All about Serafina (Split)

[Who is like God arbour]

As now everybody can see, Serafina has confirmed what I have said: Already the debate about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or if a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman is an insult to Serafina. With other words, that topic is forbidden. We have to accept what Serafina wishes, turn over and are not allowed to have a from Serafina's opinion dissenting opinion.

Yeah, if you would be actually debating and answering any points.

You NEVER addressed any issues of science, law or morality - instead, you literary relied on semantics.
You also lacked the basic decency to address me as female just because i want it.

• Where have you shown that in science it is an accepted opinion now that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman? I do not speak of the recognition of gender but that scientists are suddenly saying that not the sex but the gender decides if someone is a man or a woman.
  
  (I wonder what a pathologist would write on the death certificate of someone with whom a psycho-analyses and gender determination wasn't possible any more. I'd have thought that he would look at the sex (determined by a DNA analyses). But if you are right and suddenly only the gender is important for the question if someone is a man or a woman and the gender of a person is not known, we will treat in the future people as if we do not know if they are or were man or woman.)
• Where have you shown that the law says that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman? I do not know such a law. Neither the Transsexuellengesetz says such a thing nor the decisions of the Federal Constitution Court says that. If you look into both, they are not talking about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman but they are talking about the civil status (Personenstand) of such people. The Transsexuellengesetz e.g. says that the court declares that the transsexual is to be viewed as belonging to the opposite sex (§ 8 TVG). It does neither say that the transsexual is a member of the opposite sex nor that the sex is determined by the gender. Only those transsexuals who have fulfilled certain requirements can change their civil status. The others, even if their gender is unquestioned feminine, cannot change their civil status. It is not as though as if I hadn’t already explained that [utl=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... fb4#p21844 ]here[/url] or here. But of course it is simpler to ignore that and claim I would ignore what you have said. But the question who ignores whom is very simple to answer. Show me where you have shown a law or a court decision that decrees that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman.
• What has morality to do with the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or if a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman? The one is a factual question. Morality can say if the truth should be ignored or if the out of the truth drawn consequences are morally. But it cannot decree what is the truth.

But that is exactly the reason why I say that neither the gender nor superficial plastic surgeries can change what sex one has: Either that of a man or that of a woman (or that of a hermaphrodite). I have no problem if a man wants to live as a woman - to a certain degree. But fact is that this man is, even if he looks like a woman, still a man. And where there is sex segregation already (e.g. changing rooms for man and changing rooms for woman, prison or hospital wards for man and prison or hospital wards for woman etc.) a transsexual has to adhere to the same rules all other members of this sex
have to adhere to.

In other words, you want to prevent transsexuals from becoming accepted as members of their gender.
I explained why this is harmful and utterly immoral, which you are just ignoring. How is that not bigoted?

No, that’s not what I want. I differentiate between gender and sex and – if at all – you could say that I want to prevent transsexuals from being viewed as belonging to the opposite sex.

I do not say that because I personally would have a problem with e.g. a man in a woman changing room and shower. I have no problem with what we Germans are calling FKK (Freikörperkultur). I even think that FKK is a good way to have a better touch with reality. There is an unrealistic stereotype of what constitutes beauty and the ideal body type as portrayed by the media, fashion and entertainment industries. This results, as many scientific researches are showing, in many girls and meanwhile even boys who are not satisfied with their bodies and than are developing eating disorders or are spending all their time in a fitness centre to become as perfect. As other scientific researches are showing, are these unrealistic expectations meanwhile even affecting the criteria for partner selection of many people. The appearance of someone becomes more and more important and personal qualities more and more unimportant. Other studies are showing that it is unhealthy for the sexual development of kids (teens) to be able nowadays to have access to porn in internet. That too results in totally unrealistic expectations (not only regarding the size of penises and breasts) and an unhealthy attitude regarding love, intimacy and sex.

How does that have anything to do with transsexuality?
Oh, sorry, it's just a red herring. My bad, should have smelled it instantly.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have noticed what that has to do with bigotry.

I do not say that because I personally would have a problem with e.g. a man in a woman changing room and shower. I have no problem with what we Germans are calling FKK (Freikörperkultur). I even think that FKK is a good way to have a better touch with reality. There is an unrealistic stereotype of what constitutes beauty and the ideal body type as portrayed by the media, fashion and entertainment industries. This results, as many scientific researches are showing, in many girls and meanwhile even boys who are not satisfied with their bodies and than are developing eating disorders or are spending all their time in a fitness centre to become as perfect. As other scientific researches are showing, are these unrealistic expectations meanwhile even affecting the criteria for partner selection of many people. The appearance of someone becomes more and more important and personal qualities more and more unimportant. Other studies are showing that it is unhealthy for the sexual development of kids (teens) to be able nowadays to have access to porn in internet. That too results in totally unrealistic expectations (not only regarding the size of penises and breasts) and an unhealthy attitude regarding love, intimacy and sex.

You are utterly ignorant of actual pyschological research into transsexuality if you are trying to claim that it is caused by porn or beauty products.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have noticed that I did not claimed that »porn or beauty products« are causing transsexuality. Honestly, have you read that paragraph at all? I ask because I cannot see how someone could understand it that way.

But I'm a tolerant human being and I can understand that many people don't see it my way. Many people have something that is called sense of shame. They do not want to be seen naked by members of the opposite sex with which they are not in an intimate relationship. For some people it is even difficult to unclothe in front of a physician if he or she are not from the same sex. For some women it can be a similar traumatic experience to be forced to unclothe in front of men as a rape can be. Some people even have problems with unclothing in the presence of members of their own sex.
While shame is a naturally phenomenon (it can be observed worldwide and not only in humans), the shame caused by nakedness may be a social phenomenon. But it is nevertheless not a sign of bigotry (because it has nothing to do with prejudices) and it is not something one simply can demand to vanish.

How does that have anything to do with transsexuality?
Oh, right, it's rotten fish again.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would notice that if your demands are fulfilled, other people are affected by that. Later you will claim that I did not show where there is the harm if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is let into a woman changing room.

Furthermore there are women who are disgusted by the sight of a penis. That too has nothing to do with bigotry because the disgust is an emotionally reaction and has nothing to do with prejudices. The chances are good that such a woman knows exactly what a penis is supposed to do (to her).

Yeah, because i am totally insisting on prancing around naked around women. Of course you are assuming that i have no sense of shame and that i would want people to recognize my sex regardless of the fact that i have declared the exact opposite.
Furthermore, that would NOT be an issue after the operation - but you have declared that a transwomen should under NO circumstances be allowed in female facilities.
Even your own logic doesn't justify your bigotry.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would see that there is a difference between abstract rules which have to be adhered by everybody and what you personally are doing? Maybe you and many other transwoman would not prance around naked around woman. Does this mean that no rules are necessary? If we would e.g. debate about the speed limit, would you argue that no speed limit is necessary because you would not drive faster than 80 km/h anyway?

And let us not forget that parents have the right to decide how they are raising their children. If parents do not want that their still small children are confronted with the naked reality that there is something different between men and women, boys and girls, it is their right - even if I think that this is stupid.
I think that these are the main reasons why there is a sex segregation at all - even where there is no need to fear rape or similar things one could fear because naked men and naked women are at the same time at the same place.

Again - what gives you the idea that i would even undress in front of anyone, much less in public, without any problems?
Oh, right, sorry - you are a bigot.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would see that there is a difference between abstract rules which have to be adhered by everybody and what you personally are doing? Maybe you and many other transwoman would not prance around naked around woman. Does this mean that no rules are necessary? If we would e.g. debate about the speed limit, would you argue that no speed limit is necessary because you would not drive faster than 80 km/h anyway?

Serafina does not respect the feelings of these people. Serafina thinks that it is their problem, if they cannot cope with a naked someone of the opposite sex in their presence. Serafina's opinion is that not Serafina has to consider the feeling of these people, but these people have to change their attitude.

As evidenced by - you saying so.

As evidenced by your even here shown ignorance and disrespect of the feelings of these woman. You may not force your penis afflicted presence on such woman. But can you guarantee that there are no transwoman who would do that? There are enough “militant” transwoman who would do that only to provoke.

Furthermore I did nowhere advocate an implementation of anything that results in violence, disrespect, persecution and bigotry? I have just summarized my opinion on that topic and nowhere is the result of my opinion violence, disrespect, persecution or bigotry.

You advocate discrimination and segregation, and you have also advocated the implementation of a policy that leads to violence (which you have not retracted when i pointed that out).

Where did I do such a thing?

That is Serafina who seems to like to be seen as the victim. To achieve that, Serafina stops at nothing and even compares the lot of transsexuals with the lot of Jews and black slaves. To demand from a transwoman to go into a man changing room is apparently as bad as to demand from a Jew to go into a gas chamber.

Evidently you are incapable of grasping comparisons and hyperbole.

Evidently you are incapable of grasping comparisons and hyperbole. I have used this comparison and hyperbole to show you how tasteless your comparisons and hyperbole are.

It is the same with the claim that I advocated implementing a new social class similar to those of the Hijra, who have next-to no legal rights and are heavily discriminated against.

That never happened. I merely considered the possibility that not only transsexuals are neither man nor woman if, as Serafina argues, not the sex but only the gender decides if someone is a man or a woman. Because than it could be possible as well that there are more than two genders. And indeed, since the late 20th century, some hijra activists and Western non-government organizations (NGOs) have been lobbying for official recognition of the hijra as a kind of "third sex" or "third gender", as neither man nor woman.

So you never did it?
But you are doing it RIGHT NOW!
That's exactly what i am talking about - you want to implement a new social class (third gender) for transsexuals.
Which would mean that you deny transwomen (-men) exactly what they want - recognition as a woman (man).
Furthermore, what legal rights would that class have? Judging by your overall conduct, neither those of men OR women - in other words, they would be social outcasts just like the hijra.

Do you know that there is a difference between considering something and advocating something?
And do you know that the outcome of a differentiation does not have to be discrimination? We are differentiating between man and woman, adults and children without having one or other group being an outcast with no legal rights. To have a third group does not have to mean that members of these group have to be outcasts with no legal rights. I think I made it more than clear inter alia here, here or here that I do not want transsexuals to be outcasts with no legal rights. I want that they have all the same rights every other person has. But as usual you are ignoring it and as long as I’m not ready to say that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a woman and that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a man, I’m a bigot who wants to outcast transsexuals and take them all their legal rights.

Serafina would likely argue that these hijra do not know themselves if they think that they are a third gender and not either a man or a woman and of course they want to have no legal rights and be heavily discriminated because that is the only possible outcome of the implementation of a third gender. These hijra activists and Western non-government organizations (NGOs) have to be as unreasonable as I am if I consider the possibility of a third gender.

Given that you have provided absolutely zero evidence, that's hardly something i have to refute.

Evidence for what?

Furthermore - for the hijra, recongnition as a third gender would indeed be an improvement - given that they are currently treated like you advocate it: As men.
And their culture already sees them as some kind of third gender, they are merely fighting for legal recognition.

1. How could the recognition of the hijra as a third gender improves how they are treated if they are already now – according to you – outcasts with no legal rights? Wouldn’t recognition consolidate such discrimination?
2. Hirjya are not treated as men. That’s what I explained here. Their identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation, and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender. But as usual you are ignoring it.

Overall, you are a bigot who want's to keep transsexuals as shunned and rightless as possbile.

I think I made it more than clear inter alia here, here or here that I do not want transsexuals to be outcasts with no legal rights. I want that they have all the same rights every other person has. But as usual you are ignoring it and as long as I’m not ready to say that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a woman and that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a man, I’m a bigot who wants to outcast transsexuals and take them all their legal rights.

You have flat-out declared that you would address a transwoman as male, regardless of her transition, and that you would want to deny her all recognition as a woman regardless of all circumstances.

Yes, a man stays a man and a woman stays a woman. Gender reassignment does not change that. Gender has nothing to do with sex.

You would even go as far as creating a new social class, presumably to shield both biological men and women from something you are bigoted and prejudiced against.

Yes, I considered if there are more than two genders. Nothing more But you are not able to think out of the box and are so afraid that there could be truth in that consideration that you even go so far to claim that I, still only considering the possibility that more than two genders are existing, want to outcast members of other genders.
That this is a stupid notion because, if there are more than two genders, there would be no classical masculine and feminine gender anymore and even I could have a gender that is neither a classical masculine or feminine gender. Maybe half or more of the whole population would be outcast if they do not have what we could consider a classic classical masculine or feminine gender. After all, as you are arguing, not the sex but the gender shall be deciding and I haven’t seen any evidence that there are only two or three genders.

Of course, you are not actually going to address any of my points - you always declare them baseless accusations and then repeat yourself.

Which points?
Science?
Law?
Morallity?
They have nothing to do with the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or if a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman. Unless you can show that there is a commonly accepted scientifically opinion that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender has a female sex or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender has a male sex. Or you can show that only the gender decides if someone is a woman or a man.

Furthermore you have not shown that transsexuals are suffering only because they are addressed as members of their sex and not their gender when the gender and the way they want to live are respected.
I wonder if they do suffer not because they are addressed accordingly to their sex but because they are discriminated when they are addressed accordingly to their sex because then it is obviously that sex and gender are different. If someone who appears to be a woman is addressed as if that someone were a man, all would instantly know or at least guess that this someone is either a transsexual or a transvestite. Then, those who are intolerant and bigoted will discriminate that someone and show hostility. Not the addressing would be the problem but the intolerance of people who do not like transsexuals or transvestites. The attempt to bring others to ignore the truth would be nothing more than the attempt to deceive those who are intolerant bigoted. Or, to use your example, not the recognition that there are black and white people, but the racism against black people is the problem. Your solution would be to either ignore the fact that there are black and white people or to paint all black people white that nobody can see that they are black and thus are not exposed to the hostility of racists.
I assume that you have made similar experiences. There were people who were not ready to accept that your gender is feminine and you want to have a feminine life style. They have ridiculed you and have addressed you accordingly to your sex while those who have supported you have addressed you as if you were a woman. Now you think that everyone who addresses you as a man is like those who have ridiculed you and only those who are addressing you as if you were a woman are supporting you. In your view the question how you get addressed decides if someone supports you or ridicules you – even if that is not true because someone who addresses you accordingly to your sex don’t has to have the intention to ridicule you and may even support you.

Your one actual example where allowing transwomen exactly the same rights as women (sex-specific facilities) isn't as much of an issue as you are trying to imply.
First, it is NOT an issue in bathing rooms - since, you know, you can't actually SEE something.
Second, the same applies in hospital wards - unless you think that patients are lying around naked.
Third, it also doesn't apply in prison wards - for the very same reason.
At most, it applies in public baths and changing rooms - but you are utterly ignoring that most transwomen are too ashamed to do that anyway.

Ever heard of communal showers you can find at indoor pools or in prison-wards? Even most hospitals do not have a shower in each room but only a communal shower on each station.
What is in a prison where more than one prisoner is in a cell? Then there is a woman and a man confined in a very small room. That is not possible without seeing the other naked.
It is similar to a hospital ward where several patients are lying in one room. But of course, these problems don’t exist.

Last but not least - ALL these reasons would no longer apply after their vaginoplasty, yet you INSIST that transwomen are barred from being recognized as women all their life.

As the sex is not changed, many people may still have a problem to be together with someone of the opposite sex – even if that someone looks like a member of their own sex. I’m not willing to ignore the feelings of these people – even if I do not feel that way.

Luckily, german (and most european) law contradicts you.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have seen that this is not the case.
According to the Yogyakarta Principles (Principle 3 and 9) a person with only a name change who is in hospital or prison has no right to be accommodated according to the gender role they live in, but can be housed according to their sex. In Germany too, the gender is not deciding but the fulfilment of certain other criterias.

Another point:
Your arguments are still nearly identitcal to anti-gay arguments.
To show this is in a short display:

Dictionaries clearly define marriage and relationships, as well as love and sex, as something between a MAN and a WOMAN. Why do these people think that they can change that definition? Telling the truth that this is not a relationship and love is never the wrong thing to do.
Furthermore, they simply ignore the rights of others!
Some people are disgusted by two men kissing, they should not be allowed to do it in public. And we should not allow gay men into male changing rooms, the other men are going to be uncomfortable!
Perhaps we could implement some kind of new social class for them, so that the rest of the public doesn't have to deal with them.

Well, i can't obfuscate as well as you, but those are pretty much the arguments you used.

Not exactly. It is right that if marriage is defined as the union of man and woman, homosexuals cannot marry. But that is no reason to not create a legal institution for homosexuals with the same content as the marriage. Furthermore, seeing that the by law recognised marriage in Germany is a legal term defined by law, its meaning can be changed by law. In Germany the church wedding is not recognised by law. Only the wedding in a register office is recognised by law. Insofar Germany does already differentiate between both kinds of marriage and a change of the by law recognised marriage wouldn’t be a problem. But if not, it still would be possible to create a legal institution for homosexuals with the same content as the marriage. Differentiation without discrimination. It is sad that neither is done in Germany but that a legal institution, the Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, was created that is only a second class marriage.

[Serafina]

Prove it, il accept genetic, psychological AND physiological evidence compared to a cis womans....if they match we are good.

Ah, so you just revert to everything we debated.

Besides, that again totally ignores the well-being of transsexual people, not that this is any surprise, tough i would have expected better from you.

There is no segregation mearly accuracy.

Blacks are obviously black as well. Does that justify segregation?

Black men have the same rights as white men, does this mean they are classed as white men?...NO.

Right now, transwomen have the same rights as ciswomen (at least in Germany&other parts of Europe, given the right procedures).
You are arguing for REGRESSING from that.

In fact if we needed to class them as white men to give them equal rights it would be a fine example of colour predjudice.

Yes, instead we do NOT class ANYONE as white - sure, they ARE, but they are not CLASSED that way.
Very simple, isn't it?
By the same logic, there is no need for a seperate class for transsexual people.

SEE a perfect example of you reinterpreting discussion points to the point of absurdity and thus bigotry.

Ah, right - because you say so.
Come on, show that that is not what this forum is arguing.

You made it all about you by taking personal offence and making personal insults because of that, instead of discussing each perspective from a purely intelectual position.

Ah, so taking offense and arguing intellectually are mutually exclusive right now?
By that token, i can determine that everyone who was angry about the holocaust was wrong, or that any black people who were upset for being discriminated against made no good arguments.

Rational and intelectual discussion that includes ALL aspects and perspectives about a topic without emotional outbursts are quite the norm on this board, well at least until you decided to join and fly off the handle every time a sensative point is raised or addressed.

Yes, it is clearly all my fault.
Except that you are NOT addressing all issues. You completely ignore morality and the well-being of transsexuals - which is kind off the actual issue, with all others being tangential at best.

I told JMS i am quite happy discussing this issue from ANY position and am quite introducing and arguing points or perspectives that i may personally disagree with, but then this is a debate forum for intelectuals capable of doing that not a soap box for those who lack emotional control and wish to preach.

Yeah, right, i am clearly solely governed by emotion - as evidenced by you saying so.
Say, if that is the case, then why did we have a lenghty exchange of evidence?
Oh, right, because you were not acting like a bigot at that point.


Thanks for proving me right that you do not care about morality, since you did not even address the issue.

[Mr. Oragahn]

As is said repeatedly, WILGA (and the whole forum by the way) doesn't care about the needs of transsexual people when arguing about their rights.
Which IS extremely bigoted, since he only takes one side (his own personal opinion) into the equation, while ignoring the people who are primarily affected by that which he is advocating.

Oh, now it's the whole forum. Geez. I don't recall this forum being so shaken by such a debate as what's going on now.
Besides, Sera, you're welcome to post the names of the other boards where you put links to SFJN, regardless of them being private or not.

Now, people, call Serafina a she and voila. This isn't going anywhere. Sera's not even here to talk about anything else but that topic. I don't even know how it was originally brought up, and it probably should have not.

Sera, if you have nothing else to say, just take this topic elsewhere and let this place calm down, please.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Yes, instead we do NOT class ANYONE as white - sure, they ARE, but they are not CLASSED that way.
Very simple, isn't it?
By the same logic, there is no need for a seperate class for transsexual people.

Lets see how it works shall we by todays standards.

A man who happens to be black.
A man who happens to be white.
A man who happens to be trans (or what ever term is eventually decided upon).

And none have a higher or lower standing in society than any other.

I do not see bigotry or segregation and if you do then you better start a movement for black ppl.

SEE a perfect example of you reinterpreting discussion points to the point of absurdity and thus bigotry.

Ah, right - because you say so.
Come on, show that that is not what this forum is arguing.

Ah, so taking offense and arguing intellectually are mutually exclusive right now?

Taking offence on some of the subject matter is your choice but your lack of emotional control regarding it has no place in a discussion.

Yes, it is clearly all my fault.
Except that you are NOT addressing all issues. You completely ignore morality and the well-being of transsexuals - which is kind off the actual issue, with all others being tangential at best.

We are discussing the issues and the morality, YOU are not the one who defines it in this regard the discussion will dpo that if you allow it...but you will not as per standard SDN debate tactics.

Yeah, right, i am clearly solely governed by emotion - as evidenced by you saying so.

Evidenced by virtually your every post.

Oh, right, because you were not acting like a bigot at that point.

I am not acting like a bigot i am discussing ALL the positions of the issue intelectually and without emotional bias.

[Serafina]

Where have you shown that in science it is an accepted opinion now that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman? I do not speak of the recognition of gender but that scientists are suddenly saying that not the sex but the gender decides if someone is a man or a woman.

Psychology is a science.
Remember, we are NOT arguing about a biological definition, since that definition is irrelevant for the issue at hand:
Whether transsexual people ought to be treated according to their gender.
I have never disputed biological facts (despite you claiming so), merely proclaimed that they do not matter for this discussion.

Where have you shown that the law says that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman?

You are a lawyer and yet incapable of reading a short law that we discussed?
Strange, isn't it?
After their genital operation, Germany fully recognizes transsexual citizens as members of their gender.
Rememeber, you, a (self-proclaimed) lawyer, are arguing against established law.

I do not know such a law.

Again - it's even NAMED after transsexuality, and we discussed it previously.
Evidently, you are either incapable or unwilling of understanding what it actually says.

Neither the Transsexuellengesetz says such a thing nor the decisions of the Federal Constitution Court says that.

Oh, look, you ARE incapable of understanding it.

(1) Auf Antrag einer Person, die sich auf Grund ihrer transsexuellen Prägung nicht mehr dem in ihrem Geburtseintrag angegebenen, sondern dem anderen Geschlecht als zugehörig empfindet und die seit mindestens drei Jahren unter dem Zwang steht, ihren Vorstellungen entsprechend zu leben, ist vom Gericht festzustellen, daß sie als dem anderen Geschlecht zugehörig anzusehen ist, wenn sie

See? It says right there that a transsexual person is a member of his/her gender if the following criteria apply.
I wonder why a lawyer would not understand or care about what a law says.

If you look into both, they are not talking about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman but they are talking about the civil status (Personenstand) of such people. The Transsexuellengesetz e.g. says that the court declares that the transsexual is to be viewed as belonging to the opposite sex (§ 8 TVG). It does neither say that the transsexual is a member of the opposite sex nor that the sex is determined by the gender. Only those transsexuals who have fulfilled certain requirements can change their civil status. The others, even if their gender is unquestioned feminine, cannot change their civil status. It is not as though as if I hadn’t already explained that [utl=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... fb4#p21844 ]here[/url] or here. But of course it is simpler to ignore that and claim I would ignore what you have said. But the question who ignores whom is very simple to answer. Show me where you have shown a law or a court decision that decrees that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman.

Oh, look at that - you actually fail to understand the implications of this.
Legally, a transwomen (post-OP) has the same legal rights as a ciswoman.
And that is what we are arguing about!

Legally, you are COMPLETELY wrong to address me according to my sex - even sooner than that actually.

What has morality to do with the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or if a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman? The one is a factual question. Morality can say if the truth should be ignored or if the out of the truth drawn consequences are morally. But it cannot decree what is the truth.

Yeah, keep on claiming that i denied my biological sex.
Morality says that it is WRONG to address me according to my sex, regardless of whether that is "THE TRUTH!!" or not.

But evidently, your actions are not guided by morality.

No, that’s not what I want. I differentiate between gender and sex and – if at all – you could say that I want to prevent transsexuals from being viewed as belonging to the opposite sex.

By marking them as being members of their sex for the rest of their live.
Gosh, that's brilliant! Or not, i suppose.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have noticed what that has to do with bigotry.

A bigot doesn't have to be prude. Proclaiming that you are not prude doesn't change a thing.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have noticed that I did not claimed that »porn or beauty products« are causing transsexuality. Honestly, have you read that paragraph at all? I ask because I cannot see how someone could understand it that way.

Yes i did. Let's see:
-You proclaim that many people are not satisfied with their body due to cultural images. Nothing to do with transsexuality.
-You then go on about partner selection due to that - still nothing to do with TS.
-You are then talking about the exceptions that are caused by porn (even tough that research is dubious at best) - still nothing to do with transsexuality.
So tell me - what does it have to do with transsexuality?

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would notice that if your demands are fulfilled, other people are affected by that. Later you will claim that I did not show where there is the harm if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is let into a woman changing room.

So how is it harmful?
Just don't say so, show us how it is harmful.

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would see that there is a difference between abstract rules which have to be adhered by everybody and what you personally are doing? Maybe you and many other transwoman would not prance around naked around woman. Does this mean that no rules are necessary? If we would e.g. debate about the speed limit, would you argue that no speed limit is necessary because you would not drive faster than 80 km/h anyway?

Ah, non sequiturs are always fun.
Anyway - show me a SINGLE example where a transwoman voluntarily reveal her penis in a womans changing room (because yes, i can already use such facilities).
Speed limits are necessary because people ignore them all the time. Where is your evidence that such a law is needed here?

As evidenced by your even here shown ignorance and disrespect of the feelings of these woman. You may not force your penis afflicted presence on such woman. But can you guarantee that there are no transwoman who would do that? There are enough “militant” transwoman who would do that only to provoke.

"Militant transwomen"?
Again, present evidence for this happening - apparently you think that some transwomen are would-be rapists or something.

Where did I do such a thing?

Remember you advocating third-gender laws? Like they already exist for the Hijra?
How is that not segregation?
Heck, you would even have to create seperate facilities just for transsexual people - how is that NOT segregation?

Do you know that there is a difference between considering something and advocating something?

Yes - if you consider something, you also talk about the negative aspects. Which you did not, hence you are an advocate of it.

And do you know that the outcome of a differentiation does not have to be discrimination?

Yes, but it is often an enabler.
Given that you proposed nothing to further public understanding, discrimination would be rampart.

To have a third group does not have to mean that members of these group have to be outcasts with no legal rights. I think I made it more than clear inter alia here, here or here that I do not want transsexuals to be outcasts with no legal rights. I want that they have all the same rights every other person has.

So, they will have the rights of...which sex?

But as usual you are ignoring it and as long as I’m not ready to say that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a woman and that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a man, I’m a bigot who wants to outcast transsexuals and take them all their legal rights.

You are a bigot for focussing on a persons biology instead of a persons wishes, identity, medical necessities, rights and moral necessities.

Evidence for what?

Evidence that a third gender like you advocate it actually exists.
And no, a culture is no scientific evidence that such a gender exists, i suppose it's obvious why.

How could the recognition of the hijra as a third gender improves how they are treated if they are already now – according to you – outcasts with no legal rights? Wouldn’t recognition consolidate such discrimination?

Recognition would grant them at least SOME legal rights, where as they currently have NONE.
Of course, there is no need for that in Germany, given that transsexual people here already have the same rights (or rather the means of obtaining them) as other member of their gender.

Hirjya are not treated as men. That’s what I explained here. Their identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation, and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender. But as usual you are ignoring it.

They are not?
Then why can't they enter a legal marriage etc.?

I think I made it more than clear inter alia here, here or here that I do not want transsexuals to be outcasts with no legal rights. I want that they have all the same rights every other person has. But as usual you are ignoring it and as long as I’m not ready to say that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a woman and that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a man, I’m a bigot who wants to outcast transsexuals and take them all their legal rights.

You want to deny them the rights that every biological member of their gender has.

Yes, a man stays a man and a woman stays a woman. Gender reassignment does not change that. Gender has nothing to do with sex.

Only if you define it solely biologically, which is NOT all there is.
Also, as i said - german law doesn't work like that.

Yes, I considered if there are more than two genders. Nothing more But you are not able to think out of the box and are so afraid that there could be truth in that consideration that you even go so far to claim that I, still only considering the possibility that more than two genders are existing, want to outcast members of other genders.

Proclaiming that pure speculation is valid is just stupid.
So far, you have presented nothing but pure speculation.

That this is a stupid notion because, if there are more than two genders, there would be no classical masculine and feminine gender anymore and even I could have a gender that is neither a classical masculine or feminine gender. Maybe half or more of the whole population would be outcast if they do not have what we could consider a classic classical masculine or feminine gender. After all, as you are arguing, not the sex but the gender shall be deciding and I haven’t seen any evidence that there are only two or three genders.

Even IF there are more than two general genders, that would still not prove that transsexual people are not members of one of the two classical genders.

Which points?
Science?
Law?
Morallity?

Let's see - no scientific evidence presented, an existing german law completely misinterpreted and not a single sentence about morality.
Yes, i think you ignored them.

They have nothing to do with the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or if a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender is a woman. Unless you can show that there is a commonly accepted scientifically opinion that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender has a female sex or that a female person (XX gonosomes, womb, ovaries, no penis or testicles) with a masculine gender has a male sex. Or you can show that only the gender decides if someone is a woman or a man.

Still on that trip, eh?
They have EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand:
Whether it is moral to address transwomen as male or not.

Furthermore you have not shown that transsexuals are suffering only because they are addressed as members of their sex and not their gender when the gender and the way they want to live are respected.

The german supreme court has determined that transsexual people have a right to be addressed according to their gender.

I wonder if they do suffer not because they are addressed accordingly to their sex but because they are discriminated when they are addressed accordingly to their sex because then it is obviously that sex and gender are different. If someone who appears to be a woman is addressed as if that someone were a man, all would instantly know or at least guess that this someone is either a transsexual or a transvestite.

Yes, exactly.
Which, in turn, would lead bigoted people (like you) to TREAT them as male. Which, in turn, is the whole fucking reason they underwent transition - they want to avoid it.
Is that really that hard to grasp?

Then, those who are intolerant and bigoted will discriminate that someone and show hostility. Not the addressing would be the problem but the intolerance of people who do not like transsexuals or transvestites. The attempt to bring others to ignore the truth would be nothing more than the attempt to deceive those who are intolerant bigoted. Or, to use your example, not the recognition that there are black and white people, but the racism against black people is the problem. Your solution would be to either ignore the fact that there are black and white people or to paint all black people white that nobody can see that they are black and thus are not exposed to the hostility of racists.

Yes, you are an enabler of bigotry.
But more - yes, the ACT of addressing a transwoman as male is ALSO bigotry, since that is part of treating someone as male, isn't it?

I assume that you have made similar experiences. There were people who were not ready to accept that your gender is feminine and you want to have a feminine life style. They have ridiculed you and have addressed you accordingly to your sex while those who have supported you have addressed you as if you were a woman. Now you think that everyone who addresses you as a man is like those who have ridiculed you and only those who are addressing you as if you were a woman are supporting you. In your view the question how you get addressed decides if someone supports you or ridicules you – even if that is not true because someone who addresses you accordingly to your sex don’t has to have the intention to ridicule you and may even support you.

Actually, no. Most people are quite tolerant. Even neo-nazis or "problematic minorities" (as they are called) are often kind enough to address me according to my gender. Then again, i suppose some might just have not noticed anything.

Ever heard of communal showers you can find at indoor pools or in prison-wards? Even most hospitals do not have a shower in each room but only a communal shower on each station.
What is in a prison where more than one prisoner is in a cell? Then there is a woman and a man confined in a very small room. That is not possible without seeing the other naked.
It is similar to a hospital ward where several patients are lying in one room. But of course, these problems don’t exist.

Again - WHY should that be a major issue, ESPECIALLY if she is post-op?
Besides, you do not have to shower naked.

As the sex is not changed, many people may still have a problem to be together with someone of the opposite sex – even if that someone looks like a member of their own sex. I’m not willing to ignore the feelings of these people – even if I do not feel that way.

Yeah, you totally don't - then why are you talking like you do?
Besides - you really think anyone would notice? You are more clueless than i thought.
Furthermore - why is that enough of an issue to COMPLETELY shun transsexuals from the rights they deserve?

Yes, if you had stopped only for a moment and contemplated what I have said, you would have seen that this is not the case.
According to the Yogyakarta Principles (Principle 3 and 9) a person with only a name change who is in hospital or prison has no right to be accommodated according to the gender role they live in, but can be housed according to their sex. In Germany too, the gender is not deciding but the fulfilment of certain other criterias.

But post-OP, you ARE wrong.
Besides, it is often customary to allow transwomen regardles of that - because most people are more tolerant than you.

Oh - and they are NOT german law, are they? A lawyer should really know such technicalities.

Not exactly. It is right that if marriage is defined as the union of man and woman, homosexuals cannot marry. But that is no reason to not create a legal institution for homosexuals with the same content as the marriage. Furthermore, seeing that the by law recognised marriage in Germany is a legal term defined by law, its meaning can be changed by law. In Germany the church wedding is not recognised by law. Only the wedding in a register office is recognised by law. Insofar Germany does already differentiate between both kinds of marriage and a change of the by law recognised marriage wouldn’t be a problem. But if not, it still would be possible to create a legal institution for homosexuals with the same content as the marriage. Differentiation without discrimination. It is sad that neither is done in Germany but that a legal institution, the Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, was created that is only a second class marriage.

So you admit that a dictionary-definition is NOT the ultimate truth and that there are more important things to consider? Do you admit that your dictionary-drivel was a complete red herring?



You have not changed a bit. You did NOT address anything you did not already address, but at least you addded some severe blunders (especially for a supposed lawyer).

[Serafina]

Well, before i address the repetitions her, let's get back to the beginning, shall we?


This whole ordeal started because i claimed that it is insulting and ultimately prejudiced or bigoted to address a transwoman as male.

Nearly everyone on this forum who took part in this debate seems to disagree with that.
WILGA went as far as claiming that a transwoman should ALWAYS be addressed as male, regardless of her transition.

Well, let's look at why you SHOULD address a transwoman as female:
-She wants it. Sure, you do not have to do everything someone wants, but this is hardly much to ask.
-Her gender is female.
-I hurts her to be addressed as male
-I most instances, she will actually look and behave female.
-Many countries fully recognize transwomen as female (including Germany)
Apart from the last point, this has NOTHING to do with legality and is simply a matter of decency and politeness, and should be no issue at all over the Internet.

So, what are the reasons NOT to do that?
Honestly, the only reason is that one is too mentally inflexible to do so, or simply unwilling to do so.
This IS bigotry, tough the first may not be voluntarily.

So - is someone who declares that you should (since it is the right thing to do) address as transwoman as male under all possible circumstances a bigot?
Yes, i think so!


In addition to that, WILGA has recently argued that transwomen should legally be treated as well, again regardless of the circumstances.
Of course, that violates laws in several countries, and is also morally deplorable.
Doing so prevents a transwomen from living as a female, which is probably her greatest wish in live.
Now, he has somewhat of a point in regard to rare potential circumstances for pre-OP transwomen - but he gives not justification whatsoever why one should apply this as a general policy, and why this would still be the case after the OP.

Overall, he considers NONE of the implications that his policy would have.



Now - do i think this forum is bigoted?
Yes, i do - not necessarily every member of this forum, but the forum culture itself.
Why do i think that?
Quite simply - WILGA and others have made statements that are utterly backwards and harmful to transsexual people, if they would actually be implemented.
Practically no one has spoken out against that, they have suffered NO consequences for advocating utterly bigoted and harmful policies.
On a tolerant, open-minded forum, this would be the case - they would perhaps be allowed to speak on, but members of the forum would argue AGAINST such deplorable statments. This has not happened here at all, which leads me to the conclusion that n one here objects to these things or that the forum simply allows no actual dissent.

[Serafina]

Besides, Sera, you're welcome to post the names of the other boards where you put links to SFJN, regardless of them being private or not.

Actually, most of them are supposed to be hidden, secure boards - you won't even find them in search engines. They actually have policies against linking to them, so i won't do it.

Now, people, call Serafina a she and voila. This isn't going anywhere. Sera's not even here to talk about anything else but that topic. I don't even know how it was originally brought up, and it probably should have not.

Yes, quite, i am only here to argue against the rampart bigotry here.
Mostly because such bigotry makes the forum completely unappealing.

Sera, if you have nothing else to say, just take this topic elsewhere and let this place calm down, please.

Ah, so you want me to shut up while the bigots are allowed to go on?
If you are talking about this specific thread, i already asked to this to be merged with the actual one.

[Serafina]

Lets see how it works shall we by todays standards.

A man who happens to be black.
A man who happens to be white.
A man who happens to be trans (or what ever term is eventually decided upon).

And none have a higher or lower standing in society than any other.

I do not see bigotry or segregation and if you do then you better start a movement for black ppl.

Well, except that a transwoman is treated like every other woman, you are right.

And that's ok, that's fine, that's GREAT.
But WILGA is advocating the removal of that equality, or at least advocating treating a transwoman like a man. But if that is done, it would be utterly harmful to transwomen - an issue which everyone here seems to give a rats ass about.

Taking offence on some of the subject matter is your choice but your lack of emotional control regarding it has no place in a discussion.

Yeah, so i am upset -care to actually address my arguments instead of using an ad hominem?

We are discussing the issues and the morality, YOU are not the one who defines it in this regard the discussion will dpo that if you allow it...but you will not as per standard SDN debate tactics.

Ah, repetition.
Well, i can play that game too - show me where any member of this board argued for trans-rights merely because the lack of them is harmful to transsexual people.
Show me where anyone considered morality.

I am not acting like a bigot i am discussing ALL the positions of the issue intelectually and without emotional bias.

No, you are solely focussing on one aspect:
Is there biological evidence for transsexuality.
Which is fine, i gladly discussed that aspect with you.

Shall i tell you what i am not open to?
Advocating the REMOVAL of my rights. Which is exactly what WILGA and others are doing.
What else am i not open to?
Advocating that it is the right thing to INSULT and offent transsexuals by default. Which is exactly what WILGA and most others are doing.
What else am i not open to?
People declaring that i am male without evidence (which is not the case for solely biological factors).

So, you tell me - what else am i not open to?

[Praeothmin]

Heck, i would wager that this is a common board attitude, given that you make the same statements about SDN. Even more damning, the actual thread is named "all about Serafina", despite it being a debate about transsexuality. Evidently, all transsexual people must be like me.


Yes, yes, it's possible that i make unfair generalisations here. But since NO ONE is advocating transsexual rights here, since NO ONE is speaking out against bigots like WILGA or Oraghan (who declared open disgust towards transsexuals), i don't think so.

Perhaps the reason no one else came in the thread is because no one feels there's anything else to be said.
Or they are feeling that this is a sensitive subject, and perhaps know that, since they agree partially with both sides, they could only fuel the flames more by commenting.
While you do sometimes seem to me to be over-reacting to some things written, I feel it is normal because what you go through in life is different then what I go through in life, and I will never be the subject of the same stupid intolerance as you can be, which explains your reactions, IMO.

I did say, a few times at least, that you are free to live as you will, that you have every right to live as you feel yourself to be, that is a woman.
And because I respect this right to live as you will, I will show you the respect I show to most people and use feminine adjectives and pronouns when addressing you as you wish.
I feel that not doing such is showing some lack of respect, but please remember that this is only my opinion, and has no legal value in itself.
And again, while not agreeing and condoning it, being disrespectful to someone isn't illegal.

While I don't agree with everything I remember reading from WILGA, he does bring some valid points, IMO.
And I still don't see where he said we need to segregate against Transsexuals.
Could you, Serafina, quote the things he wrote that indicate, to you, willingness for segregation?
I read the posts as much as I could, but time being limited, I did have to read them in "speed-reading" mode, meaning I could have missed those parts.

I said I thought he brought some valid points, so here they are:

Point 1: there already exist (valid, IMO) segregation based on sex: separate changing rooms and restrooms for men and women. Most women would never agree to have to change in front of a man, or to have men change in the same room as they do, and most men feel the same way, and it is their right to feel that way.
How do you think they would feel if we forced women to change in the same room as a man (even one who lives and feels as a woman?).
They would say we deprive them of their right to intimacy, of their right not to show their bodies to men they do not know, or to be forced to see bodies of men they do not know.
Laws are made according to what is good for the majority of the population (there will always be malcontents, with reason in some cases, without in others), and the truth is the majority of the population is separated in two "genetic" genders: male and female.
What you call segregation towards you or other Transsexuals is also a violation of the rights of women not to bare themselves in the presence of a physical male.
Should we impose your rights to the detriment of theirs?

And I feel certain that 99% of the people on any board think the same way in this matter.
Just out of curiosity, start a poll on all the boards you're registered on, and ask the ladies how many would accept that you, Serafina, a woman in a man's body, change in the same dressing room as they do.
I'd be surprised if you had more then 10% acceptance of that situation.


Point 2: Whether you are a man or a woman.
While you may be a woman in mind and spirit, if you were born a male (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries), then genetically you are a man.
That you feel you are a woman still doesn't change that.
Again, no one has the right to force you to live as a man since you are a woman in mind and spirit, but there are cases where your genetic and physical "statuses" will be taken into account.

Quick question, and of course you can choose to answer or not:
Did you have the whole operation (removal of penis and testicules, breast implants to look as a woman, and vaginoplasty) done to you (can't remember if it's been mentioned or not)?
If not, is it because of monetary reasons, or other reasons?

I realize a lot of what I say will not make you happy, and if my beliefs in your eyes make a bigot, then so be it.
I know I'm not (consciously) bigoted, I see no difference between gays, heteros and transsexuals, blacks, caucasians and asians.
We are all human beings of equal worth, but where I profoundly disagree with WILGA is the amount of automatic respect I have for most people:
I have ZERO respect for murderers and abusers, and very little for thieves (equal to the respect I show politicians).
But this comes from the morals I was educated with, and those I developed along the way growing up, and I realize they can be different for others.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

This whole ordeal started because i claimed that it is insulting and ultimately prejudiced or bigoted to address a transwoman as male.

You may personally find it insulting as a matter of choice, i have yet to see how it is automatically prejudiced or bigoted.

Prejudice and bigotry require more than you finding a perspective (what could be considered factually/technically correct on many levels) insulting.

Well, let's look at why you SHOULD address a transwoman as female:
-She wants it. Sure, you do not have to do everything someone wants, but this is hardly much to ask.

True but like most things in life you ask for you need to be prepared to be told no.

-Her gender is female.

That is a matter of opinion, you say it is so and you are entitled to that opinion, i suggest you tolerate others having a differing view or yard stick to measure gender.

-I hurts her to be addressed as male

Get over it, most of my gay, black, asian or other minority friends would laugh their asses off if i called them str8, white ect ect.

-In most instances, she will actually look and behave female.

A choice and a personal right.

-Many countries fully recognize transwomen as female (including Germany)
Apart from the last point, this has NOTHING to do with legality and is simply a matter of decency and politeness, and should be no issue at all over the Internet.

Decency and politeness are fine however you cannot exclude material from a discussion just becase you are uncomfortable with it.

So, what are the reasons NOT to do that?
Honestly, the only reason is that one is too mentally inflexible to do so, or simply unwilling to do so.
This IS bigotry, tough the first may not be voluntarily.

Actually telling ppl how they should think of you is really very controlling.

Do you think i would be offended if you started refering to me as a woman and used "SHE" when refering to me?.

So - is someone who declares that you should (since it is the right thing to do) address as transwoman as male under all possible circumstances a bigot?
Yes, i think so!

You want to be judge by psycological status, others wish to do so with biological or physical status.

I am happy tolerating you both doing as you please in that regard up to the point you start telling what way I have to do so.......

Now, he has somewhat of a point in regard to rare potential circumstances for pre-OP transwomen - but he gives not justification whatsoever why one should apply this as a general policy, and why this would still be the case after the OP.

Until my children reached a certain age i segregated them from ALL exposure of that sort, now i cannot say i considered transgender or any gender specifically at all i just made that BLANKET choice for my children regardless.

However i can understand a parents concern if they have other principals regarding the physical awareness of their children in that regard and your personal assurance that a transgender would be circumspect is not the same as a assurance....you will understand the importance of a definitive rule one way or another if you ever have children on MANY issues not just this one.

Now - do i think this forum is bigoted?
Yes, i do - not necessarily every member of this forum, but the forum culture itself.
Why do i think that?
Quite simply - WILGA and others have made statements that are utterly backwards and harmful to transsexual people, if they would actually be implemented.
Practically no one has spoken out against that, they have suffered NO consequences for advocating utterly bigoted and harmful policies.

You cannot censure somebody for introducing perspectives and material into a discussion it is directly related to, if he started spamming hate threads it would be differant.

If we started discussing racism and i took the pro position in the discussion and researched and started showing examples of how it benifited cultures i would personally disagree with them on a moral level but the fact is i would still present them as best i could due to the fact it would be a intelectual debate with others who were aware of the fact and my ACTUAL personal position regarding the subject.

Doing so and members not charging into the thread screaming abuse would not make this a racist forum it would just mean they were watching the discussion and not ruining it with emotional outbursts.

[The Dude]

Just a minor point Prommie; here in Canada many new build swimming pools have "family changing rooms" where I, my wife and my kids could all go in and change. So naturally all the sexes are in there, now to be fair there are cubicles for the families but i have seen folks change out in the open.

I'm not sure it's that much of a stretch to have transfolk share a change room.

[Praeothmin]

Remember, we are NOT arguing about a biological definition, since that definition is irrelevant for the issue at hand:
Whether transsexual people ought to be treated according to their gender.
I have never disputed biological facts (despite you claiming so), merely proclaimed that they do not matter for this discussion.

I does, for many specific instances.
In everyday life, and for most social interactions, I agree with you:
The biological definition has no bearing on how you should be treated, but in certain specific social aspects, such as locker rooms in gyms, it is, very much so, as I explained in my previous post.

After their genital operation, Germany fully recognizes transsexual citizens as members of their gender.

I believe Canadian law does as well.

Again - WHY should that be a major issue, ESPECIALLY if she is post-op?

It definitely wouldn't for a posp-op Transsexual, because then only her genome would know the "original genetic gender"…

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Just a minor point Prommie; here in Canada many new build swimming pools have "family changing rooms" where I, my wife and my kids could all go in and change. So naturally all the sexes are in there, now to be fair there are cubicles for the families but i have seen folks change out in the open.

I'm not sure it's that much of a stretch to have transfolk share a change room.

We had those in the UK and while my children were young i had no problem asking those who changed in the open in that area not to do so and to respect the fact that myself and others did not want their children exposed to certain things yet.

[Praeothmin]

Just a minor point Prommie; here in Canada many new build swimming pools have "family changing rooms" where I, my wife and my kids could all go in and change. So naturally all the sexes are in there, now to be fair there are cubicles for the families but i have seen folks change out in the open.

I'm not sure it's that much of a stretch to have transfolk share a change room.

Sure, but the old "Men" and "Woman" rooms remain, and by "forcing" Transsexuals to go in the "Family changing rooms", would that not also be segregation and bigotry?
Because while you do not force, say Serafina because she is the only Transsexual I know, Serafina to change in the "Men"'s room, you are still not allowing her, per her position, to change in the woman's room.
This is why this entire discussion is so volatile.
There are so many grey areas, while both WILGA and Serafina argue for black and white positions, from what I've read...

[The Dude]

Oh, I'm not saying that we should force them to go into any particular room. I'm trying to say that I don't think it would be a big a deal as folks think for a transperson to be in a regular change room. Now what I'm about to say is undoubtedly going to come out wrong because my understanding of the issue is poor;

If it's a person transitioning to female, so maybe they have the breasts but not the female bits below then they could go in either room. I'm not saying it's not going to raise eyebrows but society needs to mature in this regard anyways.

Or just put proper stalls in every change room. Even as a regular guy I'm not exactly a fan of folks walking around naked or talking to me in the change room with everything hanging out, we've all been there.