I only wanted to say, that my position can hardly be called an extreme position. I’m merely differentiating between sex and gender and think that, when addressing someone, the sex is deciding for the choosing of the grammar gender. While the differentiation between sex and gender is factual correct and meanwhile not disputed by Serafina anymore, the latter, that the sex is deciding for the grammar gender, may be described as an opinion although it is only a disputed factual assertion that may prove to be wrong. Regardless, it is hardly an extreme opinion.
Liar.
You are advocating more than a differentiation between sex and gender, you are arguing for differentiation BECAUSE of sex.
I also never disputed that sex and gender are two different thing, i am merely calling you on
-it being the grammatically deciding factor
-your attempt to segregate purely based on sex
-your ignorance of the actual needs of transsexual people
-your ignorance of morality, which you just admitted
If I had the opinion that there is no such thing as a gender, that there is only sex and that transgenders are idiots who are making a life style choice and should be terminated to be sure that their abnormal ideas don’t spread, I would have an extreme opinion. Similar extreme would be the opinion that transsexualism exists but is abhorrent and perverse and that all transgenders should be terminated to be sure that this disease cannot spread or passed down to next generations. Maybe less extreme but in its result still the same would be the opinion, that transgenders should be euthanized. Less extreme but still extreme would be the opinion that transgenders are sick and abnormal creatures who should be committed to an institution until they are cured of their abnormality, if necessary with electroshock therapy, lobotomy and suchlike. Another less but still extreme opinion would be to demand that transgenders are not allowed to live how they want to live; that they should be forced to live the life of a stereotypical person of their sex.
Euthanasia is not the only extreme option.
Besides, you ARE calling for the last of your examples:
nother less but still extreme opinion would be to demand that transgenders are not allowed to live how they want to live; that they should be forced to live the life of a stereotypical person of their sex
You DO want to prevent transsexual people from being accepted as members of their actual gender - instead you want to make up a fictional category where transwomen do not have the rights of every other women and vice versa for transmen.
Also, one does not have to be an extremist to be a bigot.
But that’s not my opinion.
Yeah, we'll see about that.
My opinion is merely that transgenders should be addressed accordingly to their sex as all other people are too and that the way someone is addressed says only something about which sex the addressed person is assumed to have but nothing about which gender the addressed person is assumed to have.
So you DO want to prevent transsexual people from being accepted according to their gender.
Because part of that acceptance is being addressed according to ones gender. Even the german supreme court decided that the correct address is important enough to change a law - they decided that once your first legal step is taken, it is imperative that you are addressed according to your gender.
You are simply WRONG. You demonstrated nothing but you saying so as evidence. You are simply clinging to the ambiguous meaning of the german word "Geschlecht", which can mean both biological sex. This is know as
Equivocation and a logical fallacy.
As i said, the highest German court disagrees with you.
Beyond that I made it more than clear that transgenders have the same rights as all other human-beings and that I would grant them even more rights than they and/or other human-beings have today (e.g. the right to declare their gender themselves and do not have a judge decide about it, the right to get a transgender reassignment paid by health insurances, the right to propagate, to use surrogate mothers and reproductive medicine or to adopt children even if not married and of course the right to marry whomever they want or, if someone thinks that marriage is something that is only possible between man and woman, to have an union that is legally equal to marriage).
We already HAVE those rights in Germany.
We DO declare our gender ourselves - yes, it takes a while to get legal changes, but we still do that. A law were instant gender switching is possible would be detrimental to person with actual gender identity disorders (who CAN be cured by psychology, other than transsexuality).
Sex reassignment surgery IS paid by health insurance. They are sometimes a bit mopey, but that's a problem of the insurances not wanting to spend money and not of law.
We DO have the right to propagate. Yes, the law currently demands infertility for the actual last step - but the legal step before that is already sufficient for everything in daily life, and it is NOT forbidden to have children or produce children afterwards - you are simply not allowed to do so biologically. Which is impossible after the operation regardless of what the law does or would say.
So YES,
we are also allowed to use reproductive medicine.
And we are actually currently the
only people able to enter a normal marriage that is between two persons of the same gender! It is a bit complicated - but even if that was not the case, we already have the exact same rights as everyone else.
If you would ask actual transsexual people, NO ONE would agree to your definition or would find it desirable. Neither would experts on transsexuality. And YES, i actually asked around.
Now let us look at Serafina’s opinion: Serafina thinks that sex is totally unimportant and only the gender is important and that a transwoman should be treated as a real woman and a transman should be treated as a real man with no exceptions.
Yes, i DO.
Someones sex is remarkably unimportant in daily life, it only matters for a few things.
Gender is the important thing here, since it defines a persons personality in that regard.
Again, you are basing yourself on a false equivocation based on the german word "Geschlecht" by pretending that all that every use of it is based on sex.
And can you explain what is actually
wrong with my demand?
Serafina thinks that I’m an intolerant, discriminating bigot of the worst kind only because I think that transgenders should be addressed accordingly to their sex as (as I think) all other people are addressed too and should adhere to the same statutes all other people of the same sex have to adhere to too. How could that position be more extreme?
All other people are ALSO addressed according to their gender. You are, again, using a false equivocation.
The question is not anymore what sex and what gender a transsexual has, but what is deciding for how they are addressed.
Which is has been right from the beginning. Your attempts to answer it have been less than convincing and were riddled with fallacies and lies.
I have quoted several dictionaries, according to which a woman or a man is not defined by their gender but by their sex. Serafina has ridiculed that as semantics, has claimed it to be untrue but has not shown that it is the other way. The only thing Serafina had to do was to show that indeed most people, when choosing a grammar gender, are contemplating the gender and not the sex of a person and that this is the usual modus operandi.
It said nothing about address - it said something about the definition of sex. Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Besides, you are ignoring the definition and decision of the german supreme court again.
I have argued that people are always choosing the grammar gender accordingly to the from the appearance assumed sex.
They are deciding ones gender according to appearance. That gives them the right address.
That's my version. Your version fails if what defines someones sex is invisible (such as it is the case with most transsexual people, as well as every situation where you do not directly face the person you are talking about).
The gender is not always the same as it appears because the person who is to be addressed could be a transvestite, a masculine woman, a feminine man or a transsexual who hasn’t come out (yet).
So what? Those are EXTREMELY rare examples.
Sex is ALSO not always the same as appearance, because the person could be transsexual, a transvestite, a masucline woman or a feminine man.
The from the appearance assumed sex and their gender would differ in such cases.
The from the appearance assumed sex would differ from their actual sex in such cases.
Insofar to conclude only from the appearance to the gender and address someone accordingly is not always right.
Insofar, to conclude only from the appearance to the sex and address someone accordingly is not always right.
A transvestite does not have to have a feminine gender only because he wears feminine clothes or a masculine gender only because she wears masculine clothes.
If someone appears female, most people assign a female sex as well as a female gender.
They could claim to be insulted too when their sex is ignored in favour of what is wrongly assumed as their gender only because they are wearing clothes that are usually worn by members of the opposite sex.
Given that a transvestite would appear to be female, he would hardly be insulted.
And how about this: The person tells you that he/she is insulted and you CHANGE your address accordingly. Simple? Apparently too complicated for you.
A tomboy does not have to have a masculine gender and could claim to be insulted as well if she gets addressed like a boy.
Then how about apologizing and not doing it again if you are mistaken?
A nancy-boy (sorry, but I couldn’t find a better term that describes the opposite of a tomboy) does not have to have a feminine gender and could claim to be insulted as well when he gets addressed like a girl.
Then how about apologizing and not doing it again if you are mistaken?
A transgender who hasn’t come out (yet) and wants to stay inconspicuous does not want to be addressed accordingly to their gender but accordingly to their sex.
Since you are going to do that anyway based on their apparent gender, what's the problem? Oh, right, you do not care what a person wishes and are searching for some universal standard that never fails.
To ignore that and address such a transgender accordingly to their gender could even get that transgender in trouble he wanted to avoid by staying inconspicuous.
Again, no problem, since her apparent gender is male anyway. Unless she tells you, you are not going to know her gender since she is hiding it - unlike most people.
That means, if really the gender shall be deciding, one would have to ask each and every person what their gender is, while the sex usually is obviously.
Bullshit. You can be mistaken about ones sex as well as about someones gender.#
Your option is no better in that regad.
Gender is appearent and openly displayed by most people. You can safely make an assumption in most cases. If you are wrong, they can tell you and you can change the address accordingly.
You do not figure ones wishes into your consideration AT ALL. This is quite telling, since that is what most people would care about.
Again Serafina has not shown that most people, when choosing a grammar gender, are contemplating the gender and not the sex of a person.
Most people are judging by outward appearance - which is an expression of gender.
I don't know anyone who looks at a persons genitalia or DNA first.
. Of course they are addressing a transwoman, if they are deceived into believing that the sex of that person is female, as if that transwoman is female and a transman. if they are deceived into believing that the sex of that person is male, as if that transman is male. But they are doing it not because they are contemplating the gender of the person but because they believe that the sex is female or male.
And this is bad HOW exactly? Other than your bigotry being offended.
All Serafina has to do is to show that most people are not contemplating the sex of the person but the gender and that this is the usual modus operandi. Insofar Serafina has done nothing to rebut me.
I have. You are ignoring it.
It is really quite simple:
When you meet someone new, you are looking for outward signs of masculinity/femininity. These are expressions of ones gender - clothing, makeup, behavior.
They are then addressing a person according to that.
Yes, some sex attribures normally figure into that as well - but you have NOT shown that they are the deciding factors in any way, shape or form.
Serafina then claimed that transgenders are suffering when they are addressed accordingly to their sex instead of their gender.
Yes, they are. Care about that? Apparently not you.
I wondered if the most important reason Transgenders do want to be addressed accordingly to their gender is that they have experienced discrimination as transgenders or are afraid to experience discrimination if the fact that they are transgenders is disclosed.
That's part of it.
The other is that someone who is not addressing the according to their gender is NOT caring about their gender but about their sex. They are therefore NOT accepted by that person according to that gender.
. I contemplated that it could be possible that they simply do not want that everybody knows that they are transgenders and that they want to deceive everybody in believing that they have a sex as it appears because then they do not have to suffer the prejudices of those who are bigoted. And because to be addressed accordingly to their sex would disclose the fact that someone is a transgender, they would have to suffer bigotry where it occurs.
And even if that was the only reason - this is bad WHY and HOW?
Serafina’s reply was to ask, how that is wrong. Insofar Serafina has not proven the claim that transgenders are suffering because they are addressed accordingly to their sex. Quite contrary, Serafina has, as I understand it, acknowledged that not the addressing is the real problem but the discrimination that is enabled when the fact that someone is a transgender is disclosed through the addressing accordingly to the sex. That’s what Serafina has said here too: Not the differentiation is discrimination but it enables discrimination.
And preventing discrimination is bad HOW?
But if we now have reached the conclusion that not the differentiation and not the addressing according to one’s sex is discriminating but only enabling discrimination because it disclose the fact that someone is a transgender, the question now would have to be if it is right to keep that fact a secret to protect the transgender or if the discrimination that happens if the fact that someone is a transgender, ought to be fought.
You DO have a right for privacy. You DO have a right to keep non-hazardous medical conditions a secret.
Serafina’s opinion is that it is okay for transgenders to live their whole life with a secret.
Who are you to decide otherwise?
I think that this should not be necessary and that the discrimination should be fought. In the long run, that will result in a more tolerant society where no one has to keep the fact that one is a transgender a secret.
It is NOT discrimination. How is it discrimination? They are not treated any different because of it.
Your claim that openly differentiating transsexual people from cissexual people would lead to more equality between the two is simply laughable.
By your logic, we should differentiate between black and white people as much as possible instead of ignoring the difference.
Serafina’s answer was that transgenders do not want to be seen as transgenders and do want to live their whole life with a secret.
Again, what's wrong with that?
Again neither evidence nor any arguments were provided for that claim nor were the interests of those who don’t want to come out, because they would be subjected to intolerance, discrimination and even outright hate, considered.
Likewise, you presented neither evidence nor argument that it would be in their interest.
Usually transgenders determine their gender not before they are older. That means that there are many people who know their sex because they have seen that transgender grow up. To come out then and declare to be a transgender or to even live accordingly to that gender is in a bigotry society, where even the own relatives could turn against one not easy.
This would change HOW EXACTLY under your method?
It simply wouldn't - "changing" and living according to your gender would not be easier if MORE people focus on your sex.
You are even SAYING that people who know their sex make it more difficult for them - and you want to make sure that MORE people know their sex? That's either moronic or bigoted.
That probably results in many transgenders who have to live their whole life not only with a secret but accordingly to role expectations and not accordingly to their gender.
How so? You little bigoted liar. NOT AT ALL.
The cause for that are gender prejudices - NOT that their sex is kept secret. In fact, that secret is often NECESSARY to let them live like they want to. Some people who know it demand that they live according to it, and others demand that they live a stereotypical role or they are not members of their gender at all. But someone who does not know their sex will think nothing strage of a transwoman with masculine behavior other women display as well.
Your entire premise is just idiotic. How is focusing on a difference furthering equality?
When has that EVER worked?
How exactly are people choosing the grammar gender for an individual? Are they usually contemplating the sex or the gender? What is the usual modus operandi? If someone claims that most people are usually considering the gender, I want to see evidence or at least arguments that most people are aware that there is a gender that is not identical with the term sex. In Germany, as I have shown, there is not even a term for gender because we are using the word Geschlecht to refer not only to biological sex, but social differences as well, making a distinction between biological 'sex' and 'gender' identity difficult. That’s why in social sciences the English term gender is used as a loanword. But neither this nor the term Geschlechteridentität (gender identity) have found a way into the common German language. They are, as far as I know, still considered technical terms that are not even listed by most of the commonly used German dictionaries. Of course I could be mistaken. But if that is claimed, I want to see evidence. I want to see that normal German (and English) people are aware that there is a from the sex different gender and that this reflected by the everyday speech. Only then they could contemplate the gender at all when deciding how to address a person. And then I want to see evidence that they not only could contemplate it but they are indeed contemplating it.
You are a liar. We have a term for gender, it is simply the same as our term for biological sex.
I have explained, multiple times, how one decides on an address:
According to apparent gender. Simply because that is generally the
most visible criteria - or can you differentiate between a little boy or girl based on physical characteristics when you see them on the street? No, you decide based on their clothes, behavior etc.
You do the same thing for adults, tough you might have additional pointers that are based on sex. But you do not fundamentally change your modus operandi.
If, why and how transgender suffer if addressed accordingly to their sex? Are they suffering if addressed accordingly to their sex even if there is no discrimination or are they only suffering because they see an addressing accordingly to their sex as a pre-stage, an enabler, to discrimination? No studies were presented which are making that differentiation. I mean, it is only to be expected that transgenders are committing suicide when they are subjected to intolerance, discrimination and even outright hate so that they do not dare to disclose the fact that they are transgenders and do not dare to live the life they want to live. But how does the suicide rate change if transsexuals are allowed to live as they want, if they are not subjected to intolerance, discrimination and even outright hate? Would the suicide rate increase under such conditions only because transgenders are addressed accordingly to their sex although their gender is recognised and accepted and, due to a tolerant society, it does not enable discrimination because nobody thinks discriminatory things about transgenders?
You are ignoring what i said and pretending that i did not say it. Another lie.
It is quite simple if one is not a bigot.
A transsexual person want's to be seen according to their gender. They often suffer greatly from their experience of that not being the case.
If you do not address them according to their gender, you obviously do not see them according to their gender. You are also remiding them of their past experiences.
Both is harmfull. Both IS discrimination based on their sex, since you are treating the DIFFERENT compared to other members of their gender.
Why is it supposed to be more morally to keep the fact that someone is a transgender secret and let people stay ignorant and prejudiced what forces other transgenders to keep that fact secret too or to never live according to the gender, than to confront people with transgenders and force them to recognize that transgenders are no subhuman being and are deserving the same rights as all other human beings? If transgenders are suffering because of bigotry, wouldn’t it be better to fight the bigotry than to reward it by not appearing as a transgender to not disturb bigots? Wouldn’t a society in which everyone can admit to be a transgender, be a better society than what it is now where many transgenders don’t even dare to admit to be a transgender let alone to live accordingly to their gender? Is it possible at all to get such a society when transgenders keep their transsexualism a secret and nobody is really aware of transgenders and their problems because usually nobody knows if the person one has just met was a transgender or a cisgender so that it seems to the majority to be more an academic problem? Because Serafina has used the term moral again and again, I think I can expect a thoroughly morally analyses.
This is simply blatantly wrong, as i have demonstrated earlier.
But let's give the bigot an analysis he will neither accept nor perform himself, shall we?
You have two options here:
Openly proclaim a transsexual persons sex
or not doing it.
So, let's look at option two first:
In that case, people can NOT discriminate based on sex, because they do not KNOW it. It's really simple so far
Does that prevent transsexual people from living according to their gender role?
Not at all. If their gender role is, say for transwomen, typically female, then they can live according to it - no one will demand otherwise based on their sex. If their gender role is somewhat masculine (which many women have), then they are ALSO more free to live it - no one will demand that they live a stereotypical female role to "compensate" for their sex, because they do not KNOW the sex.
In other words, there are no negative consequences from not proclaiming ones sex, and benefits as well.
Let's look at option one, WILGAs option:
Obviously, it enables people to differentiate/discriminate against transsexual people based on their sex - you have to know it to act on it.
It also cements a difference that does not, in fact, matter - their sex. If you shove them off into a seperate category (say, a "transgender" category) you are openly proclaiming that they are DIFFERENT when they are not. When you don't apply that category, they can be as different as they want - but applying it FORCES that impression.
In other words, it has no benefits and encourages
and enables discrimination based on their sex.
Now, WILGA claims that this would be a long-term benefit. The BoP is on HIM to demonstrate how that long-term benefit would look like. Claiming that focussing on a difference makes it go away is simply wrong.
Related to the just asked questions, I want to know how society could be changed if transgenders do not disclose the fact that they are transgenders and for most people the problem therefore seems to be only an academic problem. Imagine John Doe who is not aware to have ever met a transgender because, even if he had met a transgender, he wouldn’t have noticed it. Now he sees in the media e.g. a documentation about transgenders. He can’t really take it serious because it does not seem to have any relation to his life. Or, seeing that documentation, he becomes suspicious and is now trying to find out who in his neighbourhood and of his acquaintances are transgenders. But how does that help to change society?
That is already the case. If you meet a transsexual person, chances are quite good you won't notice it.
Furthermore, what is better:
-Showing him that transsexual people are so much like women/men that you don't notice a difference
-or openly forcing them to display a difference that does not matter to make them more visible?
Besides, you are employing a false dichotomy here.
You are presenting us with two options:
Every single transsexual person openly declaring their sex
or no transsexual being politically active for their cause at all.
This is simply stupid, one does not preclude the other.
Many transsexuals who already have a perfect stealth passing are still politcially active, and their perfect passing is an asset to them.
As an example, a friend of mine (a transman) is regulary giving speeches about transsexuality at schools, homosexual political meetings and other places.
He generally does not say that he is a transman right away - and when he does so at the end of the lesson, he drives an important point home:
Transsexual people are no different from other people.
It works. It would NOT work if he did so at the beginning of his speech, people would look for differences then.
The homosexuals, although homosexuality is a private matter too, have gone public and have fought for their interests and society has changed. That’s a still ongoing process in which e.g. politicians, e.g. Klaus Wowereit or Guido Westerwelle, are supporting that movement by openly declaring themselves to be homosexual although their sexual preferences are a private matter too. Such self-assuredness of homosexuals and events like the Christopher Street Day have changed society. It is similar with black-skinned people who have fought for their rights. Remember the famous speech of Martin Luther King: I Have a dream. They have not fought that their differences are ignored, that the fact that they are homosexual or black are ignored, but they have fought that they are not discriminated anymore.
That is political activity. It is NOT achieved by everyone screaming "Hey, look at me, i am gay!"
We have the same political activity for transsexual people already.
As seeing that prejudices are a necessary premise for being a bigot, where is anything I have said a prejudice? Seeing that prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, where is anything I have said not true or not based on reason? I admit that not everyone has to agree with my reasons. But to say that my opinion is preconceived and not based on reason seems to be wrong. Therefore I want to see where I have stated an opinion that is preconceived and not based on reason. Fact is that someone is not a bigot only because he is rude, inconsiderate, ruthless, impertinent or discourteous and a fortiori is nobody a bigot only for having another opinion than others. To say, as Serafina has done, that » Overall, a bigot who want's to keep transsexuals as shunned and rightless as possbile. « does not substitute an explanation, especially because it is simply wrong. I have made it clear more than once that I do not want to keep transsexuals as shunned and without rights as possible. I have made it more than clear that I do not doubt transsexuality and the existence of genders and that I respect it if transgenders are living accordingly to their gender. The only differences between me and Serafina are how transgenders should be addressed and how they should be treated where segregation accordingly to the sex happens (e.g. in changing rooms and showers, in hospital and prison wards or at competitive sports).
Your prejudice is simple:
Sex is more important than gender.
That is simply NOT TRUE.
So, how are you a bigot? You are trying to defend your prejudice. If possible, you want to enforce it publicly.
Bigots often think they are logically justified. That doesn't make it so.
Ah, and maybe someone can explain to me the difference between » considering a possibility « and » advocating something « or » wishing something « or » desire something «. I always thought that there is a difference. I thought » considering something « means in that context something like » thinking carefully about something «.
But Serafina does not seem to think so.
Given that you do not appear to see the negative sides of your proposals, you are either a moron or advocating them.
In the same context maybe someone can explain why, if I write » I merely considered the possibility that not only transsexuals are neither man nor woman if, as Serafina argues, not the sex but only the gender decides if someone is a man or a woman. Because than it could be possible as well that there are more than two genders. « Serafina concludes that I desire the implementation of a third class for transgenders who then are supposed to have no rights or that I’d like to create an artificial distinction to separate transsexual people from cissexual people?
Given that you have outright stated that you see it as wrong when a transsexual person is seen as being a member of their gender and the sex correlating to that, yes, i think you DO advocate this.
I merely considered that as a possibility. I did not say that I advocate, wish or desire that. After all, I’m the one who says that although there are without a doubt genders, the sex is still important. But the thing is simply that, if we start to overrate gender by totally ignoring sex, as Serafina is advocating it, that I see no reason why there should be only two or three genders. It could be a whole spectrum from totally masculine over androgyny to totally feminine genders with several different kinds of androgyny genders. Today, all that is neither masculine nor feminine is described as androgyny. But who says that there are not distinctions between androgyny genders too, that there are several kinds of androgyny genders? I think that these sentences mean that there could be even more than three genders and that even people who are not considered to be transgenders today could be sorted into their own gender category. That includes me because I too don't have to have the stereotypical gender that is classical attributed to my sex. How many gender categories could develop or how all people are distributed into these gender categories is not even conceivable let alone that one gender category would be an absolute minority with their members having no rights. Actually, even if I had expressed my wish or desire for such a » Third Gender « or had advocated its implementation, I wouldn’t have expressed with that a wish or desire for discrimination or advocated it. And considering what I already wrote about my opinion about the rights transgenders should be entitled to (see above), only someone who is intentionally distorting and misinterpreting what I wrote would come to the conclusion that I want to create a third social class for transgenders to let them be outcasts with no rights. Furthermore such a distinction would not be artificial because the gender according to which the categories are created would exist. It is not as though as if a gender category is invented far from any reality and everyone who is regarded as a transgender now is arbitrarily sorted into this invented gender cat
You merely are very good at obfuscation and lies.
You are going after one possibility to the exclusion of all others, and your possibility does not have any evidence to it. I call that someone advocating something.
And on the same note: I do not care how Serafina addresses me. My self-esteem does not depend on Serafina’s opinion about me. As you can see, I simply have ignored most of Serafina’s ad hominems. And there were more than enough. I simply do not care if Serafina thinks that I’m a fraud and have neither an Abitur nor studied jurisprudence. But one thing is clear: Serafina lies claiming that the structure of Earth, sophisticated biological taxonomies, the binding nature of all » supreme court decisions «, the legal status of transwomen according to the TSG, that » something that has not been signed by any german government authority is [not] part of german law (Yogyakarta Principles) «, that males have lactiferous glands and Psychology 101 are part of the curriculum for Mittlere Reife students. And I do not bother to correct Serafina about such things any more. Serafina can think what Serafina wants to think. Serafina can also think that I’m » horribly uneducated « because I thought that a penectomy where the penis is not completely removed but used to create something that looks like a vagina is not part of a gender reassignment of a transwoman and because I did not know that Dr. Watanyusakul’s method to use the scrotum to form the vaginal walls, and the skin of the penile shaft to form the labia majora are surpassed by the methods of Dr, Liedl, Dr. Schaff or Dr. Seibold. Yes, everyone with a spark of education has to know that and a fortiori if one has argued with a transgender for a whole week in its spare time because it is expected that then one knows as much as the transgender who had years to learn about all such things. It’s not my problem that some of these opinions – including the opinion that everybody who has made an Abitur and has studied jurisprudence should know all that (although I stated on several occasions that I have never even heard of the Transsexuellengesetz and related statutes or court decisions before) or the opinion that not the one who wants to convince someone has to provide evidence and arguments (principle of party presentation) but the one who is to be convinced has to do the whole work alone – are ludicrous.
Let's see:
-Hotspots are a current scientific theory. I do not lie about that.
-Supreme Court decisions are binding, i have demonstrated that.
-The TSG leads to all their legal documents being changed to female (or male). No legal difference exists after that between them and any other person with such an entry.
-You said YOURSELF earlier that something that is not signed by our government is not part of our law. I think everyone can see why this is not the case anyway.
-Look it up. Here is a nice article that shows that transwomen can breastfeed.
-Fachoberschule für Sozialwesen (an advanced school for social science). That i did not finish it and therefore did not expand on my degree (i did not do so for private reasons, guess which) doesn't mean i did not visit it.
Your lack of understaning of SRS shows just that: Your lack of understanding. And hence, research.
I did not claim that your education should have taught you that - but that someone who does not know this did no or no good research.
And yes, someone who has studied law should be easily capable of understanding a law that is not all that long and very compact. I am able to understand it, and i only had law in school.
I know what I am and what I have achieved and I do not suffer if someone addresses me as if I’m a male without asking for my sex or gender or if some uneducated person (Mittlere Reife – really, with that it is already difficult to even get an apprenticeship training position in Germany because applicants with an Abitur are usually preferred - but that would explain why Serafina can participate in such debates twenty-four-seven.) does not believe me.
Nice appeal to your own superiority and authority.
Besides, Mittlere Reife is easily comparable or even supreme to most US High school degrees. I would hardly call that uneducated.
That it is not sufficient to get a job is also not true. I can work as an accoutant at a bank, as a medical assistant, as a small manager, security inspector, policewoman and much, much more. Granted, this is a common misconception amongst people with Abitur who are too stupid to think about it for themselves - but since only about a third of people HAS abitur in the first place, it is obvious that most of the jobs are NOT done by people with Abitur.
