All about Serafina (Split)

[Mr. Oragahn]

I get that the brain happens to be the source of what is defined as abnormal in the articles you and others have provided, and that's quite logical since the sexual organs grow according to the sexual chromosomes, but the brain seems to go bonkers at some point.
So obviously, the construction of the brain is the issue. So why not hate the brain instead of the rest?

Because it's not about hate.
You completely ignored what i said, not that that surprises me.

Call it distaste, or disliking your brain, or having some kind of negative opinion about your brain.
I looked at some of your posts at SDN and one had you being confused about your own position on this, at some point clearly showing that you wished you didn't have to deal with that improper body for like 20 years.
Perhaps hate is too strong as a work, but if it's not dissatisfaction, then what the hell do you call it?

And the brain prevents the trans-whatever to act like the his/her genotype should have him/her act like.

:roll:
Honestly - don't you get that that's their personality?
But obviously, it's better to conform, just like in Trek.

A personbality that results from a mistake in the construction of the brain apparently, certainly in the construction of the rest of the body.
In Trek, McCoy would have have made a scornful comment about the primitive methods of our "science" and would have probably already came with a technology that permits your brain to attain the proper structure it should have reached without having to butcher your anatomy.
Especially since you have the cranium of a man, the brain is only asking to fit that cranium properly.
If a virus can destroy a brain, I bet another one can build it properly. If brain cells keep being regenerated, it's theoretically possible to transmit the right blueprint. That's, however, something we don't know how to do.

Because the impaired body is the clear source of the problem. Yet all your articles
show that the brain is when it comes to transies.

You still don't get it.
You can't fix the brain. Even if you could, that would be monstrous brainwashing.

Your brain cells keep being regenerated, but that does not constitute brainwashing. The trick is to tell them to be built or assembled slightly differently in certain parts of the brain. I don't think you'd lose your memory and probably very little of your personality, aside from the will to act like a woman.
Of course it's in the realm of SF.

You can fix the body without major problems.

Well you mau consider this a fix but it doesn't take a physionomist to see how certain fixes leave something to be desired.

From the standpoint of the drive for reproduction, you are an error. It doesn't mean I wouldn't help you. If I treated you like you were an ape, or a dog, or that you had no soul, I wouldn't even bother debating with you.
I see you has a human with a biomechanical defect. It doesn't mean you're stupid. You could have an IQ considerably higher than mine for all I know.

And you don't think it is offensive to call someone an error?

You're only an error under a given light. Try being less emotive about it.
The point initially being that it's rather presomptuous from you to call most people biggot as I'm sure most people tend to go by instinct. You'll meet many, many more biggots.

Have you tried male hormones btw?

Besides, i am still perfectly capable to reproduce and raise children, so even that fails.

If you keep your testes and penis, right. That hardly makes you a woman though. And it keeps pumping testosterone into your body, which you want to avoid.
So I'd really like to see evidence that you could reproduce sexually after a necessary genital operation, without help of the same technology that enabled you to achieve your complete transformation.
Without the balls, it would be rather hard.
Any species which can't reproduce without the help of technology is to be considered on life support, and in certain ways, almost dead.

This is useful how? There's no consensus on how the people like you shall be called, nor which pronouns should be used, and you whine because I actually make suggestions?
You realize you're not helping your case, right?

How about using the actual term? Transwoman? Or just woman, because that's not wrong either.
If you can not handle such a "long" term, then you are intellectually lazy.

I thought we couldn't call you a woman. From the couple of articles I've read by now, it's rather clear that your suggestion wouldn't be in agreement with the general trans view.
Transy, that's all (I've read that trans is even rejected, good god). Like I say dad instead of daddy. Is this intellectual laziness? No.
But then there's a need for a pronoun that matches this uniqueness.

And Serafine discovers the internets...

So you think that transsexuality is about sexuality now? About fucking.
You are WRONG.

----- my point ----->
|list]your head[/list]

That's a concession from you then. You just have nothing better to say to the fact that your argument is blasted because you fully know that a transwoman could wear male clothes.

And therefore ruin her passing. Great idea there - are you advocating segregation as well? Who the fuck do you think you are to dictate or demand what i wear?

Besides, the whole "female seductress" reeks so much of sexism that it just stirs my stomach.

Seductive attire is seductive attire.
Call me when when your stomach turns into a vortex.

Who spoke of morality? The mechanical technicalities of the surivval of a life form don't care about morality.

Oh really?
Then why did morality evolve, eh?

I believe you're using words rather randomly at this point. It is getting silly.
What's that shit about evolution of morality? It's not the same use of the word evolution, it's apples and oranges.

Natural evolution has nothing to do with that. It has to do with head count.
By the wording of the articles, it appears that the phenomenon is growing significantly, while populations in occidental societies tend to stagnate, if not literally recede.
If the real percentage of transies in a society doesn't evolve, then you can ignore my point. But the article clearly suggested it not to be the case.

:roll:
Completely ignoring what i said, good move right there.
Repeating myself:
The number of transsexual might appear to rise because more transsexuals can express themselves without fear of being made outcasts.
That doesn't mean that the actual number of transsexuals (be it genes or whatever) rises.

I got your point.
The numbers were obtained from counts, mostly in clinics, of people who had gone through a surgery. So unless this method, for some reason, missed large numbers of operated patients, there is no reason for a rise of post-op transexuals, unless more people undergo surgery. It has little to do with expression and is all about down to earth bodily change in a clinic.

The whole .25~1% estimation is from the NCTE. However this document also makes a strict difference between transgender and transsexual, the former having not gone through any transition.

The question is, has the real count changed, or is it just a reflection of the change of counting standards and perhaps greater coming outs?

Parsimony.
We have an observed cause that explains the effect on one side, and an unknown cause that doesn't fully explain the effect on the other.
Guess which side is which.

Not until you decide to be clearer in your replies. Cause this and cause that is just too vague.

Ah, because thinking positively about the idea of a growth of gender fluidity is a good thing? Gotcha.
(clue: no, it is not, otherwise it means you wish more and more people were like you)

Where did i say that?
Oh, right, i did not.
Now listen:
There is nothing wrong with breaking gender barriers. There is nothing wrong with seeing that gender is a complex construct and not a black/white fallacy, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping to judge people solely on their sex.

It seems that we missed each other's point.
My point is that I see nothing good abou the growth of gender fluidity.

As for genders, there's no fallacy. There's nature, and that's all. All curious cases, as notably explained on page 1 & 2 of the NCTE document, prove the existence of exceptions confirming the rule.
It's not a fallacy, not even a dilemma at all since there's no conscious choice. There's just randomness between two possibilities. Mere statistical probabilities.

Conflict between the sources you and others cited, genius. *sheesh*

Like i said: Just like a creationist.

You're being silly. You call me creationist because you're incapable of even reading the very stuff that's been posted for you.
I'm refering to the studies, not a Bible.

Pro-tip: you didn't debunk my hypothesis with facts based on psychology but based on sheer issues abou the biological basic template at birth, which do not involve the shaping of the personality over the years.

What hypothesis? And how are you qualified to put up an hypothesis in the first place?

1. Read former post.
2. There's no need for qualification. The qualification will only define the chances of the hypothesis to be verified.

That's bull. The repulsion comes from the fact that a transwoman tries to look like a woman, but traits betray the former male traits.
The vast majority of the profiles available on this page illustrate my point.
Isis King is one of the few transwomen who don't really show their original traits.
That said, the work to be done was less considerable considering her original traits as a boy.
Lynn Conway would also totally fool me, from this picture. But one picture is not all. Picking Estelle Asmodelle's wiki page, she seems okay, but when you see her here, the bell rings.
Asians also seem to make easier transitions, but it's not always the case either.
Now, the case that's highlighted on the wiki page just says it all as far as my former claim went.
For example, this lady looks like a man wearing a wig, fake breasts and a ton of make up. The jaw is the betrayer here.
Sometimes it's the muscles (and guess what, excessive musculature in women is not attractive to most men), the broad shoulders, something with the jaw, the cheeks or else.
The point stands. As far I'm concerned, only well done ops would fool me. Sorry to use the word fool btw, perhaps convince would be better?

In other words:
You judge and treat people solely on their looks.

Coming from the person who wonders what's wrong about a system that drives you to shape up via plastic surgery and copious use of chemicals, I find it amusing.

Plus, call it bigotry all you want, but I cannot consider a transwoman a true woman who still has male traits that stick out. This cannot be ignored. This not MSN or Facepoop. My position is from the case of seeing the people for real.

Besides, some random pictures from the Internet hardly constitute enough material to judge the whole population of transsexuals.

Then provide a better set of examples. Something tells me you'd just be lying if you'd find many near-perfect transwomen. In a way, you'd only do what Vogue does, and you would only conform. Which again, is largely confirmed by your position on the values of natural physical beauty.

Beyond reason?

You are, quite evidently. Or are you trying to imply that there is a reason for that beyond reason? Nice paradox there, are you a Time Lord now?

What about you actually try to figure out how this confettit quoting started like? What the hell "you are, quite evidently" supposed to mean, when the question I replied to was "Tell me, what's bad about trying to look good?"

Tss tss.

Abuse (because we must call a cat a cat) of cosmetics and plastic surgery to look "better" is good?

Oooh, so the abuse of something is bad, therefore the thing itself must be bad!

Well I knew that point flew above your head as well. No matter how obvious it is, it seems that you have missed that the occidental society, especially in the US, doesn't really encourage you to be moderate about the use of those products. Add to the magic suntan/antifat pills and other faniful creams the whole diet market.

By that logic, pretty much everything is bad. By your logic, the Internet, computers, TV, food, sex, speech, schools, cars, taxes, government and the whole of modern technology are bad as well.

No, because you missed the point. And your analogy sucks big times, to say the least.
It would be better you don't continue down that route before I begin to call you names.

I'm trying to find a solution and somehow this drives you to act like an idiot. If you want to call me Ora, fine, do so. Like I give.

Here is a solution:
I am female. I want to be addressed as female. Why not do it?

And I tend to consider that female is not just about what's in your head, but what in and out of your body, down to the very little genes that compose you, those you can't... erm... cheat.
That's why I don't feel 100% comfortable to call you a woman. But I can eventually work around that for this discussion board, and already proposed doing so.
In real life, it's different.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

So instead of respecting their wishes, you want them to conform?

Conform? no, confirm? yes.

How they are raised is hardly an issue, given that they would still have memories of feeling female. That's far more important than how they were raised.

Many psycological conditions that can be cured can be remembered by the person who had the condition, they would have memories of feeling what they think was female but the fact is ppl get over much more traumatic memories all the time.

Imagine all the awkwadsness of growing up and the confusion suddenly all making sense and becoming understandable on a emotional level?, hows that a bad thing?.

So you are saying what?
A transsexuals brain works just fine in every regard, except that it has a gender identity that does not fit with the body.
Why is changing the body the less preferable option to you, especially since it would be far less dangerous and is already possible?

If a safe alternative could cure the brain anomoly causing the issue then i would be more conforatable supporting ANY decision either way is what i am saying.

Then show me what is wrong with a transsexuals brain that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity is fixed just as well by adapting the body.

show me what is wrong with a transsexuals body that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity may be fixed just as well by curing the brain anomoly if it could be done safely.

As i said - what gives you the fucking right to decide that?

I have not decided anything i am following a logical progression that started with your assertion that transgeners are caused by a brain anomoly.

So what, even if that is true?
You essentially say:
"What she wants is wrong, therefore her decision making ability must be impaired, therefore she must not be allowed to make that decision."

No that is not what i am saying.

What i am saying is that a anomoly in the individuals brain is the ultimate cause to why the individual thinks that way so solve the anomoly give the individual time to adapt to the changes and if the individual still wants to change then fine.

That is not only a gross violation of morality, but flat-out contradicts that you advocated freedom of that choice even if it was proven that it was no biological issue!

Actually no it confirms it as somebody making decisions on a subject that is directly caused by a anomoly in the brain is making a decision based on a symptom of the anomoly.

Uhm...why?
Are you essentially advocating that a transwoman would have to undergo radical brain alteration just to test whether she actually wants to be female? What the fuck?!
Such a change would be permanent, that's not something you toy around with!

Actually i am saying that it would be brain repair as in the correction of the anomoly, if such repair results in the alteration of the individuals perspective on the subject that is mearly the result of fixing it.

Transsexuals do not switch genders. My gender has always been female. I only took the decisions to start acting accordingly.

Actually if the science you posted turns out to be correct then they do change gender at a early stage of development due to a brain anomoly, correctling such is hardly a crime.

And a treatment that can just flip a switch in ones brain would still be wrong - because if you want to avoid any traumata, you would have to remove all memories as well.
Indeed, it is morally evil even if we disregard that - you would literarly strip ones identity away.

You do not need to remove memories or strip a identity, IF the science is correct we are repairing a issue that would make all the confusion of growing up siddenly come into focus.

Ask yourself a simple question:
How would you feel if you would suddenly wake up with a female identity and body?
Would that still be you? Can you even imagine such a change?
And how would you feel if someone forced that on you?.

What kind of a question is that?, if i got drugged while sleeping and the physical part of that happened to me overnight then of course id still be me, id be a very annoyed me for being kidnapped and surgically altered but id still be me.

But then i am not a transgender with a brain anomoly looking to get it sorted so i can at least make a decision about my futurre gender without the brain anomoly colouring my thought process.

You cannot compare a forced physical gender and brainwashing change to......somebody with a brain anomoly wishing to cure it so they can make a clear decision about their future.

[Serafina]

@Oragahn:

Call it distaste, or disliking your brain, or having some kind of negative opinion about your brain.
I looked at some of your posts at SDN and one had you being confused about your own position on this, at some point clearly showing that you wished you didn't have to deal with that improper body for like 20 years.
Perhaps hate is too strong as a work, but if it's not dissatisfaction, then what the hell do you call it?

Aah, internet psychology.
Of course i would have been happier if i had started my transition earlier or were just born with a female body.
But i do not hate who i am (or dislike or whatever). That's the bloody point, i am perfectly fine with my identity and i absolutely do not wish that it was any different.

A personbality that results from a mistake in the construction of the brain apparently, certainly in the construction of the rest of the body.
In Trek, McCoy would have have made a scornful comment about the primitive methods of our "science" and would have probably already came with a technology that permits your brain to attain the proper structure it should have reached without having to butcher your anatomy.
Especially since you have the cranium of a man, the brain is only asking to fit that cranium properly.
If a virus can destroy a brain, I bet another one can build it properly. If brain cells keep being regenerated, it's theoretically possible to transmit the right blueprint. That's, however, something we don't know how to do.

So in other words, you advocate that you radically rape my personality and possibly destroy it. Great going right there.

Your brain cells keep being regenerated, but that does not constitute brainwashing. The trick is to tell them to be built or assembled slightly differently in certain parts of the brain. I don't think you'd lose your memory and probably very little of your personality, aside from the will to act like a woman.
Of course it's in the realm of SF.

Oh, really?
So if you radically alter my personality, it is not brainwashing? What is it then?

Well you mau consider this a fix but it doesn't take a physionomist to see how certain fixes leave something to be desired.

Like what?
If started when puberty hits, the only bad thing is infertility.
Other than that, hormones do a pretty good job - and the results or SRS are actually that good that they can fool gynecologists.

Have you tried male hormones btw?

Why the fuck should i?
First, my body already has them. They obviously did not change my gender identity.
Second, they would do more harm than good.

If you keep your testes and penis, right. That hardly makes you a woman though. And it keeps pumping testosterone into your body, which you want to avoid.
So I'd really like to see evidence that you could reproduce sexually after a necessary genital operation, without help of the same technology that enabled you to achieve your complete transformation.
Without the balls, it would be rather hard.
Any species which can't reproduce without the help of technology is to be considered on life support, and in certain ways, almost dead.

You know that you can freeze sperm, do you?
Besides, i am not a species.
And humans have technology. We could not survive very well without it and settle only some small patches of land. Humanity is defined by it's technology.

I thought we couldn't call you a woman. From the couple of articles I've read by now, it's rather clear that your suggestion wouldn't be in agreement with the general trans view.
Transy, that's all (I've read that trans is even rejected, good god). Like I say dad instead of daddy. Is this intellectual laziness? No.
But then there's a need for a pronoun that matches this uniqueness.

WTF? What literature have you read that says that it is wrong to call a transwoman a woman? Eh, probably the same nutjob sites that talk about how feminism was shoved down your throat.

Seductive attire is seductive attire.
Call me when when your stomach turns into a vortex.

So a long skirt and a non-revealing top is seductive attire now?
Yeah, right.
But even if - what the fuck is wrong with that?

I believe you're using words rather randomly at this point. It is getting silly.
What's that shit about evolution of morality? It's not the same use of the word evolution, it's apples and oranges.

Bzzt. Wrong. Evolution is adaptation driven by the survival of the fittest.
A society that can cooperate is fitter and needs morality for that.
Hence, morality evolved.

I got your point.
The numbers were obtained from counts, mostly in clinics, of people who had gone through a surgery. So unless this method, for some reason, missed large numbers of operated patients, there is no reason for a rise of post-op transexuals, unless more people undergo surgery. It has little to do with expression and is all about down to earth bodily change in a clinic.

The whole .25~1% estimation is from the NCTE. However this document also makes a strict difference between transgender and transsexual, the former having not gone through any transition.

Are you really that stupid?
See, it's quite simple:
20 years (or whatever), much fewer people were willing to undergo that surgery, simply because fewer transsexuals dared to live like they want to.
That number has risen simply because it's easier to be transsexual now, not because there are more transsexuals.

The question is, has the real count changed, or is it just a reflection of the change of counting standards and perhaps greater coming outs?

Parsimony.
We have an observed cause that explains the effect on one side, and an unknown cause that doesn't fully explain the effect on the other.
Guess which side is which.

Not until you decide to be clearer in your replies. Cause this and cause that is just too vague.

Aah, reading comprehension.
Anyway, this is quite simple:
Option A: The number of transsexuals has changed. We have no mechanism, plain and simple.
Option B: The count of transsexuals has changed. We know the mechanism: A more tolerant society, and it explains all we observe.
Parsimony: Option B wins.

As for genders, there's no fallacy. There's nature, and that's all. All curious cases, as notably explained on page 1 & 2 of the NCTE document, prove the existence of exceptions confirming the rule.
It's not a fallacy, not even a dilemma at all since there's no conscious choice. There's just randomness between two possibilities. Mere statistical probabilities.

Ah, yes, right.
So there is only male and female gender, two solid entities, and nothing in between but anomalies. Gotcha
And it's totally impossible that there are multiple building blocks of gender, some which occur more often in males or females. Riiight.

You're being silly. You call me creationist because you're incapable of even reading the very stuff that's been posted for you.
I'm refering to the studies, not a Bible.

No, i said that you use the same tactic.
You show that there is scientific debate about something (which is part of science) and conclude that your opinion is therefore correct.
That's just plain wrong, especially since your opinion is not even on the debate table anymore.

1. Read former post.
2. There's no need for qualification. The qualification will only define the chances of the hypothesis to be verified.

So restating your hypothesis is completely impossible right now? Not even simple copy&paste?

Coming from the person who wonders what's wrong about a system that drives you to shape up via plastic surgery and copious use of chemicals, I find it amusing.

Plus, call it bigotry all you want, but I cannot consider a transwoman a true woman who still has male traits that stick out. This cannot be ignored. This not MSN or Facepoop. My position is from the case of seeing the people for real.

So you admit that you judge people solely on how they look?
And if a transwoman happens to have traits you identify as male, she can not possibly a true woman. No bigotry there at all, move along.

Then provide a better set of examples. Something tells me you'd just be lying if you'd find many near-perfect transwomen. In a way, you'd only do what Vogue does, and you would only conform. Which again, is largely confirmed by your position on the values of natural physical beauty.

Ah, so something tells me i must be lying. Could that be your prejudice?
Unlike you, i know a large number of transsexual people. But your gut tells you i must be lying, so i must be, right?

Well I knew that point flew above your head as well. No matter how obvious it is, it seems that you have missed that the occidental society, especially in the US, doesn't really encourage you to be moderate about the use of those products. Add to the magic suntan/antifat pills and other faniful creams the whole diet market.

Again:
Just because the abuse of something is bad, the thing itself must be bad!
Which is btw why you are apparently beyond reason.

No, because you missed the point. And your analogy sucks big times, to say the least.
It would be better you don't continue down that route before I begin to call you names.

Oooh, namecalling, how scary.
Nope, won't shut me up. Your logic is clearly fallacious.

And I tend to consider that female is not just about what's in your head, but what in and out of your body, down to the very little genes that compose you, those you can't... erm... cheat.
That's why I don't feel 100% comfortable to call you a woman. But I can eventually work around that for this discussion board, and already proposed doing so.
In real life, it's different.

"I do not feel comfortable with it, therefore i have the right to be rude".
Yeah...can i call that bigotry?

[Serafina]

Conform? no, confirm? yes.

And here i thought that i explained that such a change would destroy ones personality, probably cause severe psychological damage AND would most likely be irreversible?

And you want to do it as a test? Yeah, that makes no sense at all.

Many psycological conditions that can be cured can be remembered by the person who had the condition, they would have memories of feeling what they think was female but the fact is ppl get over much more traumatic memories all the time.

But transsexuality can NOT be cured psychologically.

Imagine all the awkwadsness of growing up and the confusion suddenly all making sense and becoming understandable on a emotional level?, hows that a bad thing?.

If i would suddenly feel male, i would propably throw myself out of a window.

If a safe alternative could cure the brain anomoly causing the issue then i would
be more conforatable supporting ANY decision either way is what i am saying.

Yeah, such a safe cure for the brain would be magic.
And it would STILL violate the personality that has been built up over years.

show me what is wrong with a transsexuals body that requires such a radical change or justifies it.
The gender identity may be fixed just as well by curing the brain anomoly if it could be done safely.

The body prevents living a social life as they wish and need to. That's a serious issue, as i have shown before.

I have not decided anything i am following a logical progression that started with your assertion that transgeners are caused by a brain anomoly.

I honestly hope that you have not thought this true.

Again: My personality developed as female for a long time now. Being female is an essential part of me.
Now suddenly my identity is female - nothing would "fall into place", rather, everything would be wrong. I would suddenly have a gender identity that is totally contrary to my personality.
And you think that would be healthy??

No that is not what i am saying.

What i am saying is that a anomoly in the individuals brain is the ultimate cause to why the individual thinks that way so solve the anomoly give the individual time to adapt to the changes and if the individual still wants to change then fine.

You are NOT GETTING IT.

You are essentially advocating that transsexuals are forced to undergo a radical alteration of their brain and personality. That would totally destroy their lives.
And you do that solely based on the claim that they do not have the right to decide otherwise.

Actually no it confirms it as somebody making decisions on a subject that is directly caused by a anomoly in the brain is making a decision based on a symptom of the anomoly.

Hint: It's anomAly.
Again:
How the fuck is my decision-making ability impaired? I have a perfectly normal gender identity, it just sits in the wrong body.

Actually i am saying that it would be brain repair as in the correction of the anomoly, if such repair results in the alteration of the individuals perspective on the subject that is mearly the result of fixing it.

That would be no repair. It would totally devastate ones personality!

Actually if the science you posted turns out to be correct then they do change gender at a early stage of development due to a brain anomoly, correctling such is hardly a crime.

Yeah, before birth or perhaps in the first year (or two?) thereafter.
After that, personality is already develop enough that you would cause immense damage.

You do not need to remove memories or strip a identity, IF the science is correct we are repairing a issue that would make all the confusion of growing up siddenly come into focus.

Not getting it yet, eh?

Ok, last attempt:
Your gender identity defines a large part of who you are. Your development is heavily influenced by it.
You can't just remove or change an essential part of ones personality without influencing all of it - causing damage. Tremendous damage. Psychology just works that way.
If we would do what you advocate, you would literary shred ones personality. The brain just would be unable to cope with it.

What kind of a question is that?, if i got drugged while sleeping and the physical part of that happened to me overnight then of course id still be me, id be a very annoyed me for being kidnapped and surgically altered but id still be me.

You honestly think that you would still be the same person when you suddenly had a completely female identity? Seriously?
Then you do not understand how important gender identity is. Try to really think about it.

You cannot compare a forced physical gender and brainwashing change to......somebody with a brain anomoly wishing to cure it so they can make a clear decision about their future.

What is the difference?
Both are radical alterations of ones brain and personality. Just because something is an anomaly doesn't mean it's wrong. If you would "fix" that anomaly, it would be identical as if we induced the same change in you.

[Khas]

Soooo, what you're saying is that even though you have a female's mind trapped in a male's body, and if there was a way to change you to a female, you'd still reject it? Am I right? You'd reject a chance to make yourself happy? Interesting...

And no, I have nothing against transsexuals. I'm just curious as to why you'd reject something that would make you happier.

[Serafina]

Soooo, what you're saying is that even though you have a female's mind trapped in a male's body, and if there was a way to change you to a female, you'd still reject it? Am I right? You'd reject a chance to make yourself happy? Interesting...

And no, I have nothing against transsexuals. I'm just curious as to why you'd reject something that would make you happier.

Why does no one get that?

I am female, i like being female. So why should i change it, especially if i already have a way to be happy regardless of my circumstances?

And the actual point it:
It is not that easy, you just can't flip a switch to change ones gender identity and everything else falls into place.
My personality is based on my gender identity, as is everyone else's (and on other things too, of course). You can't just change it without ripping my personality apart.
Why should anyone want something like that?
It would NOT make me happier, it would instead rape my personality.

[Khas]

To each their own. If it makes you happy, who the fuck am I to stop that? Unless it involves making other people physically suffer...

[Mr. Oragahn]

And I tend to consider that female is not just about what's in your head, but what in and out of your body, down to the very little genes that compose you, those you can't... erm... cheat.
That's why I don't feel 100% comfortable to call you a woman. But I can eventually work around that for this discussion board, and already proposed doing so.
In real life, it's different.

"I do not feel comfortable with it, therefore i have the right to be rude".
Yeah...can i call that bigotry?

Yes, and I'd call you a stupid person. And globally, based on your behaviour here, then I wouldn't care about what makes an anon sad or happy over internet if it really comes down to you not being able to understand that not everybody shares your definition of a human female, and using this disagreement as an excuse for insults. You're just being as bigot, in your own way, as I'm supposed to be.

Now I get why WILGA thinks he wasted his time. I feel the same now.
As so, there ends this marvelous discussion between you and me.

[Who is like God arbour]

Wow, I was away for only one day and that debate has nicely developed. I have to say, it was very interesting and enlightening to read many of the here said things. I'm especially surprised by Kor_Dahar_Master who has really earned some respect today with his style of debating.

There are a few points that were made which I'd like to comment. But I do not have the time for it.

Not that it is relevant for this debate. But it is relevant for my understanding of the person, Serafina is. Do you have any work to do? Because you have debated the whole day yesterday at a time when people are usually at work. Your replies to a post came always fast. I imagine you sitting the whole day in front of a computer and debating here, at SDN and at other boards with no other things to do. Is that the case?

But now back to the debate: The question between me an Serafina was, if Serafina is a woman or only a man with a feminine gender. From the answer of that question depends the answer to the question, which pronoun should be used.

Both questions can only be answered if there is no question about what a woman is any more.

Here, because we do not want to create a secret language that only insiders understand, it is important to look, how the term woman is understood by the general public.

According to Merriam Webster, the Macmillan Dictionary, the Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Collins Pocket English Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. and the Oxford Dictionaries, a woman is an adult female human being.

That does not really help us because we now have to know what the term female means.

Looking in the same dictionaries again, we find that female refers to the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

That means with other words that a woman is an adult human being that is at least supposed to be able to bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

That is the commonly accepted definition of what a woman is.

• • • • • • • • • • [list][list]We could argue now if a woman who cannot bear offspring or produce eggs any more due to a sickness or age is still a woman. And indeed there are many women who think that they are no real woman any more when they have lost their ability to bear offspring or produce eggs because for many women these ability is what defines them as a woman and differentiate them from men. I do not think so. I think the important part is that the person belongs to the sex that is supposed to bear offspring and produce eggs. That there is something wrong with the womb or the ovaries is only a pathological condition of a woman.
                    
                    But that is not really important for the question if a person with a male sex and a feminine gender is a woman.

[/list][/list]

Fact is, that nowhere is a woman defined by her gender or her brain. Even a woman with a masculine gender is a woman.

Now let us look at what a man is.

A man is defined as an adult human male. And male is the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring

This means that a man, even one with a feminine gender identification, is not a woman. That is a fact too.

A transwoman may not like these facts.

But they are nevertheless facts until the meaning of these terms is changed in the awareness of the general public.

This makes it simply untrue to say that a man with a feminine gender is a woman.

And even after a gender reassignment the man is still a man because such a gender reassignment is only superficial. It does not change the fact that the man is a man.

Insofar, it is absolutely correct to say that a transwoman is a man and has to be addressed like a man, using masculine pronouns.

• • • • • • • • • • [list][list]By the way: When I looked for the meaning of the term female, I noticed that there is a difference between the term female and feminine. Feminine is defined as having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness. Insofar it is completely wrong to speak of a female gender. Because the gender has nothing to do with the ability to bear offspring and produce eggs. It would be correct to speak of a feminine gender because, if I understand the concept of gender correctly, that is exactly what the gender is about.

[/list][/list]





Another question is if there are reasons why it could be better to not say the truth.

The basic rule is that nobody who says the truth has to justify himself.

The truth is the truth and saying it is on principle never wrong.

If someone can not life with the truth, that is bad, but not the problem of the truth speaking person. The solution cannot be that the truth is kept a secret but that the one who has problems with the truth learns to live with it.

There may be an exception if the truth is only said with the intention to hurt someone. But that is not the case here. I do not say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman because I want to hurt Serafina or transsexuals but because that is the truth and I refuse to keep the truth a secret because it may hurt someone.

If we start with that, where would it end?

Religious people could demand that the truth about evolution is kept secret because they feel insulted in their belief if scientists are proving it wrong on the one side and on the other side, the understanding of evolution has no real importance to anything so that no harm is done if it is kept a secret. Do we demand of scientists that they justify themselves because they have said the truth - or what they believe to be the truth - only because religious people, who have seen themselves as something from God created, who have believed in God and creationism their whole life, who are identifying themselves as believers, are suffering when confronted with an inconvenient truth.

If research proves that man are in certain aspects worse than woman and woman are in certain aspects worse than man, do we keep that secret because we do not want to insult men and women?

If research proves that there is a difference between black-skinned-people and white-skinned-people, that the one can do things better than the other, do we keep that a secret because we do not want to insult members of the one or other group?

And if the fact is that a man with a feminine gender is a man, do we keep that secret because we do not want to insult such man?

I read that many Japanese soldiers have committed suicide after Japan has capitulated in World War II. Should the fact that Japan has capitulated have been kept a secret to prevent this?

I think no. The truth is the truth and can be said. If someone has problems with the truth, he can not demand that reality changes but has to learn to life with the truth.

[Serafina]

Oh, look, WILGA revives his his grammatical/linguistic argument.
Because linguistics is clearly more important than medicine or morals :roll:

Not that it is relevant for this debate. But it is relevant for my understanding of the person, Serafina is. Do you have any work to do? Because you have debated the whole day yesterday at a time when people are usually at work. Your replies to a post came always fast. I imagine you sitting the whole day in front of a computer and debating here, at SDN and at other boards with no other things to do. Is that the case?

And this is relevant to anything how exactly?
Oh, right - i forgot that you love ad hominems, my bad.

But now back to the debate: The question between me an Serafina was, if Serafina is a woman or only a man with a feminine gender. From the answer of that question depends the answer to the question, which pronoun should be used.

Both questions can only be answered if there is no question about what a woman is any more.

No, it's not.
The question is whether it is the right thing to treat me as a woman.
This question has pretty much been answered - but apparently, you do not care about morals at all.

Here, because we do not want to create a secret language that only insiders understand, it is important to look, how the term woman is understood by the general public.

According to Merriam Webster, the Macmillan Dictionary, the Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Collins Pocket English Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. and the Oxford Dictionaries, a woman is an adult female human being.

That does not really help us because we now have to know what the term female means.

Again:
How the fuck are linguistics relevant to anything?
By that logic, it would be wrong to "redefine" marriage from "an union between a man and a woman" to "an union between two people who love each other".

Looking in the same dictionaries again, we find that female refers to the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

That means with other words that a woman is an adult human being that is at least supposed to be able to bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

That is the commonly accepted definition of what a woman is.

Ok, so by your logic, an infertile woman is no longer an actual woman. Which includes every woman above about 50.
Yep, nice worldview, really.

We could argue now if a woman who cannot bear offspring or produce eggs any more due to a sickness or age is still a woman. And indeed there are many women who think that they are no real woman any more when they have lost their ability to bear offspring or produce eggs because for many women these ability is what defines them as a woman and differentiate them from men. I do not think so. I think the important part is that the person belongs to the sex that is supposed to bear offspring and produce eggs. That there is something wrong with the womb or the ovaries is only a pathological condition of a woman.

But that is not really important for the question if a person with a male sex and a feminine gender is a woman.

But it is.
Because normal people do not define a woman that way. A woman is simply someone who lives with a female gender. Believe it or not - most people look at it that way:
"Looks female, behaves female, is female". All of which applies to me.

Fact is, that nowhere is a woman defined by her gender or her brain. Even a woman with a masculine gender is a woman.

Yeah, right - because dictionaries are always the end-all of everything.
Say - how about actual scientific evidence? I thought you bragged that you were good with science? Then why don't you use any?

Now let us look at what a man is.

A man is defined as an adult human male. And male is the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring

This means that a man, even one with a feminine gender identification, is not a woman. That is a fact too.

Ah, so i am not a man by your definition either.

A transwoman may not like these facts.

But they are nevertheless facts until the meaning of these terms is changed in the awareness of the general public.

Do you always get your morality from a dictionary? And do you honestly think that a dictionary captures the perception of the general public?

This makes it simply untrue to say that a man with a feminine gender is a woman.

By your definition. So what? Your conclusions from that definition are simply immoral.

And even after a gender reassignment the man is still a man because such a gender reassignment is only superficial. It does not change the fact that the man is a man.

But it does by your definition, doesn't it? Because then neither of these categories applies - as they do to children and old women as well as everyone who is infertile.

Insofar, it is absolutely correct to say that a transwoman is a man and has to be addressed like a man, using masculine pronouns.

No, it is not. It is absolutely immoral to do so - apparently, you do not care about morals.

Another question is if there are reasons why it could be better to not say the truth.

Ah, so telling the truth is more important to you than being kind and moral.
Well, let's see how you do with that question.

The basic rule is that nobody who says the truth has to justify himself.

The truth is the truth and saying it is on principle never wrong.

So if i go to a spastic 5-year old and tell him that most people are disgusted by him, that he will never get a proper job and will do more harm than good to society, i do not have to justify myself because i am telling the truth?
Sorry - but telling the truth doesn't remove your accountability.

You clearly have no idea of morals.

If someone can not life with the truth, that is bad, but not the problem of the truth speaking person. The solution cannot be that the truth is kept a secret but that the one who has problems with the truth learns to live with it.

Again: It seems that in your book, it is alright to hurt a person by telling her the truth.
In your book, telling the truth is more important than being moral or kind.

There may be an exception if the truth is only said with the intention to hurt someone. But that is not the case here. I do not say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman because I want to hurt Serafina or transsexuals but because that is the truth and I refuse to keep the truth a secret because it may hurt someone.

Oh, really?
Again - that still makes telling the truth more important for you than being kind or moral.

If we start with that, where would it end?

Oh no, a slippery slope fallacy! Quick, everyone hide!

Religious people could demand that the truth about evolution is kept secret because they feel insulted in their belief if scientists are proving it wrong on the one side and on the other side, the understanding of evolution has no real importance to anything so that no harm is done if it is kept a secret. Do we demand of scientists that they justify themselves because they have said the truth - or what they believe to be the truth - only because religious people, who have seen themselves as something from God created, who have believed in God and creationism their whole life, who are identifying themselves as believers, are suffering when confronted with an inconvenient truth.

Ah, i see. Yes, definitely a slippery slope fallacy.
Say, could you explain how any of this actually logically follows?

But i suppose since you do not know any morals, i should explain it to you:
All of these examples would do harm to society. That is a moral factor that has to be considered and is simply greater than the harm that is done to creationists.
But in the case of transsexuality, there is NO harm done to society - but there is GREAT harm done to transsexuals if we employ your segregation policy, as i have demonstrated.

If research proves that man are in certain aspects worse than woman and woman are in certain aspects worse than man, do we keep that secret because we do not want to insult men and women?

If research proves that there is a difference between black-skinned-people and white-skinned-people, that the one can do things better than the other, do we keep that a secret because we do not want to insult members of the one or other group?

Depends on the harm on society. But hey, you don't understand morals, so i guess i have to tell you the obvious.

I read that many Japanese soldiers have committed suicide after Japan has capitulated in World War II. Should the fact that Japan has capitulated have been kept a secret to prevent this?

Okay, this is truly moronic now.
Say, how does that fit in ANYWHERE? How could that possibly have been suppressed anyway?

I think no. The truth is the truth and can be said. If someone has problems with the truth, he can not demand that reality changes but has to learn to life with the truth.

If someone says the truth regardless of the consequences, he is an immoral asshole who has no morals.


Okay then.
You look into a dictionary and then declared that to be "the truth" - instead of using scientific or medical evidence.
Okay then - how does a dictionary definition qualify as "truth"?
Why is it MORE IMPORTANT than morals or science?
Again, by your logic, marriage is only a union between two people of the opposite sexand you are free to tell homosexual long-time couples "you are not married!"
And science also includes christian science by your logic - i guess Kent Hovind was right and we can teach christian science in highschools. Quick, someone tell the supreme court!
And i am also right to call a theory speculation in a scientific discussion.
And of course, according to your definiton, the only truth is god and god is the truth. Or something.

See? A dictionary definition is NOT truth. No intelligent person would say that it is.


You then go on and declare that the TRUTH is more important than MORALS.
Of course, you give us absolutely no justification other than a slippery slope fallacy.
Indeed, you do not even address morals AT ALL. You completely ignore the harm that your bigotry (if made reality) would cause to transsexuals.
I suppose if people like you had been in charge, then we would have looked into dictionary as well to define human rights, justify slavery and segregation and supress womens rights. After all, you would have probably found a dictionary definition to justify it!

[Mr. Oragahn]

Just one last bit, can't help.

If someone says the truth regardless of the consequences, he is an immoral asshole who has no morals.

No. You won't use the emotional card to silence truth. And you won't argue with someone and claim that you are right for pages, when you actually acknowledge that you've been wrong all along, but you don't want to admit it because of selfish concerns and throw insults instead as a smokescreen. It is dishonest.
Not to say that where I live, telling the truth IS the moral.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

double post delete pls.

(stupid new series of warehouse 13 DL taking up all my BW)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

And here i thought that i explained that such a change would destroy ones personality, probably cause severe psychological damage AND would most likely be irreversible?

You did say that, but then you also said you are not a doctor ect so saying means nothing unless you can prove it.

Yeah, such a safe cure for the brain would be magic.
And it would STILL violate the personality that has been built up over years.

Considering the therapy ect transsexuals have to go through along with other things to achieve transition i think it would not violate anything.

The body prevents living a social life as they wish and need to. That's a serious issue, as i have shown before.

And the brain disorder may be the cause of them wishing/needing to live differantly.

I honestly hope that you have not thought this true.

Again: My personality developed as female for a long time now. Being female is an essential part of me.
Now suddenly my identity is female - nothing would "fall into place", rather, everything would be wrong. I would suddenly have a gender identity that is totally contrary to my personality.
And you think that would be healthy??

From what you are saying to Ogibaby in this thread you did not decide until later in life, not only that but just because your brain may send some feminine signals/responces to stimuli out does not mean it is 100% female, it could be mearly 10% female or less.

You are NOT GETTING IT.

You are essentially advocating that transsexuals are forced to undergo a radical alteration of their brain and personality. That would totally destroy their lives.
And you do that solely based on the claim that they do not have the right to decide otherwise.

No im not you are getting emotional again, stop slipping in unproven "results" like destroyed lives you are not a psycologist or doctor.

I am saying that if its proved that the brain disorder is the cause of transexual feelings then it would be wise to cure the disorder before using radical surgery.

How the fuck is my decision-making ability impaired? I have a perfectly normal gender identity, it just sits in the wrong body.

You decision-making ability impaired on this issue because your brain is sending it the wrong signals because of the anomaly.

If i had a brain anomaly that made me want to remove or change parts of my body should it not be treated instead of passing me a knife?.

That would be no repair. It would totally devastate ones personality!

I am not a doctor and nor are you, your opinion on the matter is based on your brain anomaly.

You do not need to remove memories or strip a identity, IF the science is correct we are repairing a issue that would make all the confusion of growing up siddenly come into focus.

Not getting it yet, eh?

You honestly think that you would still be the same person when you suddenly had a completely female identity? Seriously?
Then you do not understand how important gender identity is. Try to really think about it.

I would not have a female identity because i do not have a brain anomaly to repair and you cannot fix what aint broken, i would be literally a healthy anf fully mans brain in a female body.

What is the difference?

Both are radical alterations of ones brain and personality. Just because something is an anomaly doesn't mean it's wrong. If you would "fix" that anomaly, it would be identical as if we induced the same change in you.[/quote]

Do you understand the differance between rape and sex?....that is the differance

They are nothing alike, one is a violation against sombodies will the other is having a anomaly repaired volentarily.

I think you are way too close to this to see clearly as your increase in emotional responces and reduction in logical ones shows.

[Serafina]

Just one last bit, can't help.

If someone says the truth regardless of the consequences, he is an immoral asshole who has no morals.

No. You won't use the emotional card to silence truth. And you won't argue with someone and claim that you are right for pages, when you actually acknowledge that you've been wrong all along, but you don't want to admit it because of selfish concerns and throw insults instead as a smokescreen. It is dishonest.
Not to say that where I live, telling the truth IS the moral.

Emotional card? Morality card if anything.

And are you telling me that telling the truth is moral to you, regardless of the consequences?

@Kor:

You did say that, but then you also said you are not a doctor ect so saying means nothing unless you can prove it.

No. To advocate something, YOU have to show that it would be possible to do what you advocate without damage.

Simple parsimony again:
My claim: The brain is a complex thing, you can not simply remove/alter an elementary part of it without causing great damage. This is backed up by studies that show that gender identity can not be changed and that attempts to do so cause great harm.
Your claim: Since you fix an error, the whole rest of the brain automatically corrects itself. That is entirely without precedent and against current understanding of the brain.

And the brain disorder may be the cause of them wishing/needing to live differantly.

And what the fuck is so wrong with that that you advocate radically altering their brain and personality?

From what you are saying to Ogibaby in this thread you did not decide until later in life, not only that but just because your brain may send some feminine signals/responces to stimuli out does not mean it is 100% female, it could be mearly 10% female or less.

I did not decide to be female. You do not decide your gender identity.
I DID decide to finally live like one - but that's something different.

And again, those 10% could be all that is needed to establish gender identity.

No im not you are getting emotional again, stop slipping in unproven "results" like destroyed lives you are not a psycologist or doctor.

I am saying that if its proved that the brain disorder is the cause of transexual feelings then it would be wise to cure the disorder before using radical surgery.

You are still not getting it.
The brain is way to complex to mess with it like that.
Oh, and unlike you, i had two years of psychology in school.

You decision-making ability impaired on this issue because your brain is sending it the wrong signals because of the anomaly.

Who are you to decide that they are wrong?
Yeah, they send signals a normal male brain doesn't send - instead, they send signals a normal female brain sends.

If i had a brain anomaly that made me want to remove or change parts of my body should it not be treated instead of passing me a knife?.

If it can be treated safely and without radically altering your personality.
Which is simply not the case here.

I am not a doctor and nor are you, your opinion on the matter is based on your brain anomaly.

Oh, honestly - FUCK OFF!
You have no right nor capability to decide or declare something like that.

But go ahead - present proof that
-you can change gender identity without radically altering ones personality and without damage
-a transsexuals decision making ability is impaired.

I would not have a female identity because i do not have a brain anomaly to repair and you cannot fix what aint broken, i would be literally a healthy anf fully mans brain in a female body.

We are NOT talking about something that is broken here.
We are simply talking about something that developed differently.

Look, you seem to believe that once you fix that anomaly, everything would be fine.
That is a pretty big claim, the brain simply doesn't work like that.

You also do not get my analogy:
My gender idenity is female because some small part of my brain developed differently.
Now you want to radically alter my personality by changing my gender identity.
Again:
If we likewise changed your gender identity to female, would you still be the same person? Do you think you could handle that change (even if your body doesn't give you any problems).

They are nothing alike, one is a violation against sombodies will the other is having a anomaly repaired volentarily.

And again:
We are NOT talking about something that is BROKEN. Even IF, the brain does not work that way.
We are talking about something that developed differently. I have a perfectly normal female gender identity. You want to FORCIBLY change my perfectly normal gender identity - something which has been shown to cause great harm if attempted - and cause great damage to my personality just because you do not want to see any transsexuals!

I think you are way too close to this and emotionally attached to see clearly

And i think you are way to uneducated about the brain or psychology to make a qualified comment on this.
But go ahead - provide evidence that your brainrape would be better than just changing ones body.



Honestly, i am starting to give up on this.
Pretty much no one here seems to place any value in tolerance - if the problem can be made invisible, then that is the preferable solution to you! Diversity is bad, apparently!
You blatantly advocate segregation, forcibly changing peoples brains, claim that transsexuals can not make decisions for themselves and so on.
You do not even understand why any of this is wrong!

A person who actually valued tolerance would just say "okay, i understand why you do not want this, do what you want". A truly tolerant person would just run with it.
But you can not stop arguing AGAINST transsexuality. Even when we had an actual discussion you did that. And now you are advocating forcibly changing ones brain instead of choosing the much simpler solution that already exists! That's so morally sickening i can't even express it properly - we are talking about eugenics-level stuff here!

Please show me that there is at least one tolerant SFJ-member - because right now, you are destroying that image that you acquired quite effectively.

[Jedi Master Spock]

How the fuck are linguistics relevant to anything?

Okay, this is truly moronic now.

As i said - what gives you the fucking right to decide that?

That's the bloody point

But even if - what the fuck is wrong with that?

Sexual market? What the fuck are you talking about?

Who the fuck do you think you are to dictate or demand what i wear?

Oh boo-fucking-who, dear doctor. One tiny tpyo.

If it makes you happy, who the fuck am I to stop that?

Welcome to pseudo science. It makes fuck all sense.

No, because you missed the point. And your analogy sucks big times, to say the least.
It would be better you don't continue down that route before I begin to call you names.

I sense impoliteness arising in this thread.

Cool it, please. Now. Thanks. And let's skip the name-calling today, shall we?