All about Serafina (Split)

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:09 pm

Serafina wrote:You are obviously too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex.
Who is like God arbour wrote: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. 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.

But is that important?

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

Even the Transsexuellengesetz uses only the term »Geschlecht« that can be translated into sex as well as into gender. It talks about the at the birth registered gender and the by the transsexuality imprinted gender. But hey, the German legislator is probably stupid too.
Serafina wrote: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.

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

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.
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.

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

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.
Who is like God arbour wrote: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".

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.

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

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).
Aha, I do not have to be familiar with the term gender - or its possible translation into German as Geschlechtidentität - but at the same time I am too stupid if I do not understand the term gender as opposed to sex and it is my job to know (not only the common) meaning of the term gender.

And of course, international treaties (the declaration is not an international treaty) are suddenly German laws or are relevant for the question how the German legislator uses the term Geschlechtidentität or how a German lawyer has to be familiar with that term.

On the bottom line, who does not know the difference between gender and sex or who does not know that gender can be translated to Geschlechtidentität is stupid.

But one does not have to be familiar with it.



Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Which accusation?
I have asked concret questions. I want to have an answer to these questions. I have not accused you of anything.

And what shall I admit? That I am not familiar with the term gender in its "second" meaning? Curios, I thought I have done it already.

What is it that you want?




Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
I still do not see what use such a scan could have, but here you have it.

It's not as if that changes anything.

You still do not believe me and think that you with your Mittlere Reife know it better than someone with an Abitur, four years academic studies, two years residency and not insignificant practical experiences.

Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Thank you. It is relieving to finally be able to say the truth.


Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Excuse me. I thought I have - as has Dr. Anke Eilers - talked about the Federal Constitution Court too. But obviously I was mistaken. I do not know how, bot somehow I must have talked about another thing.

Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Excuse me. It seems as I have misunderstood you when you wrote that:
        • Serafina wrote:
          Who is like God arbour wrote:But you are still insisting that the whole mantle is liquid or that the plume of hot magma is liquid and that plasma can sink through it.
          Yes, i do.
          Do you have evidence to the contrary?
          Serafina wrote:
          Who is like God arbour wrote:The plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat. Nothing more.

          But you are ignoring that and insist on your idea that it is possible to inject plasma from a hotspot into the liquid mantle and that it would sink through the liquid plumes of hot magma against the current through the whole liquid mantle to the core.
          Again - why not?
          Serafina wrote:It is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle - it is NOT solid.
Maybe I should improve my English. Because I'm still not able to see, where I could misunderstand you. But that's what must have happened if you are saying that you have never said that.


Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Are you satisfied?
If this was not sarcasm - yes, that's a good step, being honest is always good.
I do not know, was it sarcasm?
But you are right - being honest is always good. I feel so relieved to be able to say what you want to hear. You can't believe it.

Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Or is there something else you want?
An apology would be nice, and preferably a change of mind about transsexuals.
Of course: I apologize for pretending to be a lawyer, to have made my Abitur, to have four years of academical studies and two years of residency as an education.

And of course I will change my mind about transsexuals. After you have provided so much convincing arguments, I only have to push a button and my mind about the relevance of sex and the significance of primary and secondary genitals and genome for the determination of sex is changed.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:11 pm

Wyrm wrote: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.
Wyrm? Learn to read what's actually being posted on SFJ, rather than what's excerpted on SDN. You don't get the whole story secondhand, and your mistakes about what has and has not been posted here are making you look rather foolish all around.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Accept it?, of course i accept it i put considerable thought and effort into it at the time to make sure i broke none of my forums rules about foul language, politeness and accuracy while making it as upsetting to you as possible.
Apparently my two warnings earlier in this thread were a shade too subtle for you to realize their import, even though one linked directly to the rules section. Granted, the first one was in a post that wound up getting later split from the thread, so perhaps you missed that one, but I'll underline this so it's clear: You had indeed stepped over the line into rudeness.

We don't have many rules here:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:In truth, this board has one rule:

All discourse is to be reasonable, polite, and informative.
Clarified, relevantly, thus:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No flaming. Insults, attacks, and rudeness all serve as obstacles to discourse; they will not be tolerated.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Act in good faith. Trolling, dishonesty, and other forms of insincere behavior may be penalized at our discretion.
As far as I'm concerned, Kor, your actions in this thread have qualified. I suppose I could be considered to be within my discretion to ignore the whole matter, seeing as Serafina is not, in fact, posting here on our board, but maintaining her side of the conversation on SDN; however, I haven't chosen to ignore it.

I am usually fairly informal in tone in my warnings; my apologies if you hadn't realized that, Kor, but you might consider this a good time for you to read this particular thread. I hope the two of you have come to terms; I believe Mr. Oragahn's suggestion, above, of a formal debate or SB-style KISS summary of arguments, is a very good idea. The original argument is very difficult to reconstruct and follow, spread out as it is.
Serafina wrote: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.
Much like "that's so gay" isn't tailored towards gays? I'll give you another example first and spell it out slowly.

"You run like a girl!" is in your sense a very generic insult. It's almost always used on boys. Harmless, right? Yet though it may be directed to Fred, Bob, and George, issuing that insult to a boy in front of Jane, Anna, or Erica gives them very direct cause to be offended: At the same time that insult puts down a specific boy, it's putting down all girls implicitly. Boys may also be offended on the girls' behalf. Mike, who coaches the girls' track team, is probably angrier than his student Jane about the crack, in fact. He has enough trouble with girls not thinking they're good enough to run track.

When you say "that's so gay!!!" to complain about something unfair, it's implicitly putting down all gays. Gay people are at liberty to be offended regardless of where the comment is directed. People who aren't gay and sick of gay-bashing may be offended on behalf of their friends and relatives, or just on principle.

When you throw around "retarded" as an insult, you're vilifying about 2% of the general population. One of the more helpless 2% of the population, who are unlikely to have ever done you any personal harm. This is why it's quite false that "everyone uses them." Instead, it's considered quite offensive and impolite, and their friends, relatives, coaches, employers, et cetera may take very personal offence.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:25 pm

Honestly?
I think that's their problem. I do not address them, i mean no offense to them.
By that logic, you can censor anything because someone might read it and be offended.
Many forums have rules regarding conduct and especially personal insults now perhaps we understand why.
It is not. That's my point - do not insult someone for who he is. (or she in my case, but i don't want to clutter this).
But do you not see that by using insults that essentially are about mental illnesses that you can hurt the innocent who have it or the family of those who have it?.
Maybe so, but they are often justified. I find that they are quite effective at trollhunting, given that such people are more likely to be drawn into such a spiral.
When Justification = disagreeing with you or your opinions the problem is not with them.
Ah, so you willingly violated the spirit of the law.
That is one interpretation however if you do try to play the "law" card it will lead to how the "law" regards your status in regards to my usage of she/he titles.
That might be so, but nowadays they are commonly used. That's what matters.
What matters is the fact that they can cause a lot of upset to parents or those who have family members suffering from such handicaps.
Listen:
My insults were directed at you, yet you claim that others might be offended as well.
You say your insults were directed at me, but others might be offended as well.

By your logic, they are the exact same thing.
Correct.
If you figure in the fact that stupid, retard etc. are normal insults while yours are specific to transgendered people, it tips the balance.
They were actually specifically designed for you, but they could be just as insulting used against a array of individuals like homosexuals, transexuals, cross dressers ect ect...less accurate due to them being developed for you in particular but still insulting.
I already pointed out that that still violated the spirit of the rule.
I maintain a level of civility under most circumstances but that does not mean im ghandi or a verbal punching bag, when the limit is reached a appropreate reply in a civil manner will be developed and used.

If the board chooses to censor me because of simply using HE instead of SHE so be it but i had had enough of you.
Well - to be honest, i do not see a lot of insight from you.
I get your points that you do not like such language, and i am willing to suspend it if we conduct a civil debate.
You will be supprised how doing so in our next potential discussion subject will gain you considerably more of what you request than demands and insults did and i mean that with the utmost respect for the effort you are making and without trying to be patronising in any way.
But you do not appear to get my points how your insults were crossing a line i did not cross with mine.
Have you considered that i do and did not care or had that intention at the time?. Insults are supposed to hurt that is their sole perpose and as such if i ever feel the need to use one i use the most effective one available on my enemy.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:51 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I'll underline this so it's clear: You had indeed stepped over the line into rudeness.

As far as I'm concerned, Kor, your actions in this thread have qualified.
I was well aware there could be consequenses for dealing with the abuse i recieved during this discussion when i did it although i am only now aware of the split thread comment you made regarding a slightly off colour reply i made.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:19 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:Aha, I do not have to be familiar with the term gender - or its possible translation into German as Geschlechtidentität - but at the same time I am too stupid if I do not understand the term gender as opposed to sex and it is my job to know (not only the common) meaning of the term gender.
Serafina wrote:Quite, if you do not UNDERSTAND it, then you are stupid - or bigoted.
Why?
Why do I have to be stupid because I did not understand the term gender as opposed to sex before you pointed out that there is a difference?
I mean, you have not even explained the difference. You only said that I have to bee too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex. Only then I found out what the difference is, that there is a "second" meaning of gender and 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. Stupid means lacking intelligence or common sense.
Now, how can that be stupid?


Who is like God arbour wrote:And of course, international treaties (the declaration is not an international treaty) are suddenly German laws or are relevant for the question how the German legislator uses the term Geschlechtidentität or how a German lawyer has to be familiar with that term.
Serafina wrote:It refers to them.
And they might not be laws, but surely they are legal documents, using legal language
Any yet it is no German law or legal document. It is not written by a German authority. Does that changes the fact that - as it seems - the German legislator has never used this term and that this term is not used in German legal language at all?

That declaration was written by Catherine Ashton, a Brit, and translated into German from the European Union. I would hardly call that evidence that there are German laws and legal documents with the term "Geschlechtidentität".

And claiming that it is a legal document, I expect you to provide an accepted definition of that term. I especially want to know, if a legal document has to have to contain a legally enforceable act, a process, or contractual duty, obligation, or right and if a non-binding declaration can really be considered a legal document.

I found only the definiton according to which a legal document is a document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right. The non-binding declarations does not do so and therefore can't be considered a legal document under that definition.

Not that even if you would be able to provide an accepted definition that shows that this non-binding declaration of good will is a legal declaration, it would change the fact that it does not come from Germany. And that was what was asked: To show a German law and a legal document where the the term "Geschlechtidentität" is used. Because only then you can claim that Geschlechtidentität is part of the German legal language. And only then you can expect that the one or other German lawyer who never had to do with transsexual matters knows that term job-related. Until now you have failed to do that.


Who is like God arbour wrote:On the bottom line, who does not know the difference between gender and sex or who does not know that gender can be translated to Geschlechtidentität is stupid.
Serafina wrote:Not knowing? A notable lack of knowledge.
Not understanding? Quite stupid.
You can't understand the difference between something as long as you do not even know that there is a difference. And you can't even know that there is a difference as long as you do not even know that there are two different things between which a difference could be.

Even the wikipedia link to which you have linked explains it:
        • In English, both 'sex' and 'gender' can be used in contexts where they could not be substituted — 'sexual intercourse', 'safe sex', 'sex worker', or on the other hand, 'grammatical gender'. [...] German [...] use the same word, [...] Geschlecht [...], to refer not only to biological sex, but social differences as well, making a distinction between biological 'sex' and 'gender' identity difficult. In some contexts, German has adopted the English loanword Gender to achieve this distinction. Sometimes Geschlechtsidentität is used for 'gender' (although it literally means 'gender identity') and Geschlecht for 'sex'. More common is the use of modifiers: biologisches Geschlecht for 'biological sex', Geschlechtsidentität for 'gender identity' and Geschlechtsrolle for 'gender role', and so on.
Althoug it is only Wikipedia, it describes the problem very well. But of course, the Geman language is quite stupid for not having a special term for gender in its "second" meaning.


Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Serafina wrote:Oh, really? How curious, a large number appears to know that.
Who is like God arbour wrote: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?
Serafina wrote: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.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Which accusation?
I have asked concret questions. I want to have an answer to these questions. I have not accused you of anything.

And what shall I admit? That I am not familiar with the term gender in its "second" meaning? Curios, I thought I have done it already.

What is it that you want?
Serafina wrote:Not even understanding your own words.
What do you expect? That there is a statistic telling us how many people understand that word?

Either way, the common definition notes the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex (sex being one category/indicator for gender).
Maybe I do not understand my own words. But you have failed to answer the questions and to show where I have accused you of anything. Now you questioned if I'm able to understand my own words. The prudent thing to do would be to explain how you understand what I have said.

If you claim that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that the term gender has a "second" meaning, you should try to convince me. It's your claim after all.

That does not mean that you have to provide elaborated statistics. I'm not as absurd as Wyrm.

But when even the Wikipedia article to which you have linked says that there is a common meaning and a meaning that is only used in social sciences, I expect you to substantiate your claim.

The American Heritage Dictionary e.g. makes it clear, that there is a distinction between sex and gender and gender as sex and gender as a social roll. But it clearly also states, that this distinction [...] is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.«

Insofar I do not doubt that there are definitions which are noting the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex.

But as your claim was that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that, I want to see, that John Doe does know that distinction and is observing it.

I mean, if the knowledge and understanding of that distinction were so common as you claim, why are there so many social and legal problems with transsexuals at all?

Why is the by the brain determined gender not enough in German law? Why says the Transsexuellengesetz that you can change your recognised gender/sex only if you have fulfilled a few requirements if alone the by the brain determined gender is important?

Why has a person with only a name change who is in hospital or prison no right to be accommodated according to the gender role they live in, but can be housed according to their legal gender - according to the Yogyakarta Principles (Principle 3 and 9)?

Why varies the degree of legal recognition provided to transsexualism widely throughout the world?


Who is like God arbour wrote:I still do not see what use such a scan could have, but here you have it.

It's not as if that changes anything.

You still do not believe me and think that you with your Mittlere Reife know it better than someone with an Abitur, four years academic studies, two years residency and not insignificant practical experiences.
Serafina wrote:Yeah, that's not even photoshopped, that looks like paint to me.
And i specifically asked you for using a sheet of paper or the like, NOT to use an image modification program - everyone can do that.
Of course, if you do it that way or someone can show me that this is NOT the result of such a program, i'll accept that.
See, I knew you would not accept it. I mean there is no qualitative difference in its conclusiveness if it is scanned and parts of it blacked with a modification program or if a sheet of paper is covering what was blacked. Only that the first is easier to do. That's why I will not scan it again with sheets of paper stuck to it. It would change nothing anyway. Even if I could convince you to be a lawyer, you would still believe that you with your Mittlere Reife know it better than me. So what?


Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Serafina wrote:Yeah, so what? That's a red herring, since we were talking about the Federal Constitution Court.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Excuse me. I thought I have - as has Dr. Anke Eilers - talked about the Federal Constitution Court too. But obviously I was mistaken. I do not know how, bot somehow I must have talked about another thing.
Serafina wrote:Wooops, sorry, misquote.
Either way, you were obviously wrong about
See, that's what I said.
I, the lawyer with Abitur, four years of academical studies and two years of residency as an education were obviously wrong and you with your Mittlere Reife were obviously right.

But oops, we had already agreed that I'm a fraud and that I have neither studied legal science nor have made my Abitur.

My fault - a relapse into lying again. I'm a bad person.


Serafina wrote:I was obviously referring to the liquid parts of the mantle. Are you always that nitpicky?
The quotes you have not quoted are showing that you were obviously not. You argued that the mantle or at least mantle plumes are liquid from the core up to the crust and that it is possible to let plasma sink from empty magma chambers in the crust to the core through 3.000 km of liquid mantle rock in less than a few hours. That was your position, wasn't it?


Who is like God arbour wrote:Are you satisfied?
Serafina wrote:If this was not sarcasm - yes, that's a good step, being honest is always good.
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do not know, was it sarcasm?
But you are right - being honest is always good. I feel so relieved to be able to say what you want to hear. You can't believe it.
Serafina wrote:Wait, you do not know what sarcasm is? Sarkasmus?
I do know what sarcasm is. But as it seems that you have the sovereignty of interpretation about what I have said, I didn't want to infringe your competence.


Who is like God arbour wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Are you satisfied?

Or is there something else you want?
Serafina wrote:An apology would be nice, and preferably a change of mind about transsexuals.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Of course: I apologize for pretending to be a lawyer, to have made my Abitur, to have four years of academical studies and two years of residency as an education.
Serafina wrote:That's not what i am talking about, and you know it.
See, now you are even dictating what I do know. To me it seemed that you doubted that I'm a lawyer. You even demanded a scan of my certificate. And even now you doubt it. Then explain me: What were you talking about.


Who is like God arbour wrote:And of course I will change my mind about transsexuals. After you have provided so much convincing arguments, I only have to push a button and my mind about the relevance of sex and the significance of primary and secondary genitals and genome for the determination of sex is changed.
Serafina wrote:Do you look at people genitalia before you adress them?
Eh, you propably couldn't tell that i am a transwoman if you saw me on the street, unless i am having a bad day.
Obviously not. That's why a transvestite could be able to fool me.

If I met such a person ...
        • Image
... I would think that this person is a woman. But that does not mean that knowing that Georg Preuße is a man I would address him behind the stage as if he were a woman.

In almost the same manner I would not address Dorothy Lawrence ...
              • Image
... as if she were male knowing that she was female.

Insofar the appearance can fool me. But as soon as I know the sex, I tread a person accordingly unless I'm pretending something e.g. to play along with an act or to keep someone's true sex a secret to protect that someone.

Yes, I could tread you as if you were a woman. But as long as you do not really convince me, as long as I do not see you as a woman, it would be only an act.

And until now you have done nothing to explain your situation to me or to explain why I should tread you like a woman. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:21 am

Given that several statements on your side of the debate were blatantly wrong and demonstrated to be so, i think it was quite justified.
My statments were not wrong in fact the only person who was conclusively proven wrong on any point during our discussion was you on a conclusion you came to and it was done by a fellow member of your board.

You may have noticed that i did not instantly start howling about you being a retard ect when your error was pointed out?.
Ah, so you admit that you essentially did the same thing as you accuse me of doing?
Hardly moral, now is it?
At that point i was past trying to be reasonable and just decided to deal with you using your own methods, as i mentioned earlier i am not ghandi or a saint and i do have a limit to how many insults i am prepared to tolerate.
I AM transsexual.
And at some point in your future you will discover that transsexual is not all you are in regards to being a person and when you do that is called progress.
Yes, we would. Attacking minorities is not acceptable.
If you are going to attack somebody over and over complaining when they turn around and eventually attack you back more effectivly is a rather weak argument.
Of course, you were already banned for a conduct of stupidity.
Yea like others i was stupid enough to think i would be treated fairly on SDN, but i was new to all this back then and now know better.
Oh, i will still DEMAND evidence. That's hardly an insult.

AHH but you will likely not just demand evidence, what you will do is demand material you are willing to accept as evidence that way it is ultimatly you who decides the outcome. I am familiar with the tactic as your board and moderators are infamous for using to disgard inconvienient truths or ppl.
Yeah - but you could apologize afterwards.
I can honestly say i regret my insults towards you just as much you and the others who initially insulted me regret yours towards me.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:00 pm

It has come to my attention that Serafina addressed something to me that was not quoted in this thread. It barely seems worth addressing, since each complaint may be neatly closed, but I have a few minutes to spare at the moment, and I'd hate to disappoint.

I advise Serafina that if she wishes to actually talk to me and continue this discussion, SDN is not a particularly effective platform for doing so, as I am far from the most avid reader of SDN in this thread. E-mail or post here if you want to talk to me.
Serafina wrote:Seriously?
You think that a girl is offended by that?
We find it often quite amusing when such things are used as an insult.
Has cause to be offended. Not everyone who has cause to be offended by a statement is offended by a statement. Some folk are hard to bother. Besides: You don't speak for all women, Wong doesn't speak for all Asians, Stephanie Meyer doesn't speak for all teen vampire fantasy novelists, and I - well, I don't even speak for everybody pretending to be a half-Vulcan Jedi on the internet.
And that justifies his behavior how?
It doesn't. In case you haven't noticed it, I've called him out on it, and he came close to being the second-ever poster to earn a temporary ban on SFJ. Three lefts may make a right, but two wrongs don't.
I would love to see you back that up with some statistics.
Easy enough.
And at most, that applies to "retard" and perhaps "moron". Idiot, stupid etc. do not apply.
Moron, imbecile, idiot, and retarded have all been commonly used - even by professionals - to refer to the mentally disabled in a very specific fashion. Start with the still-surviving phrase of "village idiot" and proceed to the work of H. H. Goddard. The broad use of such terms as insults is why there's been a push to move away from idiot, imbecile, and moron to refer to the mentally disabled.

Now, "stupid" is relatively free of baggage, and if you'd restricted yourself to that, perhaps Kor might not have taken as much offense at what simply amounted to a petty insult.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:32 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:Aha, I do not have to be familiar with the term gender - or its possible translation into German as Geschlechtidentität - but at the same time I am too stupid if I do not understand the term gender as opposed to sex and it is my job to know (not only the common) meaning of the term gender.
Serafina wrote:Quite, if you do not UNDERSTAND it, then you are stupid - or bigoted.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Why?
Why do I have to be stupid because I did not understand the term gender as opposed to sex before you pointed out that there is a difference?
I mean, you have not even explained the difference. You only said that I have to bee too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex. Only then I found out what the difference is, that there is a "second" meaning of gender and 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. Stupid means lacking intelligence or common sense.
Now, how can that be stupid?
Serafina wrote:So you tell me that you are even too lazy to find a proper definition? Even tough i linked it?
And if something is explaind to you and you do not understand it, you either do not want to or can not understand it.
The latter is indeed indication of lacking intelligence.
You should be more careful when reading what I wrote. And you should try to remember the course of that debate. That's not so difficult because it is written down. You only have to read it.

You linked to a Wikipedia article and thefreedictionary only      a f t e r      you claimed that I am too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex and      a f t e r      you stated that you think it is my job to know the meaning of gender and      a f t e r   you claimed that this term, translated into Geschlechtidentität, is even part of German legal language .

And you never explained the term gender at all.

Please give me a link to a post from you in which you gave me a link to a proper definition and explained anything at all, that was written      b e f o r e      the post in which you claimed that I am too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex



Serafina wrote:Either way, gender is all about identity.
Most small-minded people (like you) see only two gender categories and think they are defined by biological sex only.
That's of course quite simple-minded - given that it suits only normal, stereotypical heterosexual men and woman.
It should be obvious that this is far more complicated.
Why should something be obvious to everyone if that something is something most people have never encountered? Why is someone small-minded or simple-minded if he or she does not know that there are such things like more than two genders as opposed to the sexes male and female? Is that supposed to be common knowledge?
Or is that your own bigotry? You know something because it is relevant to your own special situation and suddenly all have to know it too or are small-minded or simple-minded or stupid?



Who is like God arbour wrote:Any yet it is no German law or legal document. It is not written by a German authority. Does that changes the fact that - as it seems - the German legislator has never used this term and that this term is not used in German legal language at all?

That declaration was written by Catherine Ashton, a Brit, and translated into German from the European Union. I would hardly call that evidence that there are German laws and legal documents with the term "Geschlechtidentität".

And claiming that it is a legal document, I expect you to provide an accepted definition of that term. I especially want to know, if a legal document has to have to contain a legally enforceable act, a process, or contractual duty, obligation, or right and if a non-binding declaration can really be considered a legal document.

I found only the definiton according to which a legal document is a document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right. The non-binding declarations does not do so and therefore can't be considered a legal document under that definition.

Not that even if you would be able to provide an accepted definition that shows that this non-binding declaration of good will is a legal declaration, it would change the fact that it does not come from Germany. And that was what was asked: To show a German law and a legal document where the the term "Geschlechtidentität" is used. Because only then you can claim that Geschlechtidentität is part of the German legal language. And only then you can expect that the one or other German lawyer who never had to do with transsexual matters knows that term job-related. Until now you have failed to do that.
Who is like God arbour wrote:It still refers to international treaties. Have you looked into them?
Any yet it is no German law or legal document. It is not written by a German authority. How is it supposed to be relevant for the questions, if the German legislator has ever used the term Geschlechtidentität and if this term is used in German legal language at all, that the translation of this non-binding declaration of good will of the European Council refers to international treaties uses this term?

And you have      n o t      shown that this non-binding declaration of good will of the European Council is a legal document at all.



Who is like God arbour wrote:Even the wikipedia link to which you have linked explains it:
        • In English, both 'sex' and 'gender' can be used in contexts where they could not be substituted — 'sexual intercourse', 'safe sex', 'sex worker', or on the other hand, 'grammatical gender'. [...] German [...] use the same word, [...] Geschlecht [...], to refer not only to biological sex, but social differences as well, making a distinction between biological 'sex' and 'gender' identity difficult. In some contexts, German has adopted the English loanword Gender to achieve this distinction. Sometimes Geschlechtsidentität is used for 'gender' (although it literally means 'gender identity') and Geschlecht for 'sex'. More common is the use of modifiers: biologisches Geschlecht for 'biological sex', Geschlechtsidentität for 'gender identity' and Geschlechtsrolle for 'gender role', and so on.
Althoug it is only Wikipedia, it describes the problem very well. But of course, the Geman language is quite stupid for not having a special term for gender in its "second" meaning.
Searfina wrote:Yeah, that's a fallacy which name escapes me right now.
Either way, "sex" as in "fucking someone" is a different word than "sex" as in "biological sex"
Gender is mostly about gender identity, unless used in a grammatical context. Hence, "Geschlecht" is more akin to "biological sex" and "Geschlechtsidentität" to "gender".
Yes, that's why all Germans are familiar with the meaning of Geschlechtidentität. In fact so familiar that it was not neccessary to include this term into the DUDEN or the Langenscheidt Wörterbücher or Das Deutsche Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm or probably any other German dictionary for general use.



Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Serafina wrote:Oh, really? How curious, a large number appears to know that.
Who is like God arbour wrote: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?
Serafina wrote: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.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Which accusation?
I have asked concret questions. I want to have an answer to these questions. I have not accused you of anything.

And what shall I admit? That I am not familiar with the term gender in its "second" meaning? Curios, I thought I have done it already.

What is it that you want?
Serafina wrote:Not even understanding your own words.
What do you expect? That there is a statistic telling us how many people understand that word?

Either way, the common definition notes the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex (sex being one category/indicator for gender).
Who is like God arbour wrote:Maybe I do not understand my own words. But you have failed to answer the questions and to show where I have accused you of anything. Now you questioned if I'm able to understand my own words. The prudent thing to do would be to explain how you understand what I have said.

If you claim that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that the term gender has a "second" meaning, you should try to convince me. It's your claim after all.

That does not mean that you have to provide elaborated statistics. I'm not as absurd as Wyrm.

But when even the Wikipedia article to which you have linked says that there is a common meaning and a meaning that is only used in social sciences, I expect you to substantiate your claim.

The American Heritage Dictionary e.g. makes it clear, that there is a distinction between sex and gender and gender as sex and gender as a social roll. But it clearly also states, that this distinction [...] is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.«

Insofar I do not doubt that there are definitions which are noting the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex.

But as your claim was that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that, I want to see, that John Doe does know that distinction and is observing it.

I mean, if the knowledge and understanding of that distinction were so common as you claim, why are there so many social and legal problems with transsexuals at all?

Why is the by the brain determined gender not enough in German law? Why says the Transsexuellengesetz that you can change your recognised gender/sex only if you have fulfilled a few requirements if alone the by the brain determined gender is important?

Why has a person with only a name change who is in hospital or prison no right to be accommodated according to the gender role they live in, but can be housed according to their legal gender - according to the Yogyakarta Principles (Principle 3 and 9)?

Why varies the degree of legal recognition provided to transsexualism widely throughout the world?
Serafina wrote:Given that gender is widely used in social science, i would expect that a person with knowledge about them knows its meaning.
That's enough proof, since we are effectively discussing an area of social science - hence i can expect the participants to be educated in them.
Now we have come from the common usage of the term gender and how John Doe would understand it to someone from which you can expect to be educated in social sciences, an area of science that with all its branches is even bigger than all natural sciences together.

Don't you notice how you are moving the goalposts all the time?

But the simple fact is that You want to be understood from everyone and not only the ones who have an education in social sciences, don't you?

But if you try to explain something to someone, you have to understand how that someone thinks. You can not simply expect that this someone knows already all there is to know.

Earlier I referred to an article in which was stated that there are 10.000 transsexuals in Germany. Although you claimed that I have falsified the statistic and that the number is outdated, you have not provided another number. But even if I increase that number tenfold, that are only 0,125 per cent of the German people. For most of the German people, transsexuality has no practical relevance. They are no transsexual nor is it probable that they ever will have to do something with a transsexual.
Why should they know anything about transsexuals and gender or Geschlechtidentität?
Why do you think that you are entitled to expect from them to know all that?



Who is like God arbour wrote:See, I knew you would not accept it. I mean there is no qualitative difference in its conclusiveness if it is scanned and parts of it blacked with a modification program or if a sheet of paper is covering what was blacked. Only that the first is easier to do. That's why I will not scan it again with sheets of paper stuck to it. It would change nothing anyway. Even if I could convince you to be a lawyer, you would still believe that you with your Mittlere Reife know it better than me. So what?
Serafina wrote:Everyone can find a scan of such a document on the web and then use paint to put his name on it.
That's why i asked for something where you could see that you possess the physical document.
I have scanned the physical document and changed it with Adobe Acrobat.

But what difference would it make if I print a document I have found in the web, put a sheet of paper over all information that could help to identify me if it were my document and scan it or take a picture of it.

If it is so easy to find such a document in the web, then it should be easy for you to find it. Find a document like that that I could have used to falsify it.



Who is like God arbour wrote: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.
Serafina wrote:Another instance where you are wrong. The mantle is not completely liquid, neither is it completely solid. Nice false dichotomy.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Excuse me. It seems as I have misunderstood you when you wrote that:
        • Serafina wrote:
          Who is like God arbour wrote:But you are still insisting that the whole mantle is liquid or that the plume of hot magma is liquid and that plasma can sink through it.
          Yes, i do.
          Do you have evidence to the contrary?
          Serafina wrote:
          Who is like God arbour wrote:The plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat. Nothing more.

          But you are ignoring that and insist on your idea that it is possible to inject plasma from a hotspot into the liquid mantle and that it would sink through the liquid plumes of hot magma against the current through the whole liquid mantle to the core.
          Again - why not?
          Serafina wrote:It is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle - it is NOT solid.
Maybe I should improve my English. Because I'm still not able to see, where I could misunderstand you. But that's what must have happened if you are saying that you have never said that.
Serafina wrote:I was obviously referring to the liquid parts of the mantle. Are you always that nitpicky?
Who is like God arbour wrote:The quotes you have not quoted are showing that you were obviously not. You argued that the mantle or at least mantle plumes are liquid from the core up to the crust and that it is possible to let plasma sink from empty magma chambers in the crust to the core through 3.000 km of liquid mantle rock in less than a few hours. That was your position, wasn't it?
Serafina wrote:Negative.
But since you never actually adressed the hot-spots, even if it WAS, my theory has still a sufficient mechanism.
I'll not continue this debate with you. Everyone can see what you have written. The only annotation I have to make is that it was not necessary to address the hotspots because these aren't going from the crust to the core. Not even you have claimed that. Even if the plasma is injected at a hotspot, it still has to sink through the whole mantle or a plume in the mantle. And that your opinion is that such a plume in the mantle is liquid from the crust to the core was made clear. Everyone can see that here.



Who is like God arbour wrote:Are you satisfied?
Serafina wrote:If this was not sarcasm - yes, that's a good step, being honest is always good.
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do not know, was it sarcasm?
But you are right - being honest is always good. I feel so relieved to be able to say what you want to hear. You can't believe it.
Serafina wrote:Wait, you do not know what sarcasm is? Sarkasmus?
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do know what sarcasm is. But as it seems that you have the sovereignty of interpretation about what I have said, I didn't want to infringe your competence.
Serafina wrote:You do not know what....sarcasm is?
You do not know what....sovereignty of interpretation is?



Who is like God arbour wrote: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.

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.

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.

Are you satisfied?

Or is there something else you want?
Serafina wrote:An apology would be nice, and preferably a change of mind about transsexuals.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Of course: I apologize for pretending to be a lawyer, to have made my Abitur, to have four years of academical studies and two years of residency as an education.
Serafina wrote:That's not what i am talking about, and you know it.
Who is like God arbour wrote:See, now you are even dictating what I do know. To me it seemed that you doubted that I'm a lawyer. You even demanded a scan of my certificate. And even now you doubt it. Then explain me: What were you talking about.
Serafina wrote:Everyone could have done that.
And the apology i was talking about is about being a bigot, and the resulting personal attacks. Of course, given your later conduct, i doubt you will actually ever do so.
What could have everyone done?

You still have to show that I am a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.

I do not think so. I am for equal rights for man and woman. I have no problems with women in the military or police or man working as midwife or kindergarten teacher. The only thing I demand is that all are treated the same. That means that at the recruiting test all have to fulfill the same standards and that there are no standards for men and standards for women.

I have nothing against homosexuals. I am for gay marriages and do not like that the german law only allows homosexuals a second class marriage. I think homosexuals shouldn't have it more difficult to adopt children [O] than heterosexuals. I think surrogate mothers should be allowed in Germany.

But because I think that the sex and not the gender of a person is foremost deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female, I'm a bigot.

Please explain that. Especially as you have presented nothing until now to convince me of anything. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.



Who is like God arbour wrote:And of course I will change my mind about transsexuals. After you have provided so much convincing arguments, I only have to push a button and my mind about the relevance of sex and the significance of primary and secondary genitals and genome for the determination of sex is changed.
Serafina wrote:Do you look at people genitalia before you adress them?
Eh, you propably couldn't tell that i am a transwoman if you saw me on the street, unless i am having a bad day.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Obviously not. That's why a transvestite could be able to fool me.

If I met such a person ...
        • Image
... I would think that this person is a woman. But that does not mean that knowing that Georg Preuße is a man I would address him behind the stage as if he were a woman.

In almost the same manner I would not address Dorothy Lawrence ...
              • Image
... as if she were male knowing that she was female.

Insofar the appearance can fool me. But as soon as I know the sex, I tread a person accordingly unless I'm pretending something e.g. to play along with an act or to keep someone's true sex a secret to protect that someone.
Serafina wrote:We are talking about transsexuality, don't try any red herrings.
You have talked about appearance. How is my reference to transvestites in my reply a red herring?



Serafina wrote:Then you are a bigot who has no respect for a persons deepest wishes, even if expressed openly.
You already stated that a transwoman is already a man, even after she has undergone genital surgery. So fuck off.
You failed to explain why the deepest wish is relevant. Many people have deepest wishes. That does not mean that they are fulfilled while facts are ignored.

Your sex is male.
Your gender is female.
You wish to be treated as if you were female.
I have no problem if you live as if you were a female. I have no problem with you having a female name, wearing female clothes, marrying a male (or female if you are a homosexual transwoman), adopting children or using a surrogate mother.
But why should I ignore the fact that your sex is male only because it is your wish?



Who is like God arbour wrote:Yes, I could tread you as if you were a woman. But as long as you do not really convince me, as long as I do not see you as a woman, it would be only an act.
Serafina wrote:That's the point, now is it bigot?
Why should i have to convince bigots like you to their personal satisfaction? Give me ONE good reason.
Until now you have explained nothing.
I have no reason to doubt that you are a transwoman. But I still do not see why I should ignore the fact that your sex is male.
You want to be addressed as if you were a woman. Explain it.
If you don't do it, don't be surprised if your wish is not fulfilled.



Who is like God arbour wrote:And until now you have done nothing to explain your situation to me or to explain why I should tread you like a woman. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.
Serafina wrote:Well - let's pretend legalism is actually a valid moral view for a moment.
It is not only a legal question. It is a practical question. As I have said:

Your sex is male.
Your gender is female.
You wish to be treated as if you were female.
I have no problem if you live as if you were a female. I have no problem with you having a female name, wearing female clothes, marrying a male (or female if you are a homosexual transwoman), adopting children or using a surrogate mother.
But why should I ignore the fact that your sex is male only because it is your wish?



Serafina wrote:Then you have to accept that the german law uses gender instead of sex as the ultimate measurement. That's why i am allowed to change my legal papers.
Yes, than I am more or less forced by the law to act accordingly. But the law does not give truth. The answer why your gender is supposed to be more important than your sex is still not answered.



Serafina wrote:Of course, legalism is NOT a valid morality.
Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on it's actual morality. Mostly, laws advocate things that are moral - but they do not make these things moral. Even in the absence of laws, there is still morality.
That is absolutely correct. Sometimes laws advocate things that are not moral. And sometimes they are allowing the declaration of something that is not true.

I do not need a court decision that says that your gender is female. I believe you that. If it were me, you do not even have to undergo any surgery or fulfil any other requirements to get a court decision that says that your gender is female. You wouldn't even need a court decision at all.

But the question still is, what is with your sex? Why should I ignore the fact that - although your gender is female - your sex is male?



Serafina wrote:You use the law as a cheap excuse for your bigotry. And YES, you are a bigot - you violate a persons wishes based on not being convinced to your personal satisfaction.
Seeing as you have not explained anything until now, I had no opportunity to change my opinion. No one of my question was answered.



Serafina wrote:To a tolerant person, it's quite simple:
Someone want's to be seen as a man/woman, and thus is addressed and treated accordingly.
I have another opinion. I let you live as you want. I will never attack you for being a transwoman and have not the wish to do that. I have not done it in the whole thread. I have never claimed that you are perverse or disgusting or anything similar. I will tread you as I tread every other person. But I do not let you dictate to me what I have to think. You can try to convince me. But you haven't even attempted that yet. You have only cried that you feel insulted because I have addressed you as if you were a male because your sex is male.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:17 pm

Serafina wrote:I'll ignore most of AVOCADOS squeaming and will go straight to the point:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Your sex is male.
Your gender is female.
You wish to be treated as if you were female.
I have no problem if you live as if you were a female. I have no problem with you having a female name, wearing female clothes, marrying a male (or female if you are a homosexual transwoman), adopting children or using a surrogate mother.
But why should I ignore the fact that your sex is male only because it is your wish?
Why not? Why is it a problem for you?
The only "rational" explanation is that you are a bigot who does not WANT to treat me as female.


Who is like God arbour wrote:I have another opinion. I let you live as you want. I will never attack you for being a transwoman and have not the wish to do that. I have not done it in the whole thread. I have never claimed that you are perverse or disgusting or anything similar. I will tread you as I tread every other person. But I do not let you dictate to me what I have to think. You can try to convince me. But you haven't even attempted that yet. You have only cried that you feel insulted because I have addressed you as if you were a male because your sex is male.
Sound nice - except that you think that tolerance is somehow "forcing you" to think in a specific way.
Except that you evidently do not WANT to see me as female, as there is absolutely no reason to do so - because anything physically male is totally irrelevant right now (since there is no physical interaction), and most of it is not an issue in RL either. Even if it was, a tolerant person can look beyond that.

So, Avocado - what's the reason you do not want to see me as female?
You talk like you are relatively tolerant, but you still do not want to do so - so what's the reason?
Answer that, and i can answer the resulting questions.
I think the question was already answered:
        • Who is like God arbour wrote:Yes, I could tread you as if you were a woman. But as long as you do not really convince me, as long as I do not see you as a woman, it would be only an act.

          And until now you have done nothing to explain your situation to me or to explain why I should tread you like a woman. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.
I do not want to pretend to think something I do not really think. I want to understand it. I have given already a few examples. If I ignore the sex and consider only the gender, in what a ward in prison should I put a transsexual? If I decide that I should treat someone as you you like a woman, I have to ignore the (justified) objections of women who don't want to have someone who still has male genitals in their ward. I would have to let you in a changing room for women, where mothers with their small girls are changing, I would have to ignore that they do not want to have a person with male genitals in their changing room. Regardless how tolerant I am, I can understand such a concern. But if I consider in my thinking only the sex, there are no problems at all. That's one practical problem with a very simple solution.

And you may object that these examples are not relevant for the question how I should address you. But to me it is relevant because it is a question of thinking. I can not think only in certain circumstances of you as a woman and in other circumstances as a man. That's not how my mind works and I doubt that anyone's mind works that way. The only thing I could do - as long as I do not really think of you as a woman - is to pretend to think of you as a woman in certain circumstances. But that is not real.

And than you said it yourself:
        • Serafina wrote:Either way, gender is all about identity.
          Most small-minded people (like you) see only two gender categories and think they are defined by biological sex only.
          That's of course quite simple-minded - given that it suits only normal, stereotypical heterosexual men and woman.
          It should be obvious that this is far more complicated.
Ignoring the insults, you are saying that there are more than two genders. But we have only two sexes. Our grammar does only know three if you count neuter as a sex. It is at least a grammatical gender. What do I do with the next who is saying to be neither female nor male? If I ignore the sex and consider only the social gender, how could I address such a person? Mister and Miss wouldn't be possible. In what a ward in prison should I put such a person? In what a changing room should I let this person go?

See, my thinking, that is of course influenced by the language I have learned, does not allow such things. There would be paradoxes and contradictions.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:54 pm

Ok, maybe a linguist or a psychologist would be better qualified to explain this.

They probably would be better qualified to understand it in the first place.

But there is something called linguistic relativity. This is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.

This theory goes so far to say that that language determines thought that linguistic categories limits and determines cognitive categories.

This is what I tried to explain.

How I think about sex or gender is determined by my language.

My language does only know masculine, feminine and the neuter grammar gender.

Not always is the grammar gender determined by the biological and social notion of natural gender.

In the German language e.g. a man is masculine (der Mann) and a woman is feminine (die Frau), but while a boy is masculine (der Junge), a girl is neuter (das Mädchen).

But then there are the cases in which the grammar gender of an individual has to be determined.

And here is the simple question if it is determined by the biological gender or sex of that individual or by the social gender.

You say it should not be determined by the biological gender or sex but by the social gender.

But this does not work.

The social genders can't be assigned to our three grammar genders, especially if there are more than three social genders.

No member of a social gender can really know how members of another social gender are feeling.

To put it simply: No man really knows how a woman feels and no woman really knows how a man feels.

But it goes even further: No man really knows how another man feels and no woman really knows what another woman feels.

Sure, there is such thing like empathy.

But nobody really knows if what one feels when emphasizing with someone is the same the other is feeling.

And empathy is cross-gender.

A man can emphasize with a woman and a woman can emphasize with a man.

But that does not mean that the man really knows what the woman is feeling and the woman really knows what the man is feeling.

And in the end it is the same when a man thinks to know how another man feels or a woman thinks to know how another woman feels.

There are men who acting more like a stereotypical man and men who are acting like a stereotypical woman as there are woman who are acting more like a stereotypical woman and women who are acting more like a stereotypical man.

And not each man that acts more like a stereotypical woman wants to be a woman and not each woman who acts more like a stereotypical man wants to be a man.

If we now are saying that the feelings (to put it simple) are deciding for the gender, how can we be sure that men are men and women women or that there is such thing like a universal male social gender and a universal female social gender?

We assuming it only because that's the way we are thinking due to our language.

How can you be sure that your social gender is a universal woman social gender and not a third social gender?

Are you sure that you do not only think that your social gender is that of a woman because your thinking prevents you to think (naturally) of a third gender?

The German grammar is not able to adapt to such things. It knows only the three grammar genders masculine, feminine and the neuter.

The German language has developed that way because there are only two sexes: male and female.

And that's why in cases in which the grammar gender of an individual has to be determined, only the sex and not the social gender is deciding.

It was always that way and is ingrained in our language.

And as the German language has affected the thinking of all Germans, every common German thinks so.

Some of these who know your sex may address you nevertheless as if you were a woman.

But I do not believe that they think of you as a woman.

That should be impossible and has nothing to do with bigotry.

They are merely pretending to think of you as a woman.

Ask yourself: Do you really believe that your parents are thinking of you as a woman?

Yes, they understand on a cognitive level that you are a transsexual and that your social gender is female.

They may respect your wish and address you as if you were a woman.

That may have become even a habit.

But do they really think of you as a woman?

Does your mother, who has bathed you when you were a baby, remember how she has bathed her little girl or does she remember how she has bathed her little boy?

        • (And please to not rip apart what I have written into hundred different quotes but answer in a coherent way. That's how a debate is done anyway.

          And to be honest, I do no regard this any more as a debate where I want to win or to convince you of anything.

          I merely try to explain you how I think and feel and are hoping that you write something that allows me to understand you better.

          Your insults, accusations and staccato sentences are not conducive.)

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:08 pm

Another point is that you seem to be fixated on the idea that the usage of a grammar gender says something about the recognition of your social gender and that someone who uses a masculine grammar wants to insult you.

But that is not true - at least not always.

It is, as I have tried to show: it is the way how we are thinking and it is only language.

For example, when I say that I go to the doctor (Ich gehe zum Arzt), does this not mean that my doctor is male.

When I say that I go to the coiffeur (Ich gehe zum Friseur) does this not mean that my coiffeur is male.

It is the way I'm speaking and even if my doctor were a woman or my coiffeur were a woman, I wouldn't change my way of speaking although I could say I'm going to my she-doctor (Ich gehe zu meiner Ärztin) or I'm going to my she-coiffeur (Ich gehe zu meiner Friseurin).

As in these examples the usage of a certain grammar says nothing about the sex nor the social gender of my doctor or my coiffeur, does the usage of the masculine grammar when addressing you says something about your social gender.

It is not supposed to be insulting.

It is only that the grammar gender is chosen considering your sex and not your social gender.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by The Dude » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:06 am

Anyone remember when this thread was about SW VS ST?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:49 am

I think this a good point to point out to WILGA and Kor that they've been suckered into a silly sematics and trivialities battle with this Serafina person. Go back to discussing the original points or just put a stop to this thread all together.
-Mike

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:35 am

The Dude wrote:Anyone remember when this thread was about SW VS ST?
A fair point of concern, and one that has been brought to my attention more than once now. Split to produce clarity. I have the feeling it might also be appropriate to re-merge this split content mostly back with the original thread, except for a few posts that could go in this one. Sorry for all the shuffling. Thoughts on the matter, folks?

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by The Dude » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:12 am

Thoughts?

This was by far the most pathetic thread ever on this board (and I'm including all that US war crimes crap from a few years back). As far as I'm concerned both WILGA and Kor violated not only the rules but the spirit of them as well. Though at least Kor apologized for it. WILGA just attempted to weasel around things with semantics.

I figure he deserves a temp ban at the least. I also feel compelled to point out that if this debate had not taken place across two forums that the participants would likely have been warned far earlier. Previously you've been pretty quick to warn off folks for even moderate insults such as "idiot."

Post Reply