in the question on how to address someone.
Besides, i have the legal right to use bathrooms according to my gender, join womans sport teams (altough participating in competitions is more iffy) and so on. Everything else would be discrimination based on gender, and therefore illegal by european laws.

Wrong, that does not makes you female. What is that for a logic?

Fuck off, bigot.

And your wishes have absolutely no bearing on what is a fact.

Ones gender is determined by the biological state of ones brain. My brain is female.c So fuck off, you small minded bigot.

Sheer decency calls for not insulting a person who wishes to be not insulted.

Sheer decency also calls for not lying. You did that repeatedly.
It also calls for admitting mistakes. You never did that.

I have no problem to accept that you want to become a female. I have no problems with you attempting to become a female. I have no problems with you because you want to become a female or are attempting to become a female. I do not think that you are less worth because of your affliction. I have no interest in prosecuting transsexuals or in forbidding gender reassignments. I even think that there should be more research to make a real gender reassignment possible.
But as long as you are male, I will regard you as male. It is as easy as that.
If you think that's intolerant, that's your problem.

Fuck off. Gender is determined by the brain.
And you know what people like you are? They are stumbling stones. They deliberately throw them in my way.
People like you always oppose people like me when possible. You do not accept me as female unless i meet your standards. You know what that does? It hurts. If i were surrounded by people like you, my transition would be a thousand times harder.

You deny me the right to live as who i am. I want to live like every other female. You apply arbitrary standards to that to deny just that to me.

The law has insofar bearing here as that without such a law I would regard you as long as a male as you have male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome.

Do i need to repeat that that makes you an intolerant small-minded bigot?

A penectomy where not the whole penis is removed but part or all of the glans is kept and reshaped as a clitoris, while the skin of the penile shaft may also be inverted to form the vagina or the scrotum is used to form the vaginal walls and the skin of the penile shaft to form the labia majora and hormone replacement therapy may make you look like a female. But they can't really transform you into a female.

Fuck off. I AM already female
So when would you accept me as female? When i replace my bloody genetic code? Why should that matter to you?
Oh, right, you try to discriminate against me without admitting it.

Obviously you have not understood what was explained in the quoted article.
I have not said that a decision of a higher court is totally irrelevant. I have said that it is only effective in the decided case. The decision is only effective inter partes and not inter omnes. Ever heard of so called Nichtanwendungserlasse?

You are obviously not educated in law. Else you would know that the decisions by our supreme court do not only establish legal precedent, but also can establish laws.
And Nichtanwendungserlasse are relevant to fiances of state organs, nothing else. Spouting meaningless legalese is another indicator that you are not a lawyer.

Oh, I see a big difference between a perceived insult and a slander.
If I address you as male because you are a male, it is no insult regardless if you like it or not. In any way, it is only able to hurt you but it is not able to give others a negative image of you. No one - including me - things bad of you because you are a male that wishes to be a female.
But to say that I am an incompetent lawyer is slander.
You can quess three times what I think is worse.

I could actually sue you for sexual discrimination right now. Once i have my first name legally changed, i could try to sue you if you address me wrong deliberately.
I would never do so, but here's your precious law.

So much for tolerance. According to the Oxford dictionary, science is a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject and according to the Cambridge dictionary, science is a particular subject that is studied using scientific methods.
There is no reason to say that social sciences - and legal science is part of social sciences - are no science.

Unlike me, you provide no proof of being a lawyer.
But go ahead - i can call you a lawyer, even tough it is obvious that you are not one and never will be. Happy now?

There are also thousands and thousands of court decisions in Germany and no lawyer can know all decisions.
I never said that a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has no significance and no no bearing on other cases. That is a strawman of what I have said.
Fact is that there is no binding effect as was also described in the already quoted article.

[/quote]
You are not supposed to know the decision. I did not attack you for not knowing the decision.
You ARE supposed to know how the fucking supreme court works, at least in principle.

Yes, as I have even given the source of that statistic, a periodical. To accuse me to have falsified the statistics or do not be able to read it, shows only that you are too lazy to follow the given link.
Even if these statistics are blatantly outdated, I doubt that they have changed so much that it would make the Transsexuellengesetz suddenly important to most lawyers. There may be the one or other attorney who has specialised in that field. But I couldn't find any in a search machine for attorneys [O].

You couldn't?
How about Maria Sabine Augstein, who was involved in several cases regarding transsexuality on our supreme court?
You can't even look up what lawyers were involved in that?

Yes, if you know that there is such a decision, to find it is not hard - if you invest the time to look for it. And finding a decision is only part of the work. Then you have to read it. And some decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany are long as novels. Why should I sacrifice my spare time with such an undertaking?

And if you remember, you referred to that decision in the same post in which you have already claimed that I have to be incompetent because I didn't found that decision:

All you have to do is type Transsexualität/Transsexuellengesetz into the search engine of the Bundesverfassungsgericht.
Don't tell me you can't do that.
Heck, bloody Wikipedia has an article on it.

But you have not provided a link to it or haye quoted out of it. You have not even given a file number.

And then you stated

If you actually are a lawyer, i hope someone fires your damn emotionless ass and revokes your license. You deserve it for not understanding legal precedence alone.

And only than have you provided a link to the decision, claiming that I should have known it all the time or at least should have sacrificed my spare time to look for it.

Yeah. I think it's unreasonable to expect that a lawyer knows something about the Supreme Court. Or to be able to look up court decisions. I guess a lawyer needs to be provided links for basic things about our legal system.

[Serafina]

Another example of semantic nitpicking by WILGA.

You stupid stupid person.

Each decision of a court is LEGALLY BINDING in Germany. But only inter partes and not inter omnes. You think you are so clever. But as it seems you can't understand that simple difference.

Yeah, fuck off.
I was obviously referring to be legally binding to more than just a single case. This is ALWAYS the case when the BVerfG decides something.
A lawyer should really know that, don't you think?

Only a few decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court have a force of law. And even that only so far as the tenor of the decision goes. The decision you have linked to [O] has no force of law. It is not a case of § 13 Nr. 6, 6a, 11, 12 und 14 BVerfG and it is not a case of § 13 Nr. 8a BVerfG in which the Federal Constitutional Court declares that a law violates the constitution.

Yes, but they are ALL binding to every other court. Another court can NOT go against the decisions of the BVerfG.
(with the exception of european and international courts).

The tenor of the decision is:

1. Der Beschluß des OLG Karlsruhe vom 12. Juli 1995 - 3 Ws 294/94 - und der Beschluß des LG Mannheim vom 9. November 1994 - StVK 18 -B- 431/94 - verletzen die Beschwerdeführerin in ihrem Grundrecht aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG. Sie werden ausgehoben.

Die Sache wird an das LG Mannheim zurückverwiesen.

2. Das Land Ba-Wü hat der Beschwerdeführerin ihre notwendigen Auslagen zu erstatten. Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Gewährung von PKH.

No law was declared to violate the constitution and therefore to be be null and void. The case was merely remanded.

Since the decision was made by our supreme court, it is binding to more than just that single case.

And how about that part, liar:

4. Da die angegriffenen Entscheidungen verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen nicht genügen, sind sie aufzuheben. Die Sache wird an das LG zurückverwiesen (Paragraphen 93c Abs. 2, 95 Abs. 2 BVerfGG). Der Beschwerdeführerin sind ihre notwendigen Auslagen gemäß Paragraph 34a Abs. 2 BVerfGG zu erstatten. Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.

"Since the challenged decisions do not satisfy the constitution, they are to be revoked. The case is returned to the LG (a lower court). This decision can not be challenged".
It IS null and void. Liar.

Try it. It is not so difficult to understand.

Says the person who messed up pretty much everything he said about law, his self-declared specialty.

[Serafina]

To not have to repeat what I would say each time you have answered with calling me a bigot and claimed that gender is defined by the brain, I say it only once:

Provide evidence that gender is determined by someone's brain. I do not know a scientifical definition who says such a thing.

Does that mean that I have to do a psycho-analysis of an animal to determine its gender?

Or are humans no animals that there are special rules for them?

And what with plants. There are male and female plants [O]. But they do not have a brain. Is our scientifical understanding suddenly devaluated? If they have no brain, but the gender is determined by the brain, they can't have a gender. Or am I mistaken?

You are obviously too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex.

But yeah, evidence exists. 30 seconds in Google.
Now go fuck off, bigot.

And yes, you could try to sue me for sexual discrimination. You can try many things. But you would fail. What I'm doing is neither sexual discrimination nor sexual harassment.

I merely stating my opinion. It is allowed to discuss how genders are determined and if a transwoman with male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome is female.

On the other side, slander/libel is not allowed and even amerciable.

An i am merely stating my opinion. Pretty much every case of discrimination or insults is about oppinion.
So what?
'Does that revoke the insult?

Concerning my knowledge about "how the fucking supreme court works, at least in principle", trust me that I do know it better than you. My last post shows, where your mistake is. Try to understand the difference between inter partes and inter omnes. It is not so difficult.

Yeah, given that i spoke to an actual lawyer (or rather, professor of law'), i would rather trust him than you, especially given that you are actually contradicting the actual laws regulating precedence.
I posted evidence that you are wrong. Address it, bigot.

Concerning Maria Sabine Augstein: You have found her at http://www.anwaltssuche.de?
Or did you know her name because you have - unlike me - given attention to that matter for a long time?

How about a simple Google search and taking the first result?

And concerning the search for any decisions: I think I have made my opinion clear. I'm not going on a wild-goose chase to look for decisions in my spare time, from which I do not even know if they are existing at all and even if they are existing, I may have to read through a whole novel.

"Wild goose chase". It takes less than a minute with Google or the search engine of the supreme court. It's on bloody Wikipedia. Don't try to weasel out of this, bigot.

As you have already given attention to that matter, I expect from you to provide the evidence you should provide anyway. Do not demand that I do your work only because I could do it.

Done.
And it's hardly unreasonable to assume that someone who claims to know what he talks about does his own bloody research.


You are a bigot, admit it. You want to deny me my right to live as a woman unless i legally force you. You do not see me as male, even when i am completely transitioned, including operations and everything. It's people like you who try to stop tolerance and civil laws just to comfort their own prejudices.
You try to hide behind law, but you do not even understand that decisions made by our supreme court apply are generally applicable.
You are one of the worse kind of bigots, right after the violent ones. You try to justify your bias logically, violating not only common sense but also trying to convince others that your bias is correct.

*snip* But it is probably wrong.
It is only Wikipedia and when it is saying the same I have said, it can only be wrong.
In your book, it is probably very probable that someone with a Mittlere Reife knows such things better than a fully qualified lawyer.

Hey, i quoted right out of the fucking law. Wikipedia won't top that.

And note this, you quoted it yourself:

„Die Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts binden die Verfassungsorgane des Bundes und der Länder sowie alle Gerichte und Behörden.“

They are BINDING to every federal and state institution/agency as well as courts.

In the case we are talking about, the Bundesverfassungsgericht even stated that part of the law violate the constitution as well as the spirit of the law itself. Such a decisions HAS the status of a law.

You were wrong, bigot. In your own field of expertise. There IS legal precedence it Germany. It's not always binding, but it is in this case.

[Srelex]

Perhaps you should leave it, Sera. You're evidently going nowhere with this...person.

[Serafina]

You know, Kor, i actually wanted to take your previous post as a sort-off-apology.
You seriously dented that now, but i am writing that off as bad humor.

Maybe indirectly Serafina and Who is like God arbour have solved the Data "fish or Amphibian" issue or at least come up with a new possible theory.

Serafina you DEMANDED that somebody show physical biological proof that Data was right and a Fish is somehow an Amphibian right?....but what if that is not needed?.

Maybe it is just that Data thought the fish "wanted" to be an Amphibian and was not only respecting its wishes but was also worried about hurting its feelings by calling it a "Fish" even though physically it actually was a Fish?.

Congratz on putting that issue to bed .

I AM female. Point. Your're lucky that you said this earlier:

So to be clear YES i do consider you a woman not because of the law or any operations, physical attributes or for any other reason than simply because you CHOOSE to be one and my personal code says in regards to ones personal choices if such a choice harms nobody and makes you happy then physicallity, laws and or rules can kiss my ass.

I just want to make it clear that it is not a choice - but that's a somewhat common mistake. I might as well ask you when you decided to be male - you didn't, you just are.




Anyway, i am willing to let this matter rest with you (AVOCADO doesn't get off the hook tough) and take your previous post as an apology.
If you are posting your theories like i asked for earlier (multiple times), i am willing to continue the discussion.
I will also not use any derogatory insults towards you, if you do not do the same and address my points properly (i will of course do the same thing). In other words, i offer you a nice, cuddly, insult-free discussion, as long as you follow the rules of discussions.

[Wyrm]

And il stop calling you a HE as soon as you stop disrespecting the mentally handicapped by using predjudicial slurs regarding their illnesses or disabilities.

Translation: "BUT... BUT... BUT... YOU STARTED IT!!!"

Drop the whiny pretensious bullshit, Kor. Unless you're claiming that either you or Wrigler are in fact mentally handicapped (which would be a massive self-pwnage), Sarafina has fulfilled this requirement by default. She is not addressing actual mentally handicapped people — you are perfectly capable of learning and correcting the faults in your thinking, if only you were willing to do so — and she has never made any claims of civility. You over at SFJ, on the other hand, are another matter. "We do try to make sure SFJ is open, friendly, and polite." It's right there in the New Member's Guide, yet neither members nor the admins seem to remember it.

C'mon, you asshats! Aren't you supposed to be the adults here? Don't you claim to be better than us by not stooping to this childish, schoolyard "she did it first!" bullshit? Or are those just empty words, just like the rest of your spew?

Oh, and I challenged Wrigler, AKA AVOCADO, the slimy worm, to produce the solidus curve two days ago. You still have not done so. I can only assume that this is yet another of your lies: you have no such curve, and your assertion is based on NOTHING but your wishful thinking.

[Serafina]

Yes, you are right, I'm probably too stupid if I do not know a term we do not even have in German as such.

We do. Gender is called "Geschlechtidentität", it is used in legal documents and laws. Besides, we are talking in english - it's your job to know the meaning of words you are using.

And it is absolutely common to know about gender as opposed to sex. Everyone knows that the word, "gender" has more than one valid definition, that while in ordinary speech it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female, in the social sciences it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles.

Again, it's your bloody job to know things you are talking about.

But is that important?

Fact is that your sex - if that term is more appropriate - is male.

So bloody what? It has next to no legal bearing, other than determining what gender you are assigned at birth.
Quit finding excuses for your bigotry.

argumentum ad verecundiam.

Ohh, latin . Impressive. Also called appeal to authority.
And given that you appeal to YOUR authority, that simply cancels your "argumentum ad verecundiam".

Wow I said:

»Even if these statistics are blatantly outdated, I doubt that they have changed so much that it would make the Transsexuellengesetz suddenly important to most lawyers. There may be the one or other attorney who has specialised in that field. But I couldn't find any in a search machine for attorneys [O].«

And now you are representing a page that lists three attorneys. Yes I see, transsexuality has to be a very important topic each lawyer and each attorney should be familiar with.

Yeah, so what?
I never criticized you for not being an expert on Transsexuality. I criticized you for not knowing about legal precedence.

Nice of you to ignore what was said to nitpick the vality of a term.

Oh, bohoo, Avocado is too stupid to use Google. Not my bloody problem, bigot.

You are right. Only that I have never claimed to know much about transsexuality.
I even have outright stated that I have never had to do with it before.

If you are talking about something, you are expceted to do your own research to ensure that you know what you are talking about.
And you claim to be a lawyer, yet you fail at basic things. Expecting a lawyer to look up a (currently relevant) court case is hardly too much to ask.

Long, pointless legalese. However, it contains evidence that AVOCADO is wrong.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, you quoted right out of the fucking law. But you do not understand the law.
Wikipedia does not try to supersede the law. It gives an explanation how the law is to be understood.

But if you do not believe me, believe Dr. Anke Eilers, Law Clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court:

*snipped to save space*. Note that AVOCADO quotes a lot of unnecessary stuff to make it appear more important. In other words, a lame attempt at obfuscation.

I am going to quote some relevant parts:

The Federal Constitutional Court is the only court in Germany which is vested with the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

But of course every German court has to reflect on the constitutionality of the laws that are applicable to cases that are brought before it, because the Basic Law says in its Article 1 subsection 3 [Article 1.3]:

"The following fundamental rights are binding upon legislature, executive, and judiciary as directly valid law."

In other words, if the supreme court decides something is unconstitutional, other courts have to respect that.

The other instrument of control that the Federal Constitutional Court has, which is important for its relation to other courts and which accounts for the largest share of its workload, is the constitutional complaint: More than 4,900 constitutional complaints were lodged by individuals and legal persons in 1999 alone.

The relevant basis for this specific case, since it was filed by a private person. Further, note this:

In some cases, however, it has been found that a law itself presently and directly affects the fundamental rights (Section 95 subsection 3 [§ 95.3] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.) As no ordinary judicial remedy is available against legislative acts, a constitutional complaint has been considered admissible in these cases.

Most constitutional complaints challenge court decisions. Therefore the scrutiny of the case - and full review if the case is admitted for decision - necessarily has to include the evaluation of the preceding court decisions. The Federal Constitutional Court is restricted to the review of constitutionality. Usually the complainants claim the violation of fundamental rights in the findings of the competent courts, either because the courts have applied a statute in an unconstitutional manner or because the statute itself that is applicable to the case is unconstitutional.

Bolding mine.

However, if the Federal Constitutional Courts finds that the competent courts have applied a valid statute in an unconstitutional manner, it will overturn the decision. If it holds that the statute applied by a competent court is unconstitutional, it declares the statute in question null and void just like in the cases that involve the review of statutes and regular courts may no longer apply it. And if the Federal Constitutional court finds that a statute is only in compliance with the Basic Law if interpreted in a specific way, this specific interpretation is BINDING upon all the other courts, too.

Bolding and caps mine.
This specifically refers to the fact that our supreme court can and does make BINDING decisions.
AVOCADO claimed that this is not possible:

There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.

I have shown this to be false, and any decent lawyer would know that.
While he is correct in regard to normal courts, he is WRONG in regard to the supreme court. If it had been a simple mistake (oops, didn't know we were talking about the SC, my bad) then he would have said so and dropped the point.
That he continues to argue that he is correct shows that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Further proof:

1. In Germany, Section 31 [§ 31] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, that is, [i.e.] a regulation in ordinary law, determines the binding effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions. Its wording is:

"The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court are binding upon federal and Land constitutional bodies as well as upon all courts and authorities.

In cases pursuant to Section 13 number 6 [§ 13.6] [abstract review of statutes] and Section 11 [§ 11] [concrete review of statutes], ... decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court have the force of law.

This also applies in cases pursuant to Section 13 number 8a [§ 13.8a] [constitutional complaint proceedings] if the Federal Constitutional Court declares an Act to be compatible or incompatible with the Basic Law or null and void ..."

The latter specifically applies to the specific case we are discussing.

The res judicata effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions only applies inter partes, which means that the decisions are only res judicata for the legislature if the legislature itself was party to the proceedings.

Res judicata means first and foremost the irrevocability of the decision for the ruling court. The court cannot revoke its decision once it has been issued. The legal consequences that are expressed in the operative provisions of a decision are no longer at the Federal Constitutional Court's disposal.

This essentially means:
The legislature is only bound to the ruling of the court if she was involved in the case. The legislature is only forced to amend a law if involved in the case, otherwise they do not have to - but the decisions of the court still applies, and the law is normally amended anyway.

The force of law pursuant to Section 31 subsection 2 [§ 31.2] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act is restricted to specific types of proceedings (abstract and concrete review of statutes, review of statutes in constitutional complaint proceedings.) It is binding inter omnes upon all public authorities and private individuals. The fact that it is also binding upon private individuals distinguishes the force of law from the binding effect pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 [31.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Further proof for decisions being binding.

The binding effect pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act extends to all Federal Constitutional Court decisions and concerns all constitutional bodies of the Federal and Länder governments, all courts and authorities, that is, [i.e.] the entire public authority. These bodies, which hold sovereign power, are bound by the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court irrespective of the type of proceedings. This means that the binding effect goes beyond the res judicata effect.

The Federal Constitutional Court can state that a statute is null and void because it violates the Constitution. If the nullity of a statute is stated, no further act of implementation is required. The legal effect arises eo ipso. Normally, the statute is declared null and void ex tunc, that is, [i.e.] from the beginning of the collision between the statute and the Constitution. As a general rule, the statute is declared null and void in its entirety, but partial declarations of nullity of specific parts of a statute are also possible.

Apart from declaring unconstitutional regulations null and void, the Federal Constitutional Court has occasionally confined itself to stating the unconstitutionality of a statute while setting at the same time a deadline for the legislature to take corrective legislative action.

AVOCADO, did you honestly think that pulling a big can of legalese on me would score any points?
Not only did you not explain it, but it specifically contradicts you.

Sorry, bigot, no copout for you today.

[Serafina]

Hey, funny.
AVOCADO thinks that i have to present evidence for things he as a (self-proclaimed) lawyer should know - but he thinks Wyrm has no right to demand evidence from him!
In other words, he demands that i back up my statements, but he refuses to back up his.

The challenges of Wyrm to provide a solitus curve are getting more stupid and absurd each time he repeats them.

If he is too stupid to read what was already quoted by Serafina or to come here and read what I have written, I can't help him.

Please take not that he demanded the first time that I produce a solidus curve at 2010-06-24 11:40am.

In my next post (2010-06-25 04:57am) I wrote:

»A fortiori I will not debate with Wyrm who seems to be too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written. To participate in this debate but to read only what Serafina has quoted from me is without doubt not a method any serious scientist or even any intelligent person would apply.

He doesn’t even seem to be able to look for the simple term solidus curve himself and demands from me to produce this curve, with its legend. If he would be so clever as he likes to pretend, he could as easily as I have found this page from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. There it is explained that even a kindergarten child could understand it.

But probably the experts from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley are wrong too. After all, according to their solidus curve, at the depth of 200 km not even a temperature of 1.700 °C would be enough to melt the mantle rock. But that can’t be right, when it is contradicting the substantiated and well developed opinion of Serafina and Wyrm that the mantle is not solid but liquid.«

And believe it or not, Serafina quoted that part (2010-06-25 10:02am).

It's unfortunate that she hasn't copied the link too.

Since then, Wyrm demanded from me to produce the solitus curve at 2010-06-25 09:54pm, at 2010-06-25 010:57pm, at 2010-06-25 13:06pm and at 2010-06-26 13:19am.

Can he becomes even more pathetic?

But this shows exactly what I have written: Wyrm is too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written and he participated in the debate but read only what Serafina had quoted from me (if at all) and never what I have written.

Why shall I discuss with such an dishonest person anything?

Hey, AVOCADO: If you already wrote it, why don't you link to it?
And presenting evidence is generally more than just linking to it, you are supposed to explain how it fits your argument.

Another big failure for our fraudulent lawyer and little bigot.

[Wyrm]

He doesn’t even seem to be able to look for the simple term solidus curve himself and demands from me to produce this curve, with its legend. If he would be so clever as he likes to pretend, he could as easily as I have found this page from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. There it is explained that even a kindergarten child could understand it.

Yes, everyone can understand that NONE of the solidus curves in the above-cited reference extends to the ~130 GPa pressure and 4000 °C temperature region of the lower mantle, which is what I asked for. The graphs extend to maxes of 9 GPa and 2000 °C.

Also, it states quite clearly that the solidus depends on the chemical mix of the rock, specifically the water content of the rock. Notice also that all of the solidus data have "liquid fraction" as a third, color dimension.



We can see that a liquid fraction of 0.5 is able to change the solidus up by as much as 3 GPa for this part of the graph, or 33%. The implication is that the presence of water, which we know is in the mantle, plays a significant part in the thermodynamics of mantle rock.

At least you did produce a reference. Unfortunately, it does not show what it needs to show to prove your point.

Why do people laugh at trektards?
Only the trektards don't understand why!

[Serafina]

Why did I EVER stop posting here?!!! This is one of the most entertaining things I have ever seen. Serafina, you are being an idiot. You are clearly TRYING to find a reason to freak out on someone and defend your beliefs and choices. But...um....if you were so comfortable with your own sexuality and current position regarding your gender, why would you feel the need to lash out at someone so hard? Kor is not making any bigoted remarks and is simply trying to end this stupid, yet massively entertaining discussion. You notice how many people are arguing against you? Just let it go, already. You are accomplishing nothing.

Aah, appeal to popularity ´
And yes, i DO defend my believes and choices. Except that being transgendered is not a choice.
Look, calling a transwoman male is extremely insensitive. You don't fucking do it, unless you are a bigot or an idiot (not that there's much of a difference).
Do you actually think they were right for doing so? Do you think WILGA is right for declaring that i am male even when i had my SRS?

Also, there is this guy at my workplace who is about two weeks away from his gender swap operation. Nice guy.

That's either a clumsy lie or a bigoted view - or really extraordinary circumstances.
There is no such thing as a gender swap operation. All the operation does is replacing male with female (or vice versa) genitalia. That's important, but it hardly affects your daily life.
Therefore, every transwoman (or transman for that matter, but let's not overcomplicate things) begins her transition way before any operations happen. In fact, both in the USA and every european country i know about, no doctor would perform SRS if the patient does not already lifes as a woman.

So - either you have no clue what you are talking about, or you think that a transwoman is a guy just because she has not yet undergoner SRS.



Aah, AVOCADO again More nitpicks and excuses, what a surprise.

That term is not even used in the Transsexuellengesetz.

And I can neither find that term here nor here.

Show me a law and a legal document where the the term "Geschlechtidentität" is used.

You know that there are more laws than just the german ones, right?
Such as european laws and official language
Translation:

The European Union recalls that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and
gender identity is also prohibited by international human rights instruments, such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 2, 16 and 17), the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2) and the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 2), to which all EU Member States are
party.

If you are using a term meaning something different from what everyone would understand, you should clarify it. I doubt that most native-English-speakers are knowing the social sciences meanings of the term gender. But I may be wrong. After all, I'm not a native-English-speaker as you know.

Oh, really? How curious, a large number appears to know that.
And "i am no native speaker" doesn't fly if you try to defend yourself - you are still wrong, so admit it.

There is a little difference between referring to a anonymous professor of law without saying what he has said and which arguments he has used and me, who is providing one argument after another.

Okay I know that you ignore all arguments you do not like and will now claim that my arguments do not have any value.

But even if my arguments had not value, I'm arguing.

To say that I appeal only to my authority is obliviously wrong.

You are anonymous too, given that i have no way to check your supposed credentials.
But go ahead - make a picture of a legal document proving your identity (you can cover your actual identity), and put a sheet where something like "From WILGA" is written. Upload the picture showing both in the same picture somewhere.
Trivial to do, good proof that you are who you claim to be.

No, you only demanded that I have to know already all that is to know about transsexuality and all legal problems concerning transsexuality.

Ah, ignoring what i am saying must be fun, right?
Let me repeat myself:
I stated that someone who doesn't know that the rulings of your highest court are binding (and states that they are not!) can't possibly be a lawyer, or even a student of law. That's like a physicist not knowing newtons laws.

If you want to argue that you should be treated as a woman although your sex is male, it is at you to explain your reasoning and to provide evidence.

It is. Medical professionals say so. Evidence has been provided. Now shut the fuck up - little bigot.

And do not think that I will bother to correct your selective quotes out of the article, I have quoted.

Unlike you, i have attempted to explain what the text actually say, given that the majority of it was totally irrelevant to the current issue.

I have stated several time, that certain decisions of the Federal Constitution Court are effective inter omnes (especially those through which a statute (a law) is stated to be null and void).

But most decisions are only effective inter partes. If someone complaines about the decision of a court, the Federal Constitution Court only reviews whether the decision comply with the Constitution. If it finds that the decision does not comply with the Constitution, it will decide that the decision is null and void and remand the case to the deciding court. Of course, in such a case, the deciding court has to adher to what the Federal Constitution Court has said.

You made a general statement. Admit that that statement was wrong and that it was a serious blunder, at the very least showing that you did not bother to read the actual decision.

But otherwise a judge is independent and can decide as he or she wants - as long as he is not commiting a Rechtsbeugung. And not even a totally indefensible decision alone is enough to say that a judge has perverted the course of justice (BGH, Urteil vom 4. September 2001, Az. 5 StR 92/01; BGHSt 47, 105-116).

I have provided excerpts out of three articles (only one from wikipedia) who are confirming my opinion.

But you decided to see only these parts, where they are talking about the decisions which are effective inter omnes - as if that would prove me wrong - as if I had denied that there are such decisions.

Than I can't help you.

Say, why can't you admit that your original statement was wrong.
This was your original statement:

There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.

You are wrong. You adressed a specific ruling by the supreme court, and you WERE wrong, because that specific ruling WAS legally binding, even by your own admission.

If you really think you know it better than me and others or if you want to make a strawman out of what I have said, please do so. Then I can't help you and will not try to convince you further.

That's hardly a straman. You were adressing a very specific case, and you were WRONG. End of story.

I concede that I'm not able to explain it to you.

Whether my inability to explain something or your inability to accept anything is responsible is debatable.

Given that you are an admitted apologetic bigot who discriminates against people due to their gender identity, you have to consider that you are a lying shithead.

[Serafina]

That thing is a non-binding declaration and not a law.

And it is coming from the Council of the European Union. I would hardly call that evidence that there are German laws and legal documents with the term "Geschlechtidentität".

It refers to international treaties. Since when do those not use the language of law?

As far as I know, no German authority has ever used this term.

I do not claim, that no German authority has ever used this term. Only that I do not know of such a use.

But what would it prove if there are a few laws or legal documents out of thousands and thousands?

Does this mean that I have to be familiar with the term "Geschlechtidentität"?

Obviously you know more than I because you as a transwoman has researched that topic in extenso.

But then present what you have found.

Show that "Geschlechtidentität" is a term I should be familiar with. Show that it is a commonly used term in Germany. Show that this is the usual translation of gender.

Did i say you should be familiar with it? I merely informed you what it's called in german, and stated that it is used in legal documents (which certainly applies to international treaties).

We do. Gender is called "Geschlechtidentität", it is used in legal documents and laws. Besides, we are talking in english - it's your job to know the meaning of words you are using.

And do not only claim that a large number of native-English-speakers appears to know what the "second" meaning of gender is. Show it. How large is the number? Can you give a relation?

Or could it be that this is merely your perception? I mean, how many native-English-speakers do you know and are they representative for all native-English-speakers? Are you sure, that you do not only know so many native-English-speakers who know the "second" meaning of gender, because you are trying to "surround" you with such people?

Assuming your "accustation" is true - so what?
The term has that meaning, especially when talking about transgender issues. Just admit that you did not know it and get over it.

How could a scan of e.g. my certificate of my 2. Staatsexamen convince you, that I am me, if there is nothing to prove my identity when I cover up all that could prove it?

I mean, I could take e.g. the image of this certificate and change it and you wouldn't be wiser.

Especially considering that you do not know, how such a certificate is supposed to look like at all?

You would still claim that my certificate of my 2. Staatsexamen is not real or that it is not mine.

You think i do not know how such a document would look like? That's certainly true.
You think i can not check how such a document looks like? That's certainly not true.

See, you could easily do this, without giving away your actual name. Leaving the date (if possible) would be wise, since that ensures that no one can claim that you just took it from someone older than you.

And you are right. You have nabbed and convicted me. I admit it. I'm no lawyer. I have not studied legal science. I have not even made my Abitur. I'm a fraud.

There you have it.

And all it needed for this was someone who has only a Mittlere Reife.

Are you serious? Then congratulations on being honest.

And of course you are totally right when you say that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect.

That's exactly what Dr. Anke Eilers, former Law Clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court, has explained in her over 6.000 word long speech. She could have explained it in one single sentence. But that would have been a rather short speech so she decided to stretch the contents of this sentence to over 6.000 words.

But on the bottom line, there is no question that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect. And to be precise: That not only inter partes but inter omnes.

Yeah, so what? That's a red herring, since we were talking about the Federal Constitution Court.

I do not know what I thought thinking I could bluff you.

It is the same with the mantle of Earth. Of course it is liquid. I really do not know how I could believe that, in consideration of the many sources you have referred to, who are clearly saying that the mantle is trough and through liquid, I could fool you.

See, I have to be even so stupid that I really thought I could deceive you. Oh man, how stupid do I have to be to think such a thing.

Another instance where you are wrong The mantle is not completely liquid, neither is it completely solid. Nice false dichotomy.

Are you satisfied?

If this was not sarcasm - yes, that's a good step, being honest is always good.

Or is there something else you want?

An apology would be nice, and preferably a change of mind about transsexuals.

[Serafina]

Kor, i really want to understand this, so i will give it another shot:

So by that logic it is ok for me to use racial and homophobic slurs as long as im am using them against individuals who are NOT from racial minorities or homosexuals?, are you actually saying that if such disgusting insults do NOT apply to the person you are using them on then it is ok to use them?.

Yes, it is not as bad as using it against someone where the insult fits.

They are still insults. They can still hurt. But it is FAR easier to handle them when they do not actually apply to you.
They hurt much, much more when they actually fit.

In what you did, they would hardly hurt anyone - but they hurt me.
That's not the only difference, too - it is a difference wether you attack someone for who they are, or for doing something.
To make a clumsy example:
I can dislike someone due to race, gender or things like that (not that i do it, it's just an example).
Or i can dislike them for being greedy, arrogant or something like that (which i actually do).
The former is racism/sexism etc. - the latter is not regarded to be nearly as bad, if at all.
It's the same here, for the same reason: If someone says something stupid, it's his own fault and he can change it.
But i can NOT change who i am, and neither is it my fault.

Just because i am not retarded does that mean that everybody reading the post is not and would not be offended by the use of such evil comments?, do you include the fact i may have family members who are mentally disabled and that such comments ma offend me?.

Do you actually think someone is as offended by reading an insult to another person as if when it is directly thrown at him?

Or that they like the other slurs regarding homosexuality or racial minorities are just not needed and quite disgusting?.

Kor, let me tell you something:
By your own logic, your posts were at least as bad as mine. Why?
Well, quite simple - they appeared to be extremely intolerant and hostile.

Words like idiot, retard, stupid, moron etc. are often and widely used against people who are not mentally handicapped.
Everyone uses them. They are not directly tailored towards mentally handicapped people.
But your insults were directly tailored against transgendered people.

I was polite, i politly gave her a taste of her own medicine.

No, you were NOT.
I hope you do not slide back in your previous behavior, else your apology would be worthless.
Say what you want - even if you claim that it was justified, it was NOT polite. It couldn't possibly be, after all the purpose was to insult me.

Please, just accept that you retaliated with insults, and harsh ones at that.
Try to understand why they were hurtful - and that there are grades of severity with insults. Insults against someone where they actually fit due to him being who he is are definitely crossing the line.


To put it very simply: You would not call a mentally handicapped person a retard when they call you asshole for some reason. You would not call a physically handicapped person a god-damn cripple if they did the same. You would not throw homosexual slurs against a homosexual person if they did it. And you should not throw transsexual slurs (which includes what you did) against a transexual person just because they called you an asshole (or other non-fitting insult).