All about Serafina (Split)

[Serafina]

@Praeothmin

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.

Then you comment on the things you agree with and on the things you disagree with.
Silence is not the answer.

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.

If WILGA would be making the laws, that would not be possible for me.

Could you, Serafina, quote the things he wrote that indicate, to you, willingness for segregation?

I'm not going to dig trough his rather repetitive posts, but here is what i took as
evidence for him advocating segregation:
-he advocated a system like it exists for the indian Hjira - who are not recognized as woman and have next-to no legal rights.
-He advocates the creation of a third gender for transsexual people. That would practically bar them from being recognized according to their actual gender, and would separate them from it.
Both are, effectively, segregation policies.

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 did i ever argue against that segregation?
Yes, i did - because transsexual people have to be allowed to cross that line, else you deny them recognition.
So, where is the line? It depends on what we are talking about.
In bathrooms, you don't actually see a thing, so it's not much of an issue.
In changing rooms, a transwoman could simply already wear the lower part of her swimming clothes (in fact, i did that most of my life anyway). No need to establish it by law, until it get's out of hand all the time.
For hospital wards, there is not much of a difference again - you don't see peoples genitalia all the time after all. No need for a law unless it is a problem all the time.
Prisons - yeah, seperate all you want for pre-OP women, i can understand why this is sensitive. Same goes for other protected rooms.

For a lawyer, it is astonishing that he does not realize that there doesn't have to be a law for everything and that many things can be handled on a case-to-case basis quite well.

My problem with WILBA is that he advocates this segregation REGARDLESS of the actual circumstances - even Post-OP, he still want's to treat a transwoman completely like a man.
This is simply unacceptable, since it prevents transsexual people from ever living according to their gender.

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.

Yes, it does not change my biological sex (tough transitioning arguably blurs the borders quite a lot - after i am finished, i will effectively be a infertile woman in all but genetics).
But there is more than just biological sex, and the rest is arguably much more important.

WILBA effectively reduces me to my biological sex, a way of thinking that is generally unacceptable.

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)?

The vagionplasty and the "removal" of my genitalia are actually the same operation - most of the material gets re-used, which means that i use the same nerves, can get wet etc.
And no, i did not have it, it's propably going to happen next year.
I won't actually need breast implants (few transwomen NEED them), i have already grown natural breasts (A-cup right now, going to be more).

If not, is it because of monetary reasons, or other reasons?

It's mostly a matter of procedure - it's step by step, and i'm just not at that step yet.
Luckily, insurance covers the whole procedure in Germany.

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.

Actually, no, you seem to be quite reasonable.
Just contemplate that it is necessary to allow transsexual people to live according to their gender to allow them to be happy.
Focusing on their sex prevents that, and is generally rude and improvident.

Next post:

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.

Addressed, see above. Compromise are quite easy.

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

Exactly.
Problem is, WILBA advocates that that should still matter - who the f... cares about ones genome?

Next post:

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...

Actually, if they exist, i suspect that many transwomen would take them anyway, or cabins if possible.
WILBA seems to think that you have to fix everything with law, when it is in fact not really possible in such cases.
Why force someone to do something he or she is likely to do anyway?

[Serafina]

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 (what could be considered factually correct on many levels) insulting.

Because it is based on the wrong impression that a transwoman is male, and ignores what is best for her based on that - which is bigotry.

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

And if someone says no just because he feels like it, he's an asshole - well, unless there would be actual effort required, which is only the case if you are small-minded here.

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.

Actually, it is a matter of scientific inquiry - ignoring science is generally idiotic.
And you (or any other stranger) are certainly not more qualified to determine my gender as i am.

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.

Yes, so what? How is that in any way comparable?
But thanks for admitting that you are ok with hurting transsexual people.

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

I did not, i am merely attacking the overuse of biological sex in the discussion.

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?.

No, because you do not have issues with your gender identity. I already explained several times that some people are more vulnerable to certain things - hardly a difficult concept.

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

Again, ignoring science is idiotic.

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.

The desire to keep your children ignorant about certain things does NOT translate into a right to dictate other peoples actions.

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.

Unless you specifically stated that you are taking the position solely for the sake of discussion, most people would label you as a bigot. Declaring that you did it later on seems naturally suspect.
Furthermore, you never mentioned that you disagree with the PoVs you argued for.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Because it is based on the wrong impression that a transwoman is male, and ignores what is best for her based on that - which is bigotry.

Rubbish it is based on what he chooses to define as male and that is his right just as much as your choice to decide what defiones it is.

And if someone says no just because he feels like it, he's an asshole.

Most of your argument is based on you "feeling" femenine.

Actually, it is a matter of scientific inquiry - ignoring science is generally idiotic.

Biology and genetics are also sciences.

And you (or any other stranger) are certainly not more qualified to determine my gender as i am.

I am entitled to a opinion andto chhose what i use to define a person, your entire argument is about that right yet you deny it to others who do not agree with yours.

Yes, so what? How is that in any way comparable?.

But thanks for admitting that you are ok with hurting transsexual people.

If you truely KNOW not THINK but KNOW you are a woman other ppls opinions do not matter a damn.

In this instance the transgender is hurting themselves by not tolerating the fact that others do not think the way they do.

I did not, i am merely attacking the overuse of biological sex in the discussion.

It is as much a part of this discussion as any other.

No, because you do not have issues with your gender identity. I already explained several times that some people are more vulnerable to certain things - hardly a difficult concept.

No its not a problem to understand that the issues are all yours not anybody elses or the terminoligy.

Again, ignoring science is idiotic.

Again biology and genetics are both sciences.

The desire to keep your children ignorant about certain things does NOT translate into a right to dictate other peoples actions.

And your desire to live as a woman does not give you the right to dictate ppls thoughts.

Unless you specifically stated that you are taking the position solely for the sake of discussion, most people would label you as a bigot. Declaring that you did it later on seems naturally suspect.
Furthermore, you never mentioned that you disagree with the PoVs you argued for.

I am pretty sure i told you my overall position on this issue when we were discussing it cross boards.

[Praeothmin]

In changing rooms, a transwoman could simply already wear the lower part of her swimming clothes (in fact, i did that most of my life anyway). No need to establish it by law, until it get's out of hand all the time..

But, would not the… ah… the "culprit" show through that lower part of the bathing suit?

reduces me to my biological sex, a way of thinking that is generally unacceptable.

I find that unacceptable too.

The vagionplasty and the "removal" of my genitalia are actually the same operation - most of the material gets re-used, which means that i use the same nerves, can get wet etc.
And no, i did not have it, it's propably going to happen next year.
I won't actually need breast implants (few transwomen NEED them), i have already grown natural breasts (A-cup right now, going to be more).

With hormones, I knew you could grow breasts, but I read a lot of Transwomen had breast implants because they wanted their breasts to show unequivocably, like when they are built solidly.

Just contemplate that it is necessary to allow transsexual people to live according to their gender to allow them to be happy.

And in turn, I will ask you to contemplate that because this is rather new (the capacity to change one's exterior to match one's interior), things will not move as quickly as you may like.
And wide open acceptance may be a long time coming.
In the meantime, live your life the way that makes you the happiest, in this imperfect society we have…

[Serafina]

But, would not the… ah… the "culprit" show through that lower part of the bathing suit?

Quite. However, that is no different from what you see in a public bath anyway.
Besides, this is exactly the reason why most pre-OP transwomen (all i know in fact) don't go swimming in public baths anyway.

With hormones, I knew you could grow breasts, but I read a lot of Transwomen had breast implants because they wanted their breasts to show unequivocably, like when they are built solidly.

Well, biologically they are identical to those to ciswomen.
Most transwomen take the surgery for the same reason as other women - because it looks good.
Some arguably need it, since their breasts don't really develop.

And in turn, I will ask you to contemplate that because this is rather new (the capacity to change one's exterior to match one's interior), things will not move as quickly as you may like.
And wide open acceptance may be a long time coming.
In the meantime, live your life the way that makes you the happiest, in this imperfect society we have…

Well, the german law about transsexuality has been around since...1981.
I get your point, but it's not like it is a completely new issue.

[Serafina]

Rubbish it is based on what he chooses to define as male and that is his right just as much as your choice to decide what defiones it is.

As i said, it is based on his bigotry. That he choose to be a bigot doesn't change that.
Again, denying science is rather foolish.

Most of your argument is based on you "feeling" femenine.

Your point being?
Or, right, false equivocation.

Biology and genetics are also sciences.

Yes - and science has, combining various disciplines of it, determined that gender is not based on any of those - at least not on such simpletons as chromosomes or genitalia.

I am entitled to a opinion andto chhose what i use to define a person, your entire argument is about that right yet you deny it to others who do not agree with yours.

So is a white supremacist. I am also entitled to my opinion that such people are deplorable bigoted assholes.

If you truely KNOW not THINK but KNOW you are a woman other ppls opinions do not matter a damn.

Ah, semantics.
The old game: I THINK that i KNOW it. That i choose the former word doesn't say that the latter is not the case.

In this instance the transgender is hurting themselves by not tolerating the fact that others do not think the way they do.
......
No its not a problem to understand that the issues are all yours not anybody elses or the terminoligy.

"See? It's her own fault if her feelings are hurt".
So if someone thinks that disabled people are not worth anything, it's the fault of the disabled person if she is hurt when hearing that - according to your logic.

It is as much a part of this discussion as any other.

It is indeed the least important part of it, since we are discussing peoples rights here.
And WILBA uses nothing but that argument (and semantics).

And your desire to live as a woman does not give you the right to dictate ppls thoughts.

Again: You are entitled to think of me as a man, and i am entitled to thinking that you are therefore a deplorable bigot.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Yes - and science has, combining various disciplines of it, determined that gender is not based on any of those - at least not on such simpletons as chromosomes or genitalia.

Wrong id say personal freedom is the deciding factor actually, if you wanna call me a woman thats fine as long as i get as many rights as a individual as everybody else.

So is a white supremacist. I am also entitled to my opinion that such people are deplorable bigoted assholes.

That is your right but the transgender issue is not the same because nobody is saying you are going to be limited in society because of simple terminology.

Ah, semantics.
The old game: I THINK that i KNOW it. That i choose the former word doesn't say that the latter is not the case.

Self confidence, you canot fully know and own yourself until you accept that the only opinion about you that matters is your own.

"See? It's her own fault if her feelings are hurt".
So if someone thinks that disabled people are not worth anything, it's the fault of the disabled person if she is hurt when hearing that - according to your logic.

So you consider your condition to be the same as a disabled person?, well that does answer a few questions regarding your attitude towards others who do not obey your idea of how things are.

Again: You are entitled to think of me as a man, and i am entitled to thinking that you are therefore a deplorable bigot.

And you are wrong by doing so because my thoughts if i had them are denying you nothing in regards to who you wish to be. In fact it is you who are dictating to me HOW i should think, i say you can think of yourself as you please and good luck, but you have no right to dictate how i think.

[Serafina]

Wrong id say personal freedom is the deciding factor actually.

Did i say otherwise?
WILBA attempts to use science, yet he purposefully concentrates only on parts of it, which is obviously wrong.

That he should actually look at other things altogether just makes it worse.

That is your right but the transgender issue is not the same because nobody is saying you are going to be limited in society because of simple terminology.

WILBA does, doesn't he?
And YES, being addressed correctly matters.
Besides, i can't imagine that someone would treat a transwoman completely female and NOT address her correctly - someone who refuses to use the correct address is extremely likely to deny her other rights as well. Which WILBA has been advocating excessively.

Self confidence.

You think i don't have any?
Internet psychology is always so...pathetic. Especially from people who never studied psychology.

So you consider your condition to be the same as a disabled person?, well that does answer a few questions regarding your attitude towards others who do not obey your idea of how things are.

Hint: Despite what Voyager says, an analogy does not mean that the two things in it are equal.

And you are wrong by doing so because my thoughts if i had them are denying you nothing in regards to who you wish to be. In fact it is you who are dictating to me HOW i should think, i say you can think of yourself as you please and good luck, but you have no right to dictate how i think.

How am i dictating you what you should think?
I am saying what i think is correct, but how do i have the power to dictate it to you, and when did i ever advocate anyone dictating it?

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Did i say otherwise?
WILBA attempts to use science, yet he purposefully concentrates only on parts of it, which is obviously wrong.

I would say you are both guilty of focusing on the parts that support your preferance.

And YES, being addressed correctly matters.
Besides, i can't imagine that someone would treat a transwoman completely female and NOT address her correctly - someone who refuses to use the correct address is extremely likely to deny her other rights as well.

"Correctly" is a matter of perspective, for you its emotional with some science used and some ignored, for WIGLA it seems to be unemotional with just science used and some ignored.

You think i don't have any?
Internet psychology is always so...pathetic. Especially from people who never studied psychology.

Well there is nothing you could say about me and my gender that would make me go off like you have on this subject, i would initially correct you then just ignore it as unimportant to who i actually know i am.

Hint: Despite what Voyager says, an analogy does not mean that the two things in it are equal.

Hint: A faulty and extreem comparison is not the same as a analogy, and if they are not equal then why make a fuss about it and draw the comparison in the first place.

I am saying what i think is correct, but how do i have the power to dictate it to you, and when did i ever advocate anyone dictating it?

You do not and when you understand that what others think means nothing compared to what you know about yourself you will be much better off for it.

[Serafina]

I would say you are both guilty of focusing on the parts that support your preferance.

Why would you say that?

"Correctly" is a matter of perspective, for you its emotional with some science used and some ignored, for WIGLA it seems to be unemotional with just science used and some ignored.

I think it is quite obvious what i meant here.
Another purely semantic argument.
Besides, calling psychology "emotional" may be correct, but hardly seems fair.

Oh, and please show which science i ignore.

Well there is nothing you could say about me and my gender that would make me go off like you have on this subject, i would initially correct you then just ignore it as unimportant to who i actually know i am.

Probably because you do not have to fear to be ridiculed for it.
Which does not equate to me being insecure - in fact, if that were the case, i would be somewhat less willing to expose myself to such bigotry.

Hint: A faulty and extreem comparison is not the same as a analogy, and if they are not equal then why make a fuss about it and draw the comparison in the first place.

If they are not equal, they can still make a good analogy.
Besides, you have to explain why it doesn't apply, just saying so doesn't even cut thin paper.

You do not and when you understand that what others think means nothing compared to what you know about yourself you will be much better off for it.

So you admit that you accused me of something i did not, in fact, do?

Besides, quit trying to play the "you are just insecure"-game.
I have seen it way to often, it basically goes like this:
-Affected person objects to some bigotry
-Bigot says "why do you complain about it"
-Affected person says why, most likely being emotionally distressed (what else?)
-Bigot says "you are just insecure, so it's your problem"
-Repeat these steps in perpetuity

Essentially, you are trying to shift the blame - it's not your fault you say something offending, it's mine!

Unless you are either a psychologist or show why a self-secure person would not be offended, your argument falls flat.
And here's a hint: Being self-secure does not prevent being offended. Being jaded does that, but that's hardly a desirable state.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Why would you say that?

Because its true.

Besides, calling psychology "emotional" may be correct, but hardly seems fair.

Oh, and please show which science i ignore.

Biology, chemistry, genetics and maybe even to a certain extent psycology.

Probably because you do not have to fear to be ridiculed for it.
Which does not equate to me being insecure - in fact, if that were the case, i would be somewhat less willing to expose myself to such bigotry.

Ridicule for many issues is part of life and personal growth no matter your personal circumstances or what it in regard to. Take it on the chin reply in kind if you feel like it and be content with knowing who you are. And personal opinion is not bigotry, bigotry is when it denies you a right in society others have.

If they are not equal, they can still make a good analogy.

Yea for the preferance of the person who makes it, but that does not make it accurate.

Essentially, you are trying to shift the blame - it's not your fault you say something offending, it's mine!

I am not shifting the blame at all, if you choose to be offended because of what ppl think that is your fault for allowing their opinion to matter more than your own. Nobody is denying you anything other than your wish to control what they think.

Unless you are either a psychologist or show why a self-secure person would not be offended, your argument falls flat.
And here's a hint: Being self-secure does not prevent being offended. Being jaded does that, but that's hardly a desirable state.

You are welcome to be offended as much as you like but its not gonna change how or what ppl think i do not need to be a psychologist to know or understand that.

[Serafina]

Showing, Kor, NOT saying.

For what specific reasons would you say that i am focusing on only parts of the evidence?
Where do i ignore science?

Ridicule for many issues is part of life and personal growth no matter your personal circumstances or what it in regard to. Take it on the chin reply in kind if you feel like it and be content with knowing who you are. And personal opinion is not bigotry, bigotry is when it denies you a right in society others have.

*YaddaYaddaYadda*
Shifting the blame again.

Besides - a personal opinion CAN be bigoted. Else, how could bigots have bigoted opinions?

Yea for the preferance of the person who makes it, but that does not make it accurate.

As per your saying, instead of explaining, so.

I am not shifting the blame at all, if you choose to be offended because of what ppl think that is your fault for allowing their opinion to matter more than your own. Nobody is denying you anything other than your wish to control what they think.

Yeah, so I choose to be offended for no reason - so it's my fault, right?
Definitely not trying to shift the blame here....riight.

You are welcome to be offended as much as you like but its not gonna change how or what ppl think i do not need to be a psychologist to know or understand that.

Oh, really?
I suppose that's why we made no advances in tolerance the last 50 years or so.
/sarcasm


You are getting quite weak here. Instead of showing and explaining, you are just declaring. Hardly what i would call debating.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Showing, Kor, NOT saying.

For what specific reasons would you say that i am focusing on only parts of the evidence?
Where do i ignore science?

Can science show you have the exact same chromosome make up as cis women do?.

Can science show you have the exact same brain structure as cis women do?.

Can science show you have the exact same thought processes as cis women do?.

Now you have focused on the fact that some aspects are less male and as such a little more female by default but at best if we are going to go with pure science and logic (your personal favorite debate tools as i recall you saying) on the matter you would be considered to be missing a lot of what cis women have.

*YaddaYaddaYadda*
Shifting the blame again.

OOO look ridicule because i point out that life aint fully fair or a bed of roses and ppl may not agree with you....do not worry il not be offended.

Besides - a personal opinion CAN be bigoted. Else, how could bigots have bigoted opinions?

A bigoted opinion would be one that denies you a fundamental human right, you wish ppl to think the way you want them to and as such it is you who are trying to control them.

Yeah, so I choose to be offended for no reason - so it's my fault, right?

Of course you have a reason but the level of how much you allow that to effect your life is your choice.

Oh, really?
I suppose that's why we made no advances in tolerance the last 50 years or so.
/sarcasm

What other ppl choose to think has no bearing on you being tolerated in society any more or less than anybody else, Unless you are predjudiced against because of your circumstances that is one thing and what ppl think is entirely another unless they act upon it.

You are getting quite weak here.

Instead of showing and explaining, you are just declaring. Hardly what i would call debating.

Declaring that "ppl should think the way i want them to or im a sad bunny" is quite possably the weakest argument you have but you continue to focus on it, as such i will continue to dismiss it.

Maybe i should try some deep and meaningful /sarcasm as i hear that is a fine and high brow debate tool.

[Serafina]

Can science show you have the exact same chromosome make up as cis women do?.

Can science show you have the exact same brain structure as cis women do?.

Can science show you have the exact same thought processes as cis women do?.

Not yet.
We agreed that the evidence is not yet conclusive, but already pointing into that direction - remember?

Now you have focused on the fact that some aspects are less male and as such a little more female by default but at best if we are going to go with pure science and logic (your personal favorite debate tools as i recall you saying) on the matter you would be considered to be missing a lot of what cis women have.

Ah, so because i am not addressing something i already addressed - i must be ignoring it?

OOO look ridicule because i point out that life aint fully fair or a bed of roses and ppl may not agree with you....do not worry il not be offended.

Which i never claimed.
Of course, you are clueless about my personality - which is not surprising, given the circumstances. Yet you think you can make broad claims about it.

A bigoted opinion would be one that denies you a fundamental human right, you wish ppl to think the way you want them to and as such it is you who are trying to control them.

Humorously, WILBA himself pointed to the [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles]Yogyakarta-principles[/url] which pretty much show that he (and to some degree you) violates basic human rights with his claims.ö

Besides, a bigotry doesn't have to be that strong to be bigotry.

What other ppl choose to think has no bearing on you being tolerated in society any more or less than anybody else, Unless you are predjudiced against because of your circumstances that is one thing and what ppl think is entirely another unless they act upon it.

Really? Suppose if everyone thinks that gay marriage (or even just relationships) is an abomination? Do you actually think that you can live comfortably in such an atmosphere?
Same for me - if i allow rampart bigots like WILBA to successfully spread their opinion, it it is detrimental to me.
They have the right to think whatever they want, but i also have the right to attempt to change that. I do not have the right to do so by force, but i can do so without it.
And changing the way people think is practically the definition of creating a tolerant environment.
I might not be able to change bigots, but i can attempt to show others why and that they are bigots.

Declaring that "ppl should think the way i want them to or im a sad bunny" is quite possably the weakest argument you have but you continue to focus on it, as such i will continue to dismiss it.

Since i am not a mindreader, i can only detect actions. Bigoted actions DO hurt me, which makes them morally reprehensible.
Besides, that is hardly my whole argument - nice strawman.

Maybe i should try some deep and meaningful /sarcasm as i hear that is a fine and high brow debate tool.

"Look at me, my debating conduct is superior".
Unfortunately, results count. You are not making an actual argument right now, instead you are creating a large ad hominem "she is emotional, hence she is wrong".

[Jedi Master Spock]

Several things. First, I see that nobody wanted to take a break from discussing transsexuality. I suppose I could blame myself for leaving an open related topic and not locking it as well.

I request, however, that discussion about what should and should not be allowed here on this forum be kept in the thread this was split from, since that was by and large its original purpose.

On the topic of split threads, I will note that the topic "All about Serafina" was titled such by myself in splitting the discussion, which at that point was specifically ad hominem Serafina. I was doing so in the hopes that perhaps pointing out that talking about what kind of person she was would be clearly off-topic and that we could resume discussion of what this site is actually intended to discuss... Star Trek and Star Wars.

I will probably soon merge the current locked threads all into this one so that we have all the discussion in one place, since it has been almost entirely about gender identity. The current title is "Transreality," and if anyone has a better title, feel free to speak up.

Next:

Unfortunately, results count. You are not making an actual argument right now, instead you are creating a large ad hominem "she is emotional, hence she is wrong".

To say that your argument is not logical and therefore invalid, carrying no weight, is a perfectly valid argument in and of itself for dismissing what you say.

To say that your argument is not logical and therefore its conclusion is incorrect is not argumentum ad hominem but argumentum ad logicam.

someone who refuses to use the correct address is extremely likely to deny her other rights as well. Which WILBA has been advocating excessively.

Be specific, please. The casual audience, myself included, has no idea what "other rights" W.I.L.G.A. intends to deny to transsexuals.

As far as I can tell W.I.L.G.A. is simply saying that a transwoman is a feminine man and therefore descriptively male. If you want to convince any skeptical readers that he's advocating the denial of rights, you need to be specific and elaborate on the matter.

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.about Serafina[/i], and then generalized to a discussion of transsexuality.
This IS bigotry, tough the first may not be voluntarily.

To say this is to entirely miss the interesting point we were discussing earlier:

There is another reason, and that is simply that one believes it to be the truth. Hence the discussion between yourself and Mr. Oragahn earlier about truth and morality. To say that you believe or do not believe something isn't a question of flexibility as much as perspective and priority.

Which is more important? Your psychology, your genes, or your genitals? This is not a trivial question, and it cannot be dismissed as "mental inflexibility" if you are to make an effective argument.

We did not deal with colour predjudice by saying that every coloured person who says they are white should now be considered as white. We did it with the true acceptance of the fact that superficial things like skin tone are irrelavant to a individuals rights and status within society.

This is precisely on the money.

Transgendered individuals pose a "problem" as W.I.L.G.A. puts it:

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.

Because we discussing this issue live, by and large, in societies in which the sexes are segregated, and in which is it of critical importance to identify someone as male or female in order to interact with them "properly." See here.

Why? In nearly everywhere in the world, it's no longer socially necessary to determine whether someone has a dusky complexion because while strictly European, they are thoroughly tanned, or because their father was from Kenya.

As a matter of reality, however, we do live in such societies, and they are highly unlikely to change quickly in this respect. It is worth bearing in mind that the changes to locker rooms, changing rooms, and bathrooms which help sidestep the issue of which room to go to, and also worth bearing in mind that the transgendered are not the only ones who experience difficulties.

While, on reading Conway & Oylskager, I think their high estimates are indeed high (with C & O focusing too much on the case of Thailand, which is likely the reason why the APA chose to more or less ignore their paper), transgendered individuals are not the whole story.

The case can be made that individuals who are naturally "biologically" ambiguous are if anything more frequent than those whose psychological identity rests in an opposite category from their genital identity. (See here).

There are also plenty of individuals with other reasons to be modest about their bodies even in single-sex companies, and the solution of providing complete individual privacy as opposed to being concerned simply with sexual segregation of naked bodies is therefore a desirable result.

And in turn, I will ask you to contemplate that because this is rather new (the capacity to change one's exterior to match one's interior), things will not move as quickly as you may like.
And wide open acceptance may be a long time coming.
In the meantime, live your life the way that makes you the happiest, in this imperfect society we have…

It's not all that new, really. In the US, for example, sex reassignment surgeries were first performed in the sixties, while gay rights didn't hit the papers until the seventies; Stonewall was in '69.

Transsexuals are a small minority than most, and the social adjustments required to accommodate them are fairly large (sex segregation is widespread) in speaking of the whole category of the transgendered.

A bigoted opinion would be one that denies you a fundamental human right, you wish ppl to think the way you want them to and as such it is you who are trying to control them.

What she wants to control is what people believe about her. Don't we all want to be thought of for what we believe ourselves to really be?

A few more points, some of which are a response to things that were said earlier:

Regarding German grammatical gender: I would recommend (especially for those of you whose English is better than your German) starting here.

In particular:

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:

"Gretchen.
Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
Wilhelm.
She has gone to the kitchen.
Gretchen.
Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm.
It has gone to the opera."

To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may think he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not -- which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is he, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds inn, and that stands for Englishwoman -- Engländerinn. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: "die Engländerinn," -- which means "the she-Englishwoman." I consider that that person is over-described.

Well, after the student has learned the sex of a great number of nouns, he is still in a difficulty, because he finds it impossible to persuade his tongue to refer to things as "he" and "she," and "him" and "her," which it has been always accustomed to refer to it as "it." When he even frames a German sentence in his mind, with the hims and hers in the right places, and then works up his courage to the utterance-point, it is no use -- the moment he begins to speak his tongue flies the track and all those labored males and females come out as "its." And even when he is reading German to himself, he always calls those things "it," where as he ought to read in this way:

The simple and utterly odd fact is that in German, the grammatical gender of a noun for strictly proper address is only loosely related to its sexual identity. A female dog might be addressed as "he" or a male cat "she."

I understand that perhaps in recent years, the strictly grammatical has fallen out of fashion, and it is now slightly more fashionable to describe nouns such as "maiden" or "wife" as "she," but I should think that the German language's habit of assigning gender willy-nilly would enable a greater rather than lesser flexibility with pronoun assignation.

Regarding age and transsexual treatments: As pointed out above re: intersexuals, a large number of infants (perhaps on the order of 0.1% of the population) undergo some variety of surgery to "clarify" their operative sex, and we may see the movement of the future in beginning hormone treatments at the onset of puberty.

Perhaps the nutty German language has the best of it in saying "das Kind," as there is relatively little difference in acting as one sex or another as a pre-pubescent child.