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
Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:06 am

What would a regulation that applied to belief be, if enforced? We're talking about 1984-style thought police now.

I'm not entirely joking here. We can regulate harassment in the workplace and regulate discrimination.

We can say that you aren't permitted to treat your female co-workers and employees like sex objects. We can't say you aren't permitted to believe that women are anything but sex objects, or "accept" that. We can say you aren't permitted to refuse service to black people, but we can't force you to think that black people are just as human as white people, or even to go make friends with black people.
Quite, you can not force someone to change his thoughts.
But that's not what anyone is arguing for.

You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but you don't have the freedom to act on every belief you want.
People are free to believe that blacks are inferior, jews out to be exterminated and gays sterilized.
But they are NOT free to act on these believes, and openly declaring them is also forbidden and declared hate speech.
And for a good reason as well: Such speech IS dangerous and harmful.

Either way, your forum, your rules.
If by "being an asshole" you mean "disagreeing with a real or imagined social consensus," he's allowed to do that. He's required to be polite while doing so, but he could be trying to convince us that there is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world with a hundred-armed Vishnu-like government for all that the rules are concerned.

You get the point? As long as he neither crosses the line into what is likely to be legally construed as hate speech, and maintains the forms of basic courtesy, he can express dislike, distaste, and disagreement.
But he is not polite.
You yourself demanded that i am addressed according to my gender. WILGA has stopped doing so, without any consequences. That doesn't draw a good picture.
Besides, the rest is not polite either. He is attacking my identity based on his bias, advocates harm to transsexual people, calls for their segregation and spits on transsexual rights.
That's hardly what i would call polite.

Just imagine what you would do if he would do that to gay people - if he demanded that a new social class is created for them, if he denied them the right to act on their identity, if he would call for treating them different according to his bias.
This situations is EXACTLY the same - we are talking about identity here as well.

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

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by The Dude » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:16 am

Edit: Fuck it, this is pointless.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:53 am

And you just go on and one with those claims, eh?

Well, let's see. For what reason do you refuse to debate?
-You claim that you do not have time. Which implies that you have done zero research
-You are dismissing my arguments out of hand, claim that i have made none - and that i would therefore not make any? Well, at least it looks like it.
-And of course, you claim that i do not deserve any respect.

You made claims. You are expected to defend claims you made, absence of evidence for another position doesn't make you right (and i presented evidence anyway)
Therefore, you have reason to either engage in a discussion or retract your claims.
Everything else is dishonest.

Well - other than the first item, why do you not debate?
Because you do not want others to see that there is no logical, moral ground for your position, that it is merely based on biased prejudice.
See - you have not convinced me that you are not a bigot either.
The question simply is, what a woman is at all, if a transwoman is a woman and should be treated as a woman or if a transwoman is a man with a female gender and should be treated as a man (with a female gender).
Yes it is.
I presented evidence for this. You did no such thing, instead relying on poor semantics.
Medicinal studies who are proving that transwoman have a brain with a few female characteristics do not help here.
Why is that? Because you say so?
Since the question (for you, since you need to have reasons to treat people like they want to be treated) is whether a transwoman is a woman, that is a VERY important piece of evidence. In fact, it is all the evidence one needs (there is more though).
But go ahead - present an actual reason why medical evidence should not be applicable here.

Again - you have lost the debate before you started it, because you are either unwilling or incapable of actually thinking about the subject. The only reason you do not want to debate is because you want to hide that fact.

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

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:16 pm

Serafina wrote:Quite, you can not force someone to change his thoughts.
But that's not what anyone is arguing for.

You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but you don't have the freedom to act on every belief you want.
People are free to believe that blacks are inferior, jews out to be exterminated and gays sterilized.
But they are NOT free to act on these believes, and openly declaring them is also forbidden and declared hate speech.
As far as I am concerned, being that our servers are hosted by a US company, and being that I have a strong inclination towards allowing free speech, I for the moment am using a generous version of the US test for what constitutes hate speech; that which incites violence or prejudicial action is what I'm watching for.

I don't see that in anything Who is like God arbour has posted, simply a strong desire to be completely and totally correct.
But he is not polite.
You yourself demanded that i am addressed according to my gender.
Or via gender-neutral pronouns. A reasonable compromise that should be acceptable even to a man who believes himself absolutely correct in his judgement of the situation and wishes to remain completely truthful in everything he says.

Twice, in fact. Now, review, for the sake of understanding, the actual enforcement policy. I anticipated several years ago that there would be complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules, and therefore decided that I would employ a very straightforward method of enforcing the rules.

Offenders are, under ordinary circumstances (which these are), permitted three warnings for rules violations before any temporary ban, with the space of one week of good behavior while active earning back one warning. Bans of human posters are extraordinarily rare here, even temporary bans, since a third warning is generally quite direct in tone.

As prior to this post, he was sitting on two informal warnings relating to referring to you using male pronouns, which I have dubbed provocative in my warnings to Kor on the matter and impolite in my warnings to him.

The first such warning was issued on 25 Jun 2010, with a subsequent informal caution on 05 Jul 2010 after he resumed using the pronoun. An intermediate unrelated offence occurred on 02 Jul 2010, which is relevant to this case regarding the enforcement policy.
WILGA has stopped doing so, without any consequence. That doesn't draw a good picture.
After reviewing the recent posting history (counter to popular imagination, I don't read every bit of text that passes through my server), I assume you are talking about his most recent post:
Who is like God arbour wrote:That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.

Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.

And what is Serafina saying: That I want a treatment of transwoman like typical groups of people who are or were discriminated.

Black people - Apartheid, Racism, Slavery
Jews - Antisemitism, Racism, Religious persecution, Shoa, genocide
Women - Sexism
Gays - Heterosexism and homophobia


Although I argued that the language may adopt to accommodate third genders (and/or transsexuals), that accordingly terms and grammar genders may develop in the language with time, I never argued that transsexuals should be dicrimminated in any way.

Even if a third social class is created for transgenders, does this not mean that they have to be discriminated. I mean, I do not discriminate black people, Jews, women or gays either.

All I argued is that a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. They can wish what they want, that will not change these facts.

And only if a transwoman is determined to be not a man (with female gender) and if he is obviously not a woman, he has to be something else. That is the conclusion to which Serafina forces me.
Here we see the awkward pronoun cropping up. It is not referring, as a pronoun, to Serafina, but to some generic transwoman. He then continues to discuss the case of the generic transwoman, using the masculine pronoun:
I prefer to treat him as a man with female gender as I treat e.g. a homosexual man as a man with a homosexual orientation or a male transvestite as a man with an affinity for cross-dressing.

In 99 per cent of all circumstances such trivialities as gender, sexual preferences and affinities are totally irrelevant in my handling of people.

I have no problem if a man wears woman-clothes and acts as a woman. It is his choice (or maybe in the case of transsexuals it is not). That does not mean that I look down on him or think of him less.

But that does not make him a woman. And a bug in the brain, the existence of a few female characteristics in the brain, does not make him a woman either. Even if the whole brain would be a typical female brain does this not make him a woman. He stays a man, albeit a man with a female brain.
So is this precisely the same thing for which I have warned him? Not precisely, as I'm sure he would be quick to comment were he here, with additions to the difficulty of discussing the appropriateness of pronouns without actually seeing fit to use them on nameless third parties.

At the same time, this would have been a wonderful time to start practising with those gender-neutral pronouns I keep pointing to as a compromise option.

I could easily say that he is not actually addressing you personally with the pronoun and that he's only sitting on two recent warnings (02 and 05); I could equally well say that he's had three warnings already, two on this topic, and start the temporary bans, that his behavior was not good enough during the intervening week between 5/25 and 6/02.

I will of course be politic and take the middle line within the range of discretion I've chosen to give myself, and say that W.I.L.G.A. is currently sitting at three warnings. It is very apparent on reviewing his posts that subsequent to my warning on 6/05 he has gone to remarkable lengths to avoid talking about you in the third person.
Besides, the rest is not polite either. He is attacking my identity based on his bias, advocates harm to transsexual people, calls for their segregation and spits on transsexual rights.
That's hardly what i would call polite.
Here, I believe you are overstating the case of your complaint. To hear you put it, he's advocating rounding up transsexuals, putting them in special camps, and beating them over the head with lead pipes.

This is hardly the case. You may debate with him or not at your leisure, but I'm not going to gag discussion of what is gender and what is sex.
Just imagine what you would do if he would do that to gay people - if he demanded that a new social class is created for them, if he denied them the right to act on their identity, if he would call for treating them different according to his bias.
This situations is EXACTLY the same - we are talking about identity here as well.
We are talking precisely of the question of identity. And if you wish, feel free to open debate whether the attraction a woman feels for a man is in essence the same sexuality as the attraction a man feels for another man. It is a gripping story with many seemingly relevant scientific studies that could be thrown around, and passionate discussion of souls and brain chemistry.

Now, if you would like to discuss my choice of rules or enforcement, I will be delighted to do so directly at length, but perhaps we could direct that discussion to the appropriate forum section.

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

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:16 pm

Serafina wrote: How does the third point follow AT ALL?
If the "defect" has occurred, you have to life with it. Since gender identity can not be changed, the body has to be.
Besides, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice", sexual orientation is hardwired just like gender identity.
Exactly.

If the "defect" is shown to be in all or most homosexuals then transgenders could be mearly a sub group of that community that prefer a female existance instead of a male one.
What's wrong with the first two points?

Are you assuming that i would be opposed to such a treatment?
Nothing.

No.

However is it a lack of testosterone at a certain point in brain development that makes a womans brain or are there other things that contribute?.


No, it would be quite simple:
If the brain of a transwomanl would work like that of a man, there would be a good choice that after the operation, phantom limb syndrome for the penis would occur (it would appear like it is there even if it isn't), likewise for the breasts (which are surgically removed) or transmen. Both occurs with non-transsexuals and similar operations (due to accidents, breast cancer etc.)
Since this is not the case, one can draw the conclusion that the brain is wired differently.
I do not think phantom limb works that way, in fact all the material i have seen shows that it is about sensory input and that the brain recognises and reorganize if sensory input is cut off. Sensory input is not gender specific in regards to brain type so a womans brain in a male body would still register and reorganise if any loss happened.


Actually, the study itself was not wrong, at best the conclusions.
The conclusions are all that matter and they were terribly flawed because they assumed the hormone treatment of the test subjects would not cause the effects they chalked up for being transgendered.

If you do not have a proper control group, that does not mean that your data from the test group is wrong - it merely means that you can draw wrong conclusions.
And they did, they needed a transgender control group that had not had any hormone treatment.

Yes, but as you said - not showing something doesn't mean it's not there.
Or that it is.

A good test group should really include known members of the hetrosexual and gay community AND transexuals who have not taken ANY hormone treatment.
Well, incidentally, the fingerprint-test i edited into my last post includes a large group including all of those and supports my conclusion.
But since a female brain is the baseline development (it occurs due to lack of stimuli that says otherwise), it might well be that the brain of a transwoman did not develop as much as it was supposed to be due to the lowered receptor activity. Hence, it is different from a normal male brain and more female than it.
Assuming that the default is a female brain the lower levels of testosterone would imply less male and as such more female at least in regards to that one hormone.

You are ignoring my point.
Transsexual children report certain kind of feelings, and they hardly have reason to lie (since there are no medical procedures necessary before puberty anyway).
And we have the exact same kind of feelings in adult transsexuals - and they have been reported and documented decades before children were studied in such regards, so you can't claim that adult transsexuals are copying them.
That's a distinctive pattern. And since the feeling is based on the same thing (not living as ones gender), a great similarity is to be expected (as an example, grief undergoes pretty much the same stages for every healthy human being as well).
I will look into that but i have to say that a lot of sexologists seem to disagree, howevr i am on the fence rwegarding this so il give it a good reading over.

Now, how does that support my conclusion then?
Well, quite simple - since we have strong evidence that sexual orientation is developed prior to birth, and there are more homosexual transsexuals (either way round - if you say that a transwoman is still male and an attaction to females is therefore normal, those that are attracted to men would be homosexual) - then something must happen to transsexuals prior to birth.
I grant that this is not really obvious, i should have been more precise. Sorry for that.

Now it is getting complicated.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:31 pm

If the "defect" is shown to be in all or most homosexuals then transgenders could be mearly a sub group of that community that prefer a female existance instead of a male one.
The cause might be similar, yes.
But i do not think it would be accurate to say that transsexuality and homosexuality are the same, given that they express in extremely different ways.
However is it a lack of testosterone at a certain point in brain development that makes a womans brain or are there other things that contribute?.
Well - the effect is caused by testosterone. The amount of testosterone plays a role, and of course the amount of testosterone the brain actually processes.
Other hormones might play a role and possibly other factors at well, that is still a field of intense research.
A womans brain is the default - it is not caused by anything.
I do not think phantom limb works that way, in fact all the material i have seen shows that it is about sensory input and that the brain recognises and reorganize if sensory input is cut off. Sensory input is not gender specific in regards to brain type so a womans brain in a male body would still register and reorganise if any loss happened.
It does work that way.
Men who lost their genitalia and women who lost their breasts have phantom limb syndrome.
Transsexuals do not, or at least that what the study suggests. And that would indicate that the brain processes these things differently in transsexuals.
The conclusions are all that matter and they were terribly flawed because they assumed the hormone treatment of the test subjects would not cause the effects they chalked up for being transgendered.
Please, don't accuse them of deliberate fraud.
Getting control groups is always difficult when researching humans, especially with such severe effects. It is far more likely that they simply had no access to or resources for a proper control group.
And conclusions are not all that matters, the data is still useful. You could, say, report the traffic on a street and draw wrong conclusions, but that does not mean that the data is useless.
Yes, but as you said - not showing something doesn't mean it's not there.
Or that it is.
Of course, i did not say that it does.
Assuming that the default is a female brain the lower levels of testosterone would imply less male and as such more female at least in regards to that one hormone.
Quite.
And since we do not yet know how exactly gender identity works, it might well be that that "less male/more female/not completely female yet"-state already has a gender identity.
I will look into that but i have to say that a lot of sexologists seem to disagree, however i am on the fence regarding this so i will give it a good reading over.
Well, one general rule:
If researchers disagree, the layperson will have a hard time to decide who is right.
However, you can NOT disagree with data. And there is data that pretty clearly shows that there are transsexual children.
Now, how does that support my conclusion then?
Well, quite simple - since we have strong evidence that sexual orientation is developed prior to birth, and there are more homosexual transsexuals (either way round - if you say that a transwoman is still male and an attaction to females is therefore normal, those that are attracted to men would be homosexual) - then something must happen to transsexuals prior to birth.
I grant that this is not really obvious, i should have been more precise. Sorry for that.
Now it is getting complicated.
Quite.

But in order to answer the actual question (how transsexuals should be treated), it does not have to be that complicated. Indeed, it is a much simpler issue: morality.

Transsexuals have a very strong desire to live according to their gender.
If they can not do that, they are very likely to suffer from severe problems such as depression and various social disorders. This can even lead up to suicide - untreated transsexuals have a suicide rate that is about 20 times higher than that of the general population.
These problems usually vanish (tough hardly immediately) when they are allowed to live according to their gender.

It is thus a moral imperative as well as a benefit to society to allow and help transsexuals to live according to their gender.

This is also why the medical community started to allow transitioning in the first place:
Transsexuality is NOT treatable/solvable by therapy. You can't rewrite ones gender identity.
So the only way to solve the problem is to adapt the body, since it can not be done with the mind.


Studies: about the suicide rate:
1:
"Most studies reported a pre- transition suicide attempt rate of 20% or more, with MFs relatively more suicide-prone than FMs." - Dixen J, Maddever H, van Maasdam J, Edwards P (1984) Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignment. Arch Sex Behav 13: 269-276.
2:
"The number of deaths in male-to-female transsexuals was five times the number expected, due to increased numbers of suicide and death of unknown cause." - "Mortality and Morbidity in Transsexual Patients with Cross-Gender Hormone Treatment" -H. Asscheman, L.J.G. Gooren, and P.L.E. Eklund
I don't have access to the actual studies, i took the quotes from another site.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:02 pm

Serafina wrote:
That, I don't know. Could be. You'd have to ask 'em.
As i already said in the thread on SD.Net, therapy is mandatory for transsexuals. One of the primary purposes of that therapy is to make sure that one is actually transsexual instead of a repressed homosexual or some form of self-hate.
Hence - no, not really. Transsexuals quite often hate their body, but only because their body is completely wrong for them.
It's a symptom, not a cause.
I never said that hate of their body, or at least a specific part of the body, was the cause.
At first hand, because it brings to the table something interesting.
You can hate certain parts of your body, but do not hate... your brain? (hey, careful, I won't accept any pun on that)
If the brain is the reason why you can't cope with the integral rest of your body, wouldn't your brain be the main focus of your bitterness, regardless of your capacity to alter it or not?
By the way, transsexuality and homosexuality are two different things.
Homosexuality is simply about who you are attracted to.
Transsexuality is simply about who you ARE.
Unless you believe homosexual display their behaviour because of a psychological logic, their choice, then no, it's the same stuff, because then they do it because of what their body (brain, chemicals, etc.) dictate.
Most people never ask that question - and indeed, the only reason transsexuals may think that their gender is identical with their sex (which it isn't) is because society forces them to. That can be everything from silent indoctrination to outright forcing it. But like everyone else, you do not decide on your gender identity if you are a transsexual - you merely discover it. Most people do not have to do that, since it is clear anyway.
There are, of course, homosexual transsexuals (i am a lesbian for example) - and again, checking whether one is merely
a repressed homosexual instead of transsexual is one of the primary purposes of therapy.
Aside from the mildly amusing idea of a lesbian transwoman (two wrongs don't make a right), I understand your position on this.
We often hear about men going women more than the other way round, and generally, there's a phantasm about the sexual power of feminine curves that expresses itself. In general, trannies really seem to dress up in a way as to exhibit their rearranged plastic. They don't seem to aim for a true casual style of dressing. That's, at least, from the impression I get for everything I've seen and heard about them. There is not even a form of discretion. It has to show off, somehow.
"Trannie" is a derogatory term like e.g. "fag". Please don't use it.
OK well "transies" then, or perhaps "shifters"? I can't be bothered typing the whole word everytime.
So is "it" - transsexuals are people, not items.
I agree. The use of it for a human is extremely derogatory as far as I'm concerned.
You clearly have no actual contact with transsexuals. Of course, some are overcompensating - but you can't make a general statement based on a few people.
Indeed, nearly all transsexuals i know (which should be OOMs more than you do) want to achieve "stealth" - living as a woman (or man) without being recognized as transsexual.
OK. Still, there doesn't seem to be much of a sexual market for women to men people, but perhaps I'm missing something here as well?
By the way, transmen (female->male) and transwomen (male->female) are roughly equal in numbers. Transmen are simply much less visible - no one things anything about a "woman" wearing male clothing.
Same applies to the other "gender". A shemale can wear male clothes, and will pass for a woman wearing men clothes.
So if transmen stick out, it's because they dress in clothes exposing their secret and it shows, no more, no less.
That's why I considered that transwomen (but I should some now) do it to enjoy the seductive power of females.
Frankly I tried to explain this to myself, and after a couple of err... maybe... nah... here's what I'd say:
It seems that they desire to possess the objectified perfect feminine body of another woman so strongly, and are so... blinded, intoxicated by this teasing power or something which for some reason they don't manage to obtain because, perhaps, of their lack of manlyhood or something, that they may metaphorically "snap" and decide to express that desire, or more precisely taste that power women have, by becoming what they desire so much.
Simply not true.
This is a prejudice, but as i said - as long as one is willing to change ones mind, there is notning bad about that.
There is very strong evidence that transsexuality is simply a female brain in a male body and vice versa.
Well then what we're dealing with here is a technical problem. Individuals who have a drive for same-sex or suffer from a conflict between their brain and the rest of their body as the brain thinks in gender A and the body is suited to behave like gender B, and who belong to a species that reproduces sexually and relies on the heterosexual mutual attraction between the two different genders it comprises, are biological dead ends and therefore errors.
It doesn't mean they have to be ignored or considered as sub-humans, but they cannot be considered normal, from this perspective.
As errors and threats to the survival of the species, it is logical for the average unit of this life form to be repulsed by these errors.

Now, it doesn't mean we can't work out around this instinctive repulsion. We have brains, we can use them. This is where education at a large scale becomes relevant. It's a process that occurs over several generations, and the "bigotry" you hate won't disappear, but it may be silenced to some degree, toned down.

That said I'd like to point you to this:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/9598.htm

At some point, it says:
Transgender Population

There are no concrete statistics on the number of transgender people in the United States. Estimates on the number of transsexual people, which ignore the broader transgender population, range anywhere from 0.25 to 1 percent of the U.S. population. These estimates are dated and likely undercount the transsexual population because, for example, they do not account for people who have not yet undergone, cannot (for medical, financial, safety or other reasons) or choose not to undergo sex reassignment surgeries.
Now let's pause for a moment.
An outdated and narrower count method provides a figure that's between 0.25 and 1 % of the US population.
Broaden the count and update it, and you might well found a bracketed figure above and below 1%, making the average around 0.75% or 1%.
Now, 1% is a big number. Over several posts, you, Omin and Kor have posted studies, sometimes conflicting, but which all agree that what's responsible of transsexuality is not/i] normal.
Then, if the numbers were outdated, meaning that the percentage could change significantly as to warrant a mention of such a possible difference between old and fresh census, then it means there's an evolution.
The point is, you won't change society fast enough, no matter what, when a form of abnormality, perhaps as far as being congenital, evolves so fast and does shock instincts.

Not to say that 1% is a huge percent of the population. That's more than three millions in the US.

It's best exemplified in the feminist article here, which speaks of "growing fluidity of gender".
Frankly, there's nothing good about learning that there's a growth of gender fluidity. It's quite insane.

For example, most transsexuals already express their desire as young children at the age where gender identity in general is recognized (as soon as children see a difference between male and female). There are also recent scientific studies that show that a transwomans brain is very similar to that of a biological female.


It appears that there's conflict on that after all, in some cases.

Being transsexual is NOT about desiring women so much that you want to be one. It's simply about being a woman and wanting to live like one.


Yep. I had not ruled out a "hardware" reason behind it, but with no medical background on this I looked too much into the psychology of it, so it pretty much passed as an extrapolation, and a wrong one.

But yes, a transwoman has to do quite some work to achive an acceptable passing - in general, it's easiest to simply start hormone treatment when puberty hits, since that prevents most of the damage that would otherwise be done by testosterone.
But in general, a large number of transwomen can achieve passing (being seen as a woman) without hormone treatment or surgery.


You mean?

When it's not done properly, and thus when it sticks out, it is repulsive to me. It just looks as bad as women filling their face with botox.

Well, to be frank - that's your problem.


No, mostly because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population would be repulsed as well, and so comes the question of knowing if choosing the operation is better or not. Now I'm sure there are ace plastic surgeons around who will achieve good works, but there are the mediocre ones as well, and not every one is full of cash.

Feminism wasn't "shoved down the throats" of anybody.


I strongly disagree, if only for the fact that organizing marches, revolutions over so many countries across the worlds and still filling papers with feminist argumentation today did cost and costs a lot. You don't grow such a world wide revolution from the gathered outcome of a few disgruntled women. This is not unique to feminism though.

Sure, you have some extremists - but feminism is simply about the rights of women, and i don't see how anything could be wrong with that.


"Rights of women" is just as vague as it can get. There's so good and some bad in it. Let's move on though.

As for transsexuality - that's about the well-being of transsexuals. There is no harm done to society, but there IS great harm to transsexuals if society doesn't permit it.


Indeed.

No really, look at it. Everything on TV really drives you to hate yourself if you don't have the life of the beautiful stars. Every manipulated ad, be it on TV, on the radio, over the walls in the subway or on the pages of the paper junk millions upon millions of women read everyday, tell people to douse themselves in pools of Q10 mierda and whatnot, and use quintillions of chemicals to remain shiny, peppy and young forever.
And now it's even required from men, and there's that metrosexual culture that's really disconnected from reality and which promotes that BS.

And what's bad about that? How is that self-hate?


The silver lining is: your body naturally sucks; enhance it. Of course most people will never look like the very few plastic dolls on TV and that will always be source of anxiety and a form of self-hatred. You'll compensate in any possible way, from over compulsive buying to consumption of food and, of course, the use of all those chemicals over and over and over.
I'd suggest you travel outside of that country you live in and go to some "poor" places where people don't have the luxury of being able to pay for that junk and are not flooded in mass of advertising and that kind of social conditioning.

Give me a valid reason why this should be bad, other than your opinion.


Well you leave me dumbfounded. How can you not see how bad it is would probably be the real question. Of course, it's the same society that flashes those concepts about chemicals and plastic surgery into out eye globes at any occasion that also allowed "your people" to complete the transformation they seek. To know if both can be dissociated is another question.






Now I'll cite a bit from the article Kor pasted here.


"These discernible, measurable differences in behaviour have been imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to get to work. They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already know about -- the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the greater female skill in speech."


I'll deal with later on, but I put this bit here because it links well with the bullshit that comes later on.

Another previous study by the same group led by Dr. Godfrey Pearlson has shown that two areas in the frontal and temporal lobes related to language (the areas of Broca and Wernicke, named after their discoverers) were significantly larger in women, thus providing a biological reason for women's notorious superiority in language-associated thoughts. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the scientists measured gray matter volumes in several cortical regions in 17 women and 43 men. Women had 23% (in Broca's area, in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and 13% (in Wernicke's area, in the superior temporal cortex) more volume than men.


And since when volume was exclusively related to efficiency?
Science refuses to claim that women are dumber despite having smaller brains (and when some articles awkwardly do, the superior intelligence of men is described as a problem to intelligent women, and strong conclusions are drawn from the fact that women attend foreign language schools more than men, that despite pointing out, a few lines before, that men really do well in maths and physics, which would explain why, eventually even with equal language skills, they'd go for the math and physics courses).
Is it feminism that allows this kind of "conclusion" as seen in the paper to be made? In the same article, the case of Lawrence Summers reveals how feminism may even silence what some see as mere scientifically established proof - doesn't mean I agree or not, but I'm merely pointing this out, even if it's quite highly off topic from the original off topic.

According to the Society for Neuroscience, the largest professional organization in this area, evolution is what gives sense to it. "In ancient times, each sex had a very defined role that helped ensure the survival of the species. Cave men hunted. Cave women gathered food near the home and cared for the children. Brain areas may have been sharpened to enable each sex to carry out their jobs". Prof. David Geary, at the University of Missouri, USA, a researcher in the area of gender differences, thinks that "in evolutionary terms, developing superior navigation skills may have enabled men to become better suited to the role of hunter, while the development by females of a preference for landmarks may have enabled them to fulfill the task of gathering food closer to home." The advantage of women regarding verbal skills also make evolutionary sense. While men have the bodily strength to compete with other men, women use language to gain social advantage, such as by argumentation and persuasion, says Geary.


Welcome to pseudo science. It makes fuck all sense.
Since when gathering nuts, breastfeeding kiddos and cleaning a cave favoured greater language skills?
Let's get out of this caricature and point out something.
If we are to assume that women have a greater capacity in language skills, it's obviously from the premise that men and women live in a society wherein language matters.
Now tell me, how could language not matter just as much to men, who are depicted as conquerors in an era of literature?
Let's imagine that we move on from an era of men fighting with sticks in order to collect food, control territory, grow superiority from mutual support and against the enemy, to an era of military, politics and economics with different tools, where schools and diplomacy matters a hell of a lot.
Now tell me, why the need to prevail and become the alpha in economics, science, military, politics or even sports (which all involve managing your squads btw) wouldn't be as many good reasons in order to develop superior language skills?
Or perhaps Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, etc. were people ignorant of their status of men with a female brain?...
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:07 pm

Note that I have no issue calling you a "she".
I may even suggest using "ser" or "sera", as Serafina, everytime one hesitates between he and she. :)
Therefore no he, she or it.

And frankly, I wonder why you ever started posting if you didn't care much about the original topic (phaser drill in 19 seconds or so, etc.).

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:34 pm

The Dude wrote: I dunno man, I'd be pretty pissed if I was a transsexual and someone was basically arguing for the right to be a shithead to me. Now this is the net and all that but still.
Problem is, people are being shitheads all the time, as our Constitution and laws allow them to be (it's not illegal to insult someone).
I think you, as a person, have a serious problem when what idiots on the Net do or say has repercussions in your life.
People on the net have insulted me many times, and aside from a well-placed quip or barb, I've never given those people a second thought because, franckly, they don't mean anything in my life.
I usually ignore the insults when debating, except when I find it funny to reply in kind, but I'll never lose any sleep over someone calling me a retard.
Frankly I'm curious as to when JMSpock intends to discipline WILGA or if he intends to just let all this slide. Looks pretty bad when you say you want a forum where all are welcome and one of your members gets to be an asshole without repercussion.
What did he do exactly, except continuing to call Serafina "Him" instead of "Her"?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:45 pm

Your claim that i would merely post point-by-point sentences is baseless, as i clearly said that i would make the opening argument, which can not have such a structure.
It would have been a clear, cited, evidenced argument. Evidently, you are either unable to recognize that implication or afraid of it.
Well then make your #1 post regardless of what anyone thinks, and see if WILGA actually wants to accept the "challenge" and debate from this post.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:46 pm

Serafina wrote:As i said repeatedly:
Just replace "transsexual" with "black", "jewish", "female", "gay" or anything like that.
Then take some of the arguments that have been made here - that it is unreasonable to except acceptance from society, that people are right to use derogatory terms towards that group, that an extra social class should be created for that group etc.
And then you should see why a member of that group gets worked up.

By the way, as i said all the time:
Why you insult someone matters.
As an extreme example, some people use insults on each other in a friendly way.
Then we have the pretty common insults that just don't actually fit - say, someone in sports makes a terrible blunder and you call him a retard.
But we also have situations where someone is insulted just for being a member of one of the above mentioned groups. That's worse - because that's not just an insult, it's discrimination.

I insult people for behaving stupid - and i draw the line there. And i see no reason why anyone should have the right to cross that line.
This is where I have a problem with your line of thought.
It is perfectly acceptable, for you, to use a derogatory word such as "retard", but others should not, nay, have no right to use the word "trannie".
If it applies to one, it should apply to all, unless you're really a hypocrite.

I mean, being retarded was actually used to describe people who were "slower" mentally then the norm, people who had Down Syndrome, as JMS pointed out.
So why is it ok to call one a retard?
What's the point of calling someone a retard, if not to convey the feeling that you think the person has mental issues and that his brain is "slower" then the norm?
In this case, the word has negative connotations, just as, in your eyes, "trannie" does.
But what is the word "trannie", except a diminutive of the word "Transexual"?
Why is that negative, and not "retard"?
Do you not see how you are applying a double-standard in judging what you were called, what you felt were unacceptable insults while you were flinging insults that, once more, you were the sole judge of thinking them acceptable?
Calling someone a retard is also discrimination, by the way, so is in no way better then calling someone a "Fag", or a "Nigger".

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:49 pm

I never said that hate of their body, or at least a specific part of the body, was the cause.
At first hand, because it brings to the table something interesting.
You can hate certain parts of your body, but do not hate... your brain? (hey, careful, I won't accept any pun on that)
If the brain is the reason why you can't cope with the integral rest of your body, wouldn't your brain be the main focus of your bitterness, regardless of your capacity to alter it or not?
You don't get it, do you?
The brain defines gender identity. A transwoman is female, a transman male. They want to live that way.
Their body prevents that. That's why transsexuals typically develop an aversion towards the parts of the body that prevent that.

It's just like a paraplegic who might hate that aspect of his body because it impedes his life.
Unless you believe homosexual display their behaviour because of a psychological logic, their choice, then no, it's the same stuff, because then they do it because of what their body (brain, chemicals, etc.) dictate.
This is hilarious.
What do you think constitutes your personality? Your brain chemistry.
And what's "psychological logic" supposed to be anyway?
Aside from the mildly amusing idea of a lesbian transwoman (two wrongs don't make a right), I understand your position on this.
Oh, so i am wrong now? Great opinion right there /sarcasm.
OK well "transies" then, or perhaps "shifters"? I can't be bothered typing the whole word everytime.
Yeah, right...intellectual laziness is fun, isn't it?
You clearly have no actual contact with transsexuals. Of course, some are overcompensating - but you can't make a general statement based on a few people.
Indeed, nearly all transsexuals i know (which should be OOMs more than you do) want to achieve "stealth" - living as a woman (or man) without being recognized as transsexual.
OK. Still, there doesn't seem to be much of a sexual market for women to men people, but perhaps I'm missing something here as well?
Sexual market? What the fuck are you talking about?
Same applies to the other "gender". A shemale can wear male clothes, and will pass for a woman wearing men clothes.
So if transmen stick out, it's because they dress in clothes exposing their secret and it shows, no more, no less.
That's why I considered that transwomen (but I should some now) do it to enjoy the seductive power of females.
Aah, pure, unfiltered bias :barf:
Sorry, but that's beyond any further comment.
Well then what we're dealing with here is a technical problem. Individuals who have a drive for same-sex or suffer from a conflict between their brain and the rest of their body as the brain thinks in gender A and the body is suited to behave like gender B, and who belong to a species that reproduces sexually and relies on the heterosexual mutual attraction between the two different genders it comprises, are biological dead ends and therefore errors.
It doesn't mean they have to be ignored or considered as sub-humans, but they cannot be considered normal, from this perspective.
As errors and threats to the survival of the species, it is logical for the average unit of this life form to be repulsed by these errors.
Evolution is not morality. Unless you are into eugenics, that is.
Now, it doesn't mean we can't work out around this instinctive repulsion. We have brains, we can use them. This is where education at a large scale becomes relevant. It's a process that occurs over several generations, and the "bigotry" you hate won't disappear, but it may be silenced to some degree, toned down.

That said I'd like to point you to this:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/9598.htm

At some point, it says:
Transgender Population

There are no concrete statistics on the number of transgender people in the United States. Estimates on the number of transsexual people, which ignore the broader transgender population, range anywhere from 0.25 to 1 percent of the U.S. population. These estimates are dated and likely undercount the transsexual population because, for example, they do not account for people who have not yet undergone, cannot (for medical, financial, safety or other reasons) or choose not to undergo sex reassignment surgeries.
Now let's pause for a moment.
An outdated and narrower count method provides a figure that's between 0.25 and 1 % of the US population.
Broaden the count and update it, and you might well found a bracketed figure above and below 1%, making the average around 0.75% or 1%.
Now, 1% is a big number. Over several posts, you, Omin and Kor have posted studies, sometimes conflicting, but which all agree that what's responsible of transsexuality is not/i] normal.
Then, if the numbers were outdated, meaning that the percentage could change significantly as to warrant a mention of such a possible difference between old and fresh census, then it means there's an evolution.
The point is, you won't change society fast enough, no matter what, when a form of abnormality, perhaps as far as being congenital, evolves so fast and does shock instincts.

"Evolves so fast"? You have no idea how evolution works, do you?

Either way, most statistics on transsexuals are outdated. As an example, the statistics for Germany were taken BEFORE the law concerning transsexuality (opening important possibilities) was passed. The statistics for today are merely elaborated from that point. Obviously, living transsexual was much harder back then, therefore the numbers were most likely too small.
Just like the amount of homosexual people would have appeared to be much smaller 50 years ago, the apparent percentage of transsexuals differs - according to what society permits.

Not to say that 1% is a huge percent of the population. That's more than three millions in the US.

It's best exemplified in the feminist article here, which speaks of "growing fluidity of gender".
Frankly, there's nothing good about learning that there's a growth of gender fluidity. It's quite insane.

Ah, because being open-minded is so much worse than thinking in narrow categories. Gotcha.

For example, most transsexuals already express their desire as young children at the age where gender identity in general is recognized (as soon as children see a difference between male and female). There are also recent scientific studies that show that a transwomans brain is very similar to that of a biological female.
It appears that there's conflict on that after all, in some cases.

What conflict?
If you are appealing to conflict within the scientific community, you are no better than a creationist.

Being transsexual is NOT about desiring women so much that you want to be one. It's simply about being a woman and wanting to live like one.
Yep. I had not ruled out a "hardware" reason behind it, but with no medical background on this I looked too much into the psychology of it, so it pretty much passed as an extrapolation, and a wrong one.

Pro-Tip:
Psychology is very complicated. You are no more qualified to comment on it than on medicine or quantum mechanics.

Well, to be frank - that's your problem.
No, mostly because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population would be repulsed as well, and so comes the question of knowing if choosing the operation is better or not. Now I'm sure there are ace plastic surgeons around who will achieve good works, but there are the mediocre ones as well, and not every one is full of cash.

Guess what - there was a time where the majority of the population was repulsed by homosexuality as well. Or inter-racial marriage.
Besides, it's just morally evil to treat people badly because they do not look pretty to you.

Feminism wasn't "shoved down the throats" of anybody.
I strongly disagree, if only for the fact that organizing marches, revolutions over so many countries across the worlds and still filling papers with feminist argumentation today did cost and costs a lot. You don't grow such a world wide revolution from the gathered outcome of a few disgruntled women. This is not unique to feminism though.

Oh, i suppose the civil rights movement for black people was shoved down our throats as well then?

"Rights of women" is just as vague as it can get. There's so good and some bad in it. Let's move on though.

Tell me, what's the bad part then?

The silver lining is: your body naturally sucks; enhance it. Of course most people will never look like the very few plastic dolls on TV and that will always be source of anxiety and a form of self-hatred. You'll compensate in any possible way, from over compulsive buying to consumption of food and, of course, the use of all those chemicals over and over and over.
I'd suggest you travel outside of that country you live in and go to some "poor" places where people don't have the luxury of being able to pay for that junk and are not flooded in mass of advertising and that kind of social conditioning.

Aah, eeevil chemicals. Always fun.
Tell me, what's bad about trying to look good?
Most issues with ones look are derived from other social issues.

Well you leave me dumbfounded. How can you not see how bad it is would probably be the real question. Of course, it's the same society that flashes those concepts about chemicals and plastic surgery into out eye globes at any occasion that also allowed "your people" to complete the transformation they seek. To know if both can be dissociated is another question.

Again:
Give me a valid reason why this should be bad?



And since when volume was exclusively related to efficiency?
Science refuses to claim that women are dumber despite having smaller brains (and when some articles awkwardly do, the superior intelligence of men is described as a problem to intelligent women, and strong conclusions are drawn from the fact that women attend foreign language schools more than men, that despite pointing out, a few lines before, that men really do well in maths and physics, which would explain why, eventually even with equal language skills, they'd go for the math and physics courses).
Is it feminism that allows this kind of "conclusion" as seen in the paper to be made? In the same article, the case of Lawrence Summers reveals how feminism may even silence what some see as mere scientifically established proof - doesn't mean I agree or not, but I'm merely pointing this out, even if it's quite highly off topic from the original off topic.

Does it talk about efficiency?
But of course, the evil feminist conspiracy must distort the evidence :roll:

Welcome to pseudo science. It makes fuck all sense.
Since when gathering nuts, breastfeeding kiddos and cleaning a cave favoured greater language skills?
Let's get out of this caricature and point out something.
If we are to assume that women have a greater capacity in language skills, it's obviously from the premise that men and women live in a society wherein language matters.
Now tell me, how could language not matter just as much to men, who are depicted as conquerors in an era of literature?
Let's imagine that we move on from an era of men fighting with sticks in order to collect food, control territory, grow superiority from mutual support and against the enemy, to an era of military, politics and economics with different tools, where schools and diplomacy matters a hell of a lot.
Now tell me, why the need to prevail and become the alpha in economics, science, military, politics or even sports (which all involve managing your squads btw) wouldn't be as many good reasons in order to develop superior language skills?
Or perhaps Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, etc. were people ignorant of their status of men with a female brain?...

Ah, nitpicking. Always fun.
And again not understanding how evolution works. Two strikes in one post!

If you quite scientific articles, try to actually address them properly next time.

Note that I have no issue calling you a "she".
I may even suggest using "ser" or "sera", as Serafina, everytime one hesitates between he and she. :)
Therefore no he, she or it.

By that same token, can i call you "Ora"? /sarcasm

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Your claim that i would merely post point-by-point sentences is baseless, as i clearly said that i would make the opening argument, which can not have such a structure.
It would have been a clear, cited, evidenced argument. Evidently, you are either unable to recognize that implication or afraid of it.
Well then make your #1 post regardless of what anyone thinks, and see if WILGA actually wants to accept the "challenge" and debate from this post.
Why waste the effort if he flat-out refuses to agree to a formal debate?
I won't waste 1-2 hours just to show that he is unwilling to debate, given that this is already well established and expressed by himself.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:02 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Problem is, people are being shitheads all the time, as our Constitution and laws allow them to be (it's not illegal to insult someone).
I think you, as a person, have a serious problem when what idiots on the Net do or say has repercussions in your life.
People on the net have insulted me many times, and aside from a well-placed quip or barb, I've never given those people a second thought because, franckly, they don't mean anything in my life.
I usually ignore the insults when debating, except when I find it funny to reply in kind, but I'll never lose any sleep over someone calling me a retard.
You don't get it.
WILGA (and others) is essentially arguing for his right to insult transsexuals.
That's like someone arguing that he has a right to insult black or gay people.

So, for what reason do i not let go of the issue?
Because, i am sorry to say so - this forum seems to be a pit for a lot of prejudice and bigotry. I actually wanted to show that that is not the case - but since most people apparently do not think that there is something fundamentally wrong with WILGAS statements, i can at least prove that fact right.
What did he do exactly, except continuing to call Serafina "Him" instead of "Her"?
Just that - and advocating segregation for transsexuals as well as a few other gems.
Besides - just that was against a warning by JMS himself. Pretty damning i would say.
This is where I have a problem with your line of thought.
It is perfectly acceptable, for you, to use a derogatory word such as "retard", but others should not, nay, have no right to use the word "trannie".
If it applies to one, it should apply to all, unless you're really a hypocrite.
Ah, still not getting the point, eh?
Quite simply:
Insults are bad if they hurt - because they hurt.
An insult can hurt some people more than others. And there is a certain line that should not be crossed.

But even more than that:
If i call someone an idiot for behaving like one, i do not express bigotry and prejudice against a group of people.
If i use "fag" against a gay person or "trannie" against a transsexual person, i am doing just that.
In this case, the word has negative connotations, just as, in your eyes, "trannie" does.
But what is the word "trannie", except a diminutive of the word "Transexual"?
:roll:
"Oh, look, it's just a harmless diminutive".
It is repeatedly used as an insult and derogatory term. That's why it is so bad.
On the other hand, retard etc. are no longer used by the medical community - for decades now.

Calling someone a retard is also discrimination, by the way, so is in no way better then calling someone a "Fag", or a "Nigger".
You clearly do not understand what discrimination is.
Discrimination is treating one group of people worse than another group of people based on an arbitrary difference.
Discrimination is NOT being mean to someone.
I am mean to people when i call them retard, idiot etc. - i don't deny that.
You are using words that are generally used by discriminating bigots - and you are using them against a whole group of people. That makes them discrimination.

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

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:26 pm

Serafina wrote: The cause might be similar, yes.
But i do not think it would be accurate to say that transsexuality and homosexuality are the same, given that they express in extremely different ways.
Not the same no but it would be interesting to see if they were mearly branches off the same tree, a tree that exists due to the "defect".

Well - the effect is caused by testosterone. The amount of testosterone plays a role, and of course the amount of testosterone the brain actually processes.
Other hormones might play a role and possibly other factors at well, that is still a field of intense research.
The research so far is focused on testosterone production as it is the most and logical obvious choice to begin with.
A womans brain is the default - it is not caused by anything.
A womans brain maybe default, but im sure many natural hormones are released as a matter of its natural development.

It does work that way.
Men who lost their genitalia and women who lost their breasts have phantom limb syndrome.
Transsexuals do not, or at least that what the study suggests. And that would indicate that the brain processes these things differently in transsexuals.
I am sorry but the things you are discussing are not gender specific they and the area of the brain that deals with them (somatosensory system) are developed over time by sensory input.

Personally i would say that it proves that certain transexuals do not know much about how the human brain processes sensory input. However if i am generous i could say that PERHAPS the intense negative emotional feeling of loss contributes to phantom limb and a transgender would be glad about the loss while a non transgender would be pretty miffed.

Please, don't accuse them of deliberate fraud.
Flawed not fraud.
And conclusions are not all that matters, the data is still useful. You could, say, report the traffic on a street and draw wrong conclusions, but that does not mean that the data is useless.
I am not sure how useful the data was, but then i have not seen the full report or what particular hormones the subjects were on.
Quite.
And since we do not yet know how exactly gender identity works, it might well be that that "less male/more female/not completely female yet"-state already has a gender identity.
There seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and transexuality in a lot of the studies and considering how much variety we see in human attitudes i do think the "branches off the same tree" comment has some merit.
Well, one general rule:
If researchers disagree, the layperson will have a hard time to decide who is right.
However, you can NOT disagree with data. And there is data that pretty clearly shows that there are transsexual children.
I am still looking into that, so far most of the studies i have seen show that those claiming to be transexual mostly go onto become homosexual rather than change gender. Hardly supprising considering a prepuberty child is not sexually aware or experianced enough to really know and fully understand the differance.
Quite.

But in order to answer the actual question (how transsexuals should be treated), it does not have to be that complicated. Indeed, it is a much simpler issue: morality.
I agree, even if tomorrow they found irefutable and conclusive proof that transexuals do not have female brains ect i would still tick the box that says "if it does not hurt anybody let anybody be what they wanna be or say they are".

Post Reply