And he's on with the insane formating - again.
Hey AVOCADO - that truly makes you look like an asshole who does not want that he gets quoted - in other words, is not interested in a discussion.
I would stop it, it makes you look rather foolish and is quite impolite.
Not that that will stop me.
I have the feeling that Serafina gets more and more unreasonable.
Now i even get compared with Nazis, american-christian fundamentalists, white supremacists, gay-hating groups etc. etc.
Yes, you are. Because you use stunningly similar rhetoric.
You are probably to educated to be such a stupid extremist (and your enviorment might not favor it), but the thinking patterns seem to be strikingly similar.
Serafina explicit confirms that it is her point that i am a discriminating intolerant bigot of the worst kind.
And that only because we disagree about "something as trivial as adressing" her.
Well, let's see:
You discriminate (make a difference) against transwoman based on something they can not influence (their sex).
You are intolerant of them in situations where you have no problem with biological women.
Combined, that looks quite bigoted to me.
And evidently, you ignored what i wrote - what a shocking surprise!
I explicity said that i longer see you as "a bigot of the worst kind" - moreover, i explained that your reluctance to use the correct address and the explanation you give is highly incompatible with your supposed open standing towards transsexuality. You evidently only tolerate the things you say you tolerate because they are not visible to you.
She still seems to think that how i address her defines her or that i use sex as the defining criteria of it.
Why should a bigots oppinion define me? Arrogance much?
Either way, you SAID that sex is the defining criteria when you address someone. You said that you see no good reason to change that for transwomen.
I asked how it can be that it is impossible to make that change for addressing someone (a trivial taks), but nor for deeper issues? Your lack of an answer indicates that it is not possible - that you make that distinction everywhere.
With that she still ignores of course that i have explicit said that this is not the case. The whole notion is stupid because i do not define anyone only over the sex. This is one not unimportant criteria. But it is not the only one. If it were, i would only know men and women instead of individuals.
You are contradicting yourself. You said that, when addressing someone, sex is the ONLY criteria and that you can't even imagine doing otherwise.
Explain how it is then possible to do so otherwise (when sorting someone into the male or female category) if you can't even do it for something as simple as addressing someone.
Then she tries to argue that my treatment of her equals the discrimination of disabled. But that both are totally reverse dilemmas fails her notice too.
No, i said that you arguments might as well be used for discriminating against disabled people.
I did not say that both are equal.
Serafina wants me to ignore the fact that she is transsexual. I shall ignore her sex and treat her as if she is a woman.
I am. Got a problem with that? Evidently yes.
Furthermore, i do not demand that you ignore that i am transsexual. Indeed, i want the opposite!
Don't get it? Don't worry, I'll explain it, it's quite simple.
You see - you should treat a disabled person like every other person, with the sole exception where their disability prevents this - say, choosing locations that are accessible to wheelchairs as an example.
Well, i basically want the same. I want to be treated like every other woman - except when there is actually a requirement not to do so. Thing is, you see that requirement where it isn't - and as with a disabled person, i am the one who decides where it applies. A disabled person could not want to be treated differently with tasks she can handle on her own, even if it is inconvenient to others - ignoring that wish would be quite the insult.
However, you think that you can choose what the proper way to treat me is. That's simply not true - you can't, because you are not me.
So, let's choose examples - why should you be able to bare me from a swimming bath? You claimed that it might inconvenience others - but so can a handicapped person who, say, takes three times as long when doing something.
Liberty ends when other people rights are affected - but to what degree? Obviously, the possiblity of being offended doesn't count - indeed, only provoked offence is treated that way.
So - where's your bloody problem?
Oh, and in case you question that this would ban me from the bath - i can't go into the mens changing room either, due to having breasts. Now, the men might be less likely to be offended - but why can you decide that?
The things where i do not want to be treated like a normal woman are incredibly simple - only in medical things, since these are irrevocable necessities.
Because Serafina does not only want that i ignore the fact that her sex and gender are not the same, she wants that i delete the knowledge of the fact from my brain.
Not true, and totally made up. I never made such an demand, i merely criticize that you take it as the most important criteria.
She argues e.g. that transwoman who still had no gender reassignment should be let into a woman changing room, into a woman hospital ward or a woman prison ward and that there wouldn't be any negative consequences.
That shows that she is not willing to consider the feelings of the woman who might be disturbed by such occurrence.
Here we go again. People might be offended. And again - so what?
I do not WANT do offend people, but do you seriously demand that i consider every little thing i ever do primarily based on whether people might be offended or not?
Because people might as well be offended when they just see me as a transwoman in public. By your logic, i should therefore stay out of public spaces. Or they might be offended when i marry another woman (or men, tough i am a lesbian) - therefore, i should not do it. And so on.
Furthermore, you still seem to think that gender reassignment surgery is an on/off switch. I know a plethora of transwoman who did not yet have GRS, but you won't notice unless you know (or specifically look). Now, what's better - putting her into a situation where it's made clear simply by her being there that she is different?
Put simply, the exact same problems you rant against (which you mostly made up) would occur when i (or other transwoman) are forced into male territory before her GRS.
Indeed, a nice anecdote - a while ago, i often got told that the toilet is not that way. The way i was headed was towards the male toilets, i got specifically sent to the others. This happened by a random collection of people - cleaning ladies or just people passing by. When that did not happen, i got very strange looks. Of course, now head automatically towards the womens room - and no one is offended.
Serafinas conclusion is that i want to segretage transsexuals. A nice strawman. Because saying that there is still the possiblity to let transwoman who still had no gender reassignment into a man changing room (etc.) The Transwoman might be disturbed now by the presence of men.
And they by my presence - for all they know, a woman just walked into their changing room. You are still thinking like genitalia are a huge, instant giveaway - you're obviously wrong.
But that is not very different from the situation if a homosexual is put into a changing room (etc).
Um...why?
Oh, right
- because you're a bigot. Sorry, i forgot.
Now how are these situations possibly comparable? If a gay man walks into a changing room full of other men, the worst that can happen to him is that he get's aroused - but that is by no means guaranteed, given that there's more to arousal than just being in the presence of people of the gender you are attracted to.
Now, if i walk into a mens changing room, i AM embarrased and scared -and the men are most likely also embarrased. Automatically - because a woman doesn't go into a mens changing room.
As long as there is no place for homosexuals and transsexuals, every solution might violate someones sense of shame
. Quite. But i explained why this is inevitable when i use mens facilities, while it is not when i use womans facilities.
Furthermore, i think it's quite telling that you think there is no place for homosexuals
The question is, what is the lesser evil?
That's not your question, since you think you already have an answer to it. However, i showed that your answer is, plain and simple, wrong.
And my description of you as a gamma-bigot? I made it up on the spot, a bit of creativity.
Either way, it is NOT incompatible with what you wrote in the first paragraph.
Apparently, you like to think that you are a tolerant, open person - either do to your upbringing/education or your environment. That's why you have no problem with transsexuals (and apparently homosexuals as well
) - unless you have to interact with them, such as talking to them.
Now, i can understand if you feel uncomfortable. Thing is, you won't admit it. Therefore, you can't change it.
In my general experience, people who accept that they are uncomfortable with something can realize that it isn't actually that bad.
Anecdotal example: And old friend of mine was slightly homophobic and quite nervous after i told him about me being transsexual. That's not the case anymore - simply because he noticed that there isn't any reason to be uncomfortable.
Now, are you actually a bigot?
Unless you do not admit that you are uncomfortable with transsexuals due to your own "fault" and blame them instead, you are. The moment you do not do that anymore and are willing to try to change it, you are not anymore - then you are simply a nervous person.
"
) - it's simply a fact (noting it might be rude depending on the situation and can be a sign of bigotry, but it's hardly proof of it or bad by itself).