All about Serafina (Split)

[Serafina]

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.

Which he has not shown. Just because an argument carries emotional weight doesn't mean it's right.

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.

Which i did.
WILBA himself said that
-for him, a transwoman is always a man, regardless of transition
-men should never be allowed into womens facilities
And yes, those two statements were connected in his posts.
He also said that
-Transsexual people are neither male nor female (for which he presents no evidence)
-That they should therefore be seperated from others by creating a new social class for them
-He doesn't address the obvious problem which sex-specific rights they would have

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

So, are you giving us a reason then?
Oh, wait, no, sorry, my bad.

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.

This is NOT a reason, since it is not a moral consideration.
Unless you honestly believe that telling the truth is always the moral thing to do, regardless of the consequences. Which is, frankly, a very primitive mindset.

By the way, truth is determined, not declared. Since they have ignored a wealth of evidence, they clearly did not determine it.

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.

Since they considered nothing but genes and genitals, they were hardly open-minded.
Furthermore, the whole thing boils down to a simple question (which you are conveniently ignoring):
Is there more harm than good in treating transsexual people according to their gender, for them and society?
Unless you can answer that with a big YES, then you have no moral right to forbid it.

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.

Actually, that displays ignorance, since transsexual people are already widely allowed to
use the facilities of their gender.
Remember, WILBA want's to go back and change the status quo to the worse.

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).

Intersexuality is another important reason to have more elaborate considerations and see gender barriers as less fixed.

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.

While Intersexuality and Transsexuality are related, mixing the issues is a big red herring.

Besides, hormone treatment is already often administered (for transsexuals, the life history of intersexuals is often very different) at the beginning of puberty, tough that could arguably be improved.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

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

The structure of a cis womans brain compared to a mans ect is well known and we both know that if a transgenderd persons was the same it would be the first thing presented in a argument.

There was indications and id say very good evidence that certain hormonal production was stunted early in development causing a less male and by default more female mind set however.

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

The problem is that the moment you focus on science you are talking about introducing factuality and accuracy ect, as such from a pure science perspective you could say that you are in fact less male and more female. But if a male is a mountain and female is flat land would that not make you at most a hill in the minds of more technically and accurate individuals?.

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?

A accurate description is not the same as considering you as a abomination, true acceptance in a society will not be achieved by altering or expanding the descriptions of man/woman in a dictionary.

True acceptance has to come from the entire truth being known and understood by the masses, it comes from educating and explaining the way things are to those who do not know and showing that it is a rare but perfectly natural occurrence.

[Who is like God arbour]

1. Again, because Serafina is describing me as the big scary Boo-Man, I have to clarify my position: There is a difference between the fact how one is addressed and how one is allowed to live. Addressing transsexuals according to their sex as all other human-beings are addressed accordingly to their sex has no bearing on how they are allowed to live. I have said several times already that I do not question the right of transsexuals to live the life they want to live. If Serafina wants to live a feminine life, that’s totally okay with me. I refer to what I have already written here and here.
2. But the question how a transsexual is to be addressed has nothing to do with their way of life and the question is how we decide how to address another person. And all people are addressing other people always accordingly to the assumed sex. There is a very simple reason for that: We do not know the gender of a person we have just met. There is no way to know it unless we ask. Not even the appearance is conclusive because the other person could merely be a transvestite, a masculine woman or a feminine man who are no transsexuals. But because the appearance usually conforms to the sex, we infer from it the sex.
   Sometimes the appearance is misleading, e.g. if the other person is a transvestite, a masculine woman, a feminine man or a transsexual. As long as we are deceived by the appearance we will address the person according to our belief what their sex is. But usually, the moment we learn the truth, we will correct us and continue to address the person accordingly to their true sex. Sometimes, if we are used to see that person as a member to the sex we have inferred from the appearance, it could be difficult to change the habit to address the person accordingly to their real sex. But because we know now their real sex, we can change our habit.
   If there wouldn’t be any transgenders, we would never ask someone for their gender. If we were to meet a masculine, masculine clothes wearing woman, we would not ask her if she has a male gender. We would simply assume that she is a masculine woman who likes to dress in masculine clothes. Knowing her sex, we would address her accordingly to her sex.
   Insofar transgenders want to get a special treatment, if they are demanding that all transgenders have to be addressed accordingly to their gender and not accordingly to their sex. They want that for them the gender is deciding for the way they are addressed and not the sex as it is for all other persons. Although most of all people do not think in gender categories because for most of all people gender and sex is the same, they now have to begin to consider the gender. That this is not practicable because the gender of most of all people is unknown is irrelevant for them. Even the gender of transgenders is not always inferable from their appearance because there are many transgenders who either will never come out or still haven’t come out yet. Although their gender may be feminine, they still look like a man and vice versa. Insofar the gender can only be considered if a person announces it. But that is exactly what transsexuals usually are not doing because that would disclose the fact that they are transgenders. The appearance could not deceive anymore and all would know the real sex of the person.
3. The question now is why the sex of a transgender (or the fact that someone is a transgender at all) should be kept a secret. To keep it secret has two consequences: One will be addressed accordingly to the apparent sex and the fact that someone is a transgender is not disclosed.
   Some transgenders are arguing that how they are addressed is important to them because they can only feel to be what they are if they are addressed accordingly. This is wrong on several levels. Their identity is not defined by how they are addressed by others. If transgender know their sex and their gender, the way they are addressed should be unimportant, especially if they know that the way they are addressed depends on their sex and not on their gender and that if someone addresses them accordingly to their sex, it says nothing about that someone’s acceptance of their gender and way of life. Again, only if transgenders are diffusing sex and gender and are thinking that if someone, when recognizing their sex, is denying their gender, are there problems. Otherwise they would understand that the recognizing of the sex in the addressing says nothing about the acceptance of the gender and the way of life of a person.
   But the most important reason Transgenders do want that is that they have experienced discrimination as transgenders or are afraid to experience discrimination if the fact that they are transgenders is disclosed. They simply do not want that everybody knows that they are transgenders. They want to deceive everybody in believing that they have the sex as it appears. Then they do not have to suffer the prejudices of those who are bigoted.
4. But that is, by the way, one reason why it is immorally to address transgenders accordingly to their gender. Not only deceives it and those who have are unfamiliar with transgenders would be angry a fortiori because they are deceived. But the consequence is that transgenders are not seen as such in public. Most people do not know transgenders and even if they met a transgender they wouldn’t know it. Such a behavior is hardly able to conquer any prejudices. As long as transgenders are not going public and are saying what they are, as long as most of all people are not familiar with the phenomenon, nothing will change. How could it? Even if it is addressed in media etc., it stays for all who have never met a transgender as such a theoretical phenomenon. Only if transgenders are going public and are saying: » Yes, I am male but I have a feminine gender and according to that I want to live a feminine life «, something will change and prejudices will get reduced.
   I believe I said something similar already earlier. It is as if a black-skinned person, because the person does not want to agitate racist white skinned people, paints himself white instead of saying: » Here I am. Yes, I am black. That does not make me a subhuman being as you can see now. Accept me as I am. «
   That’s what black-skinned people have done: They have not kept their true skin-color a secret but have demanded to be accepted as they are.
   That’s what women have done: They have not kept their sex a secret but have demanded that they are accepted as they are.
   That’s what homosexuals have done: They have not kept their homosexuality a secret but have demanded that they are accepted as they are.
   But transgenders do want to keep their transsexualism a secret. They want to be regarded as belonging to the opposite sex and nobody should know that their true sex is another than what it appears to be.
5. To a certain degree I can understand that cowardice because I know that transgenders are discriminated from many people only for being transsexual. But black-skinned people, women and homosexuals had the same problem too and they have achieved their equality only because they have gone public. Only because of that we are now familiar with woman, black-skinned people and homosexuals with equal rights to these of white straight men. The solution for the problems of transgenders cannot be a law that allows transgenders to hide their sex but has to be laws with the threat of punishment that are forbidding the discrimination of transgenders only because they are transgenders. At the same time, the curriculum of schools should be changed and such things should be taught in school – not only regarding transgenders and the difference between sex and gender but other, similar things, e.g. that the sexual preferences are not depending on the sex of a person or that gender and sexual preferences are not the same, too.
6. Regarding the legal situation in Germany, I simply refer to the Human Rights Report 2009 of the Campaign Transsexuality and Human Rights.
   
   If I say something about the legal situation in Germany, Serafina would contradict me on principle. I hope that such a report has more credibility.
   
   • • • • • The German Transsexuals Act is actually called the "law on changing a person's first name and their declaration of gender association in special cases." In general, it is referred to as the "Transsexuals Act".
             The historically close tie between church and state has already been addressed above. Psychoanalysts in Germany are extremely powerful and utilize a claim to sole representation when it comes to the topics of gender and sexuality, which is not questioned in politics or society despite the national socialist past of German psychoanalysis and behavior therapy and participation in eugenic procedures"
             The German government (above all the CDU/CSU) therefore exists under the influence of the psychoanalyst lobby and the rights of the church, accepting their views unquestioned and drafting laws on their terms such as the “Transsexuals Act". This coerces a person to say of him/herself that they are mentally disordered in order to maintain at least minimum rights.
             Rather than countering discrimination and stereotypical world views as required of them by international conventions (see for example the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) in order to prevent human rights abuses, the government supports and invigorates these ideologies.
             In general, an awareness of human rights is barely noticeable in Germany.
             Even the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is concerned in regards to the lack of awareness of human rights on the part of judges, prosecutors and legislators (in the German Bundestag). The following is found under Point "C. Principle subjects of concern":
             
             • “13. The Committee reiterates its concern about the lack of any court decisions in which reference is made to the Covenant and its provisions ... The Committee is concerned that judges are not provided with adequate training on human rights, in particular on the rights guaranteed in the Covenant. A similar lack of human rights training is discerned among prosecutors and other actors responsible for the implementation of the Covenant.
               14. The Committee expresses its concern that there is no comprehensive and consistent system in place that ensures that the Covenant is taken into account in the formulation and implementation of all legislation and policies concerning economic, social and cultural rights"
             The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) requires the following in concluding observations no. 62:
             
             • 62. The Committee request the State party to enter into dialogue with nongovernmental organizations of intersexual and transsexual people in order to better understand their claims and ta take effective action to protect their human rights."
             Any kind of actual dialogue regarding "effective measures for the protection of [the] human rights" of intersexuals and transsexuals is not yet taking place.
             The draft from the Federal Ministry of the Interior for the reform of the Transsexuals Act (transsexual rights reform act - TSRRG in German) from 04.07.200991 originated without the consultation of transsexual NGOs, which goes to show they are not ready to address the problems facing transsexual people or grant them the human rights enjoyed by non-transsexuals.
             
             • • • • [list] [list] [list] [list] [list] [list][…]

• • ''The claim to dignity, i.e. the claim to self-respect, is a claim to the conditions under which a person is able to respect himself; it is a claim to the security and the guarantee, to the provision and the preservation of the conditions that enable me (and others) to maintain self-respect." (Peter Schaber, University of Zurich, Work and Research Center for Ethics)

Based on the assumption that transsexuals are mentally disordered, they have been deemed incapable of deciding their own gender. Therefore, a transsexual's gender is determined by a judge with the aid of the opinions from two experts, who have no scientific background on which to base their conclusion of whether a transsexual person has the right or not to live his / her life as the gender identity they were born into.
In these psychiatric expertises, the transsexual's identity disorder is classified (diagnosis F64.0 according to ICD 10 and diagnosis "gender identity disorder" according to DSM IV). Only with this classification as a mentally disordered person is a transsexual person given the right to change their first name. However, this only applies to their first name and the gender on record is not changed! A transsexual woman can therefore have a female first name, but is still seen in terms of their legal civil status as a (mentally disordered) man. Despite the German Federal Constitutional Court's decision in 1978, the penis and the vagina are still the only gender determining elements in Germany (and for psychoanalysts in general). The forced classification of "mentally disordered" and the lack of a person's right to change the gender on their birth certificate are clear violations of a person's dignity. Someone who goes by "Mr. Christina' Schieferdecker", for example, would be the object of so many jokes, having to constantly be forced to identify himself as transsexual. Because of this, the Federal Constitutional Court declared in 2006 that forced outings of transsexuals are inconsistent with personal dignity.
Prof. Silvia Pimentel, member of the CEDAW United Nations Women's Rights Committee says something similar:

• ''That transsexual women are labeled as mentally disturbed men in order to be accepted as women is a paradox. This must end."

There are women who are born with a penis and men who are born with a vagina. The penis or vagina does not determine our identity, our humanity or our sex, rather, our brain or psyche tells us what we are. A transsexual woman is a woman from birth on and a transsexual man is a man from birth an . just born with the wrong gonads,
Yet this is not recognized. A transsexual may only change the gender on their birth certificate if he allows himself to be sterilized or castrated and has undergone a surgery to change the appearance of his genitals to the liking of an expert.
Sex is not to be determined by another person nor is it disposable. That a judge is given the opportunity to deny a person to be accepted with his inherent gender identity is a violation of international human rights, And the fact that a judge can doubt a person's statement (and their rendered certificates) regarding their gender and require additional counselling is a violation of personal rights, a non-acceptance of a person's gender identity and therefore a violation of their dignity.

• "Article 1 paragraph 1 of the constitution protects the dignity of a person as he himself conceives of his own individuality and in his own consciousness. Included in this is the person's right to self-determination and the independent creation of their own fate." (Federal Constitutional Court"')

As a result, a person's decision regarding the gender to which they belong must be left up to them. Therefore, a person may only advise another on the legal and social consequences of changing their first name and legally changing their gender, but may not take it upon themself to decide the other person's gender based on physical outward appearance,
This was proven in a New York City appeal court announced in October of 2009. The court made it clear that there is no basis for requiring medical requirements or psychiatric counselling in order for a person to be able to change their name. As a result, it is evident that the requirements for transsexual people in Germany to have their papers changed at registry offices like non-transsexuals are able to do is not ideal, rather, it is much more a requirement along the lines of equal treatment in the sense of international human rights.

• • • • • • • • • • […]

• "It is alarming that transsexuals appear to be the only group in Europe that is forced by the state to undergo statutory sterilization practices.” (Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, July 2009)

The "law about the change of the first name and determination of sex", the so-called Transsexuals Act declared in Section 8 that a person's sex on their birth certificate may only be changed if they ...

• "3. are permanently incapable of propogation"

It is clear that these forced castrations / sterilizations named in the Transsexuals Act are violations of the right to health'15 • it requires no further explanation. In addition, this is a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Article 11 reads as follows:

• "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women ... in particular: ...
  (f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction. "

In the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union it reads:

• "Right to the integrity of the person
  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. "

Yet this basic human right isn't valid for transsexual people. The following is found in the commentary of the Ministry of the Interior on April 7, 2009 regarding the Transsexuals Act. It originated under the leadership of the CDU and Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble (CDU):

• "Furthermore, the permanent infertility of the affected is required; however, by way of exception, only to the extent that the required medical treatment does not endanger the life or permanently damage the health of the applicant, Nonetheless, the basic condition of permanent infertility may not be abdicated."

• • • • • • • • • • […]

[/list] [/list] [/list] [/list] [/list]


As everyone can see, the legal situation in Germany saddly is not as good as Serafina claims. Quite the contrary, it is terrible.

If I could change the law, I would introduce next to the already existing category sex the category gender. And I would change the category name to a category earlier names and introduce a category current name.
Everyone would be allowed to declare their own gender as everyone would be allowed to change their name.
I would make laws that are forbidding discrimination of anyone based on their life style (gender, sexual preferences etc.). Schools would have to teach the facts about gender, sexual preferences etc. and are obliged to promote tolerance.
But I also would forbid transgenders to keep their sex secret. They do not have to announce to everybody they meet their sex. But if asked from someone they have to answer (that usually happens very seldom because the sex and the gender is not really relevant in the day to day life), they have to be honest because their sex has nothing to do with their gender and to reveal their true sex is no discrimination.
And then I would let the language develop. Everyone could decide if they want to address someone according to the sex or according to the gender. But regardless how someone is addressed, it is no discrimination as long as the gender and the right to decide how one wants to live as such is recognised.
I would not force by law people, who are used to chose the grammar gender accordingly to the sex of an individual, to change their language and start to chose the grammar gender accordingly to the never really obviously gender.
At the beginning, that may be difficult not only for transgenders but for other people too. But in the long run all would get used to it and the result would be a more tolerant society who really understand that sex, gender, sexual preferences and life style are not the same.
Today many people are raised with stereotypical gender roles in mind. My hope is that this would stop. It is not only better for transgenders but for everyone if everyone can live how they want and are not pressured into certain roles by expectations of their society. If a boy wants to play with a doll, let him. If a girl want to play football, let her. If a boy cries, do not say such stupid thing like how real man do not know pain and do not cry. Let the human be as they are. Have a society where it is not necessary to keep facts a secret to enable someone to life as they want.

That's my opinion. Maybe I'm naive but I think that to ignore facts, to claim that someone with a male sex is a woman, what from everyone is understood as having a female sex, is wrong and not conducive and therefore not morally.[/list]

[Serafina]

Again, because Serafina is describing me as the big scary Boo-Man, I have to clarify my position: There is a difference between the fact how one is addressed and how one is allowed to live. Addressing transsexuals according to their sex as all other human-beings are addressed accordingly to their sex has no bearing on how they are allowed to live. I have said several times already that I do not question the right of transsexuals to live the life they want to live. If Serafina wants to live a feminine life, that’s totally okay with me. I refer to what I have already written here and here.

And that is where you fail.

Being addressed the right way is CRUCIAL for transsexuals, simply because someone who doesn't address them as female (or male for transmen) doesn't see them as female.

But the question how a transsexual is to be addressed has nothing to do with their way of life and the question is how we decide how to address another person.

How about "politely, and according to that persons wishes?" Is that really that hard?

And all people are addressing other people always accordingly to the assumed sex. There is a very simple reason for that: We do not know the gender of a person we have just met. There is no way to know it unless we ask. Not even the appearance is conclusive because the other person could merely be a transvestite, a masculine woman or a feminine man who are no transsexuals. But because the appearance usually conforms to the sex, we infer from it the sex.

People go by appearance, as you just said.
Most transwomen appear according to their gender -female. Hence, most people address them according to that (certainly the case with me). If not, i simply ask politely to change the address.
You are violating the principles presented here, since you infer my sex from something else (genetics, according to you). That's simply dishonest.

But usually, the moment we learn the truth, we will correct us and continue to address the person accordingly to their true sex.

For what reason?
The person doesn't want it, "lying" doesn't hurt anyone - so why do you do it, other than your own bigotry?
Again you are ignoring morality in favor of upholding "the TRUTH".

Insofar transgenders want to get a special treatment, if they are demanding that all transgenders have to be addressed accordingly to their gender and not accordingly to their sex.

Even if we assume that it is a special right - what's wrong with that?
It doesn't even require mental acrobatics - YOU are the bigot who runs around and demands that people ignore their first impression (perceiving me as female) and address me otherwise.

The appearance could not deceive anymore and all would know the real sex of the person.

Flat-out lie and ignorance of reality.

The question now is why the sex of a transgender (or the fact that someone is a transgender at all) should be kept a secret.

Because my genetic makeup is not a public concern? Why should it concern anyone?
By the same logic, you could demand that genetic diseases are publicly proclaimed as well.
Or don't you recognize the right for privacy?

To keep it secret has two consequences: One will be addressed accordingly to the apparent sex and the fact that someone is a transgender is not disclosed.

Both are positive, since the former is good for transsexual people and the latter falls under the right for privacy.

Some transgenders are arguing that how they are addressed is important to them because they can only feel to be what they are if they are addressed accordingly. This is wrong on several levels. Their identity is not defined by how they are addressed by others.

Actually, since transsexual people are often struggling to be seen according to their gender, your method would be highly detrimental.

If transgender know their sex and their gender, the way they are addressed should be unimportant, especially if they know that the way they are addressed depends on their sex and not on their gender and that if someone addresses them accordingly to their sex, it says nothing about that someone’s acceptance of their gender and way of life. Again, only if transgenders are diffusing sex and gender and are thinking that if someone, when recognizing their sex, is denying their gender, are there problems. Otherwise they would understand that the recognizing of the sex in the addressing says nothing about the acceptance of the gender and the way of life of a person.

Addressing me by my sex shows me that you ignore my gender in favor of it. Since i want to be seen according to my gender, you demonstrate that you do not do so.

Oh, and by the way - nice broadening of the thematic - transsexuality may be part of the term transgender, but we are still discussing transsexuality. Widening it to transgender is merely obfuscation.

But the most important reason Transgenders do want that is that they have experienced discrimination as transgenders or are afraid to experience discrimination if the fact that they are transgenders is disclosed. They simply do not want that everybody knows that they are transgenders. They want to deceive everybody in believing that they have the sex as it appears. Then they do not have to suffer the prejudices of those who are bigoted.

This is wrong HOW?
Again, you are ignoring the right for privacy when you demand that their sex is publically disclosed.

But that is, by the way, one reason why it is immorally to address transgenders accordingly to their gender. Not only deceives it and those who have are unfamiliar with transgenders would be angry a fortiori because they are deceived. But the consequence is that transgenders are not seen as such in public.

Transsexual people do not WANT to be seen as such. Why should they?
Transsexuality is not an identity, but merely the state of having a gender identity that conflicts with your sex.
And again, you ignore the right for privacy.

Most people do not know transgenders and even if they met a transgender they wouldn’t know it. Such a behavior is hardly able to conquer any prejudices. As long as transgenders are not going public and are saying what they are, as long as most of all people are not familiar with the phenomenon, nothing will change.

Flat-out lie.
The best way to fight prejudices against transsexuality is to simply show that transsexual people are just like every other member of their gender, with the exception of certain biological facts (again, right for privacy).

How could it? Even if it is addressed in media etc., it stays for all who have never met a transgender as such a theoretical phenomenon. Only if transgenders are going public and are saying: » Yes, I am male but I have a feminine gender and according to that I want to live a feminine life «, something will change and prejudices will get reduced.

Why?
Publicly declaring that one is different will hardly convince anyone of ones equality.

I believe I said something similar already earlier. It is as if a black-skinned person, because the person does not want to agitate racist white skinned people, paints himself white instead of saying: » Here I am. Yes, I am black. That does not make me a subhuman being as you can see now. Accept me as I am. «
That’s what black-skinned people have done: They have not kept their true skin-color a secret but have demanded to be accepted as they are.

Because they are not capable of hiding it.
This is not the case with transsexuality.

That’s what women have done: They have not kept their sex a secret but have demanded that they are accepted as they are.
That’s what homosexuals have done: They have not kept their homosexuality a secret but have demanded that they are accepted as they are.

Same thing.
And both have NOT (solely) been established by radically presenting yourself as different, but mostly by showing that one is just as normal as everyone else - women doing men's jobs just as well etc.

But transgenders do want to keep their transsexualism a secret. They want to be regarded as belonging to the opposite sex and nobody should know that their true sex is another than what it appears to be.

Again, this is wrong why?
Evidently, the privacy of others has no value to you.

To a certain degree I can understand that cowardice because I know that transgenders are discriminated from many people only for being transsexual.

Ah, now it's cowardice. Nice strawman distortion.

But black-skinned people, women and homosexuals had the same problem too and they have achieved their equality only because they have gone public. Only because of that we are now familiar with woman, black-skinned people and homosexuals with equal rights to these of white straight men.

Your comparison is, again, false - doing what you demand would achieve the exact opposite of what transsexual people want.

The solution for the problems of transgenders cannot be a law that allows transgenders to hide their sex but has to be laws with the threat of punishment that are forbidding the discrimination of transgenders only because they are transgenders.

Oh, so you are against anti-discrimination laws now as well. Does that also apply to women or sexual orientations?

Regarding the legal situation in Germany, I simply refer to the Human Rights Report 2009 of the Campaign Transsexuality and Human Rights.

If I say something about the legal situation in Germany, Serafina would contradict me on principle. I hope that such a report has more credibility.

Because you tend to be blatantly wrong, which is strange for a supposed lawyer.
You claimed that the ruling of our supreme court was not binding for other courts in one specific case (and in general), which is blatantly wrong.
You claimed that there is no law that establishes that transsexual people have the same rights as others of their gender - even tough we discussed the TSG earlier.
You claimed that the Yogyacarta-Principles are german law, even tough you chewed me out for a similar error earlier - and in this case, they are not even a signed treaty.

You also ignore that that human rigths report explicitly critizises addressing transwomen as men, as well as declaring them a new gender:
(by the way, you posted to a document that can conveniently not be quoted. Not that that stops me).

It is time girls born with a penis and testicles and boys born with a clitoris and a vagina are legally recognized as such.

As of August 2009, there is not a single report known to us on German television that actually respects the gender identity of a transsexual person!
.....
A persons gender identity must be recognized and respected, especially in the media. Transsexual women are not men, rather women with a penis and testicles. Transsexual men are not women, rather men with female genitals and gonads.

You are obviously only referring to the parts of that text that suit your bias. It's funny how you are shooting yourself in the foot by appealing to a source that contradicts you.

As everyone can see, the legal situation in Germany saddly is not as good as Serafina claims. Quite the contrary, it is terrible.

Quite the contrary, while it was originally quite biased, it allows transsexuals to be fully recognized according to their gender, something which is still not possible in many countries.
They are criticizing the process, NOT the outcome.

If I could change the law, I would introduce next to the already existing category sex the category gender. And I would change the category name to a category earlier names and introduce a category current name.
Everyone would be allowed to declare their own gender as everyone would be allowed to change their name.

Completely unnecessary, since there is no need for a third gender (else, demonstrate it).
Furthermore, completely abolishing the process is not in anyones interest, tough making it faster would certainly be good.

But I also would forbid transgenders to keep their sex secret.

Why? Ever heard of the basic human right for privacy?

They do not have to announce to everybody they meet their sex. But if asked from someone they have to answer (that usually happens very seldom because the sex and the gender is not really relevant in the day to day life), they have to be honest because their sex has nothing to do with their gender and to reveal their true sex is no discrimination.

Who would that be?
In front of the law, there is no difference right now - the legal status is identical to that of others of their gender.
To medical professionals, it' obviously in ones self-interest to reveal it if necessary - no law required.
Private persons have no valid right for such an inquiry.

As everyone who studied law should know, laws need to exist for a reason.
Your proposed law utterly lacks reason.

And then I would let the language develop. Everyone could decide if they want to address someone according to the sex or according to the gender. But regardless how someone is addressed, it is no discrimination as long as the gender and the right to decide how one wants to live as such is recognised.
I would not force by law people, who are used to chose the grammar gender accordingly to the sex of an individual, to change their language and start to chose the grammar gender accordingly to the never really obviously gender.
At the beginning, that may be difficult not only for transgenders but for other people too. But in the long run all would get used to it and the result would be a more tolerant society who really understand that sex, gender, sexual preferences and life style are not the same.

We are already further than that, except in the mind of bigots.
Nearly everyone i meet addresses me according to my gender.
That includes random strangers of all kinds, people who know my sex (mostly because i have to show my ID on that occasion), government officials etc.
The only people who have a problem with doing so are people who know me for a very long time, mostly family.

Yes, there ARE people who do not do that - there are always bigots.
But right now, the law actually offers the ability for improvement there - as soon as my first name is changed, i can sue for discrimination if appropriate.
You want to remove that limited protection and protect the bigots instead.

That's my opinion. Maybe I'm naive but I think that to ignore facts, to claim that someone with a male sex is a woman, what from everyone is understood as having a female sex, is wrong and not conducive and therefore not morally.

You are either extremely naive (unlikely for a supposed lawyer'') or bigoted.

Also, stop lying. I do NOT ignore my sex - but it is unimportant when determining how a transsexual person should be addressed, and it is also protected by my right for privacy.



Your bigotry is simply that you want no protection for transsexuals whatsoever, and that you cling to genetics as the ultimate determination of "truth", which you uphold above all else.
You are still claiming that it is morally wrong to address someone according to their gender, and that one should be corrected if one does so in conflict with sex.
You utterly ignore why a correct address is important for transsexual people and also ignore their right to dignity. Even your own source disagrees with you.

You are talking a lot about how you want to improve the law, all in favor or the transsexuals - while at the same time eradicating the limited protecting they have.
Your attempts are needlessly complicated as well, without much additional benefit if compare to simple changes in the already existing law - something a student of law should recognize.

You are repeatedly claiming that sex is the only important factor, and that it should be uphold above all. You even contradicted yourself in your last post on that.
You simply fail to recognize that ones own biology is no one elses business, a basic right for privacy (with a few exception of course).
Essentially, YOU are advocating treating transsexuals unlike everyone else - as a RESULT, while i simply recognize the need to do so as part of a PROCESS (where the end result is equality).

[Serafina]

The structure of a cis womans brain compared to a mans ect is well known and we both know that if a transgenderd persons was the same it would be the first thing presented in a argument.

There was indications and id say very good evidence that certain hormonal production was stunted early in development causing a less male and by default more female mind set however.

We agreed that the small observed traits might be all that is necessary to establish gender identity.

The problem is that the moment you focus on science you are talking about introducing factuality and accuracy ect, as such from a pure science perspective you could say that you are in fact less male and more female. But if a male is a mountain and female is flat land would that not make you at most a hill in the minds of more technically and accurate individuals?.

Let's see:
-Endocrinologically, i am much more similar to a ciswomen than to a man.
-Genetically, i am male
-My bone structure is male
-The muscular/fat makeup of my body is constantly tending towards female.
-My breasts are definitely female
-My genitalia are still male, tough that will change.
-After that, i will be equal to a female that had her reproductive tract removed
-Psychologically, i behave like a female
-By law, i am still male, tough that will change soon and even more so later on.

So, right now we could say i am:
50%/0%/0%/50%/100%/0%/100%/0% female - 37.5% female.
In a years time (or less), this will have changed to
75%/0%/0%/100%/100%/100%/75% - 56,25% female.
And in the long run to 62.5%, according to that logic.
Note that the two criteria who pull this down are next-to invisible to other people, and should therefore be less relevant. Of course, this is already arbitrary.

Point being?
According to that logic, i am more female than male.

A accurate description is not the same as considering you as a abomination, true acceptance in a society will not be achieved by altering or expanding the descriptions of man/woman in a dictionary.

My sex is my business and mine alone. You have no right to demand that i reveal it or to appeal to it constantly.

True acceptance has to come from the entire truth being known and understood by the masses, it comes from educating and explaining the way things are to those who do not know and showing that it is a rare but perfectly natural occurrence.

The truth being, quite simply, that genetic makeup does not determine ones gender and that a transwoman is as much a woman as everyone else.
Accepting that is not hard.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

We agreed that the small observed traits might be all that is necessary to establish gender identity.

You have made that leap i do not remember doing so, i was more about agreeing to your right to be anything you decide for ANY reason. Call yourself a Pink Emu if you like serafina its all the same to me.

Let's see:
-Endocrinologically, i am much more similar to a ciswomen than to a man.

That is not proven, all that we know so far is that you may have got a reduced quantity of a single hormone out of potentially many that go towards creating a man rather than a woman.

-Genetically, i am male

Genetics are hardly unimportant.

-My bone structure is male

ok.

-The muscular/fat makeup of my body is constantly tending towards female.

Naturally or artificially because of hormone treatments?.

-My breasts are definitely female

Again because of artificial treatments.

-My genitalia are still male, tough that will change.

Artificially.

-Psychologically, i behave like a female

Gay men also have feminine personality traits.

i make it....

Endocrinologically = not fully known.
Genetically = naturally male.
Bone structure = naturally male.
Muscular/fat makeup = naturally male.
Breasts = naturally male.
genitalia = naturally male.
Psychologically = some feminine personality characteristics.
Law = Naturally male.

My sex is my business and mine alone. You have no right to demand that i reveal it or to appeal to it constantly.

And yet you are fine demanding that i and the rest of the planet accepts alterations and expansions to the very definition of our sex and to that our my/our wifes/husbands and children.

The truth being, quite simply, that genetic makeup does not determine ones gender and that a transwoman is as much a woman as everyone else.
Accepting that is not hard.

It is your choice to decide to ignore genetics, focus on less tangible things and modify and alter yourself through operations or hormane treatments. And you can also demand until you are blue in the face to be considered and thought of as as much a woman as a cis woman is, however i suggest you get used to the fact many individuals will see the differances ypou wish them to ignore.

And these individuals will not be bigots or want to deny you any rights as a human being they will mearly be logical, accurate minded ppl who see the whole truth instead of only seeing what you want them to see and ignoring other things.

[Who is like God arbour]

From all what Serafina has replied to my last post, only a few sentences seem important to me:

Being addressed the right way is CRUCIAL for transsexuals, simply because someone who doesn't address them as female (or male for transmen) doesn't see them as female.

• • • • • With other words it is important for Serafina what others are thinking of Serafina. And when they do not think that Serafina has a female sex, Serafina is unhappy. And because that’s rude, the others have to change how they are seeing Serafina as if that would be so easy.

Addressing me by my sex shows me that you ignore my gender in favor of [my sex]. Since i want to be seen according to my gender, you demonstrate that you do not do so.

• • • • • Addressing anyone by their sex shows only that the sex is chosen as relevant for the grammar gender. It does say nothing about the question how the gender is seen. It is not mutually exclusive. It is possible to see someone as being someone with a male sex and feminine gender or female sex and masculine gender. But when deciding how to address someone, one has to decide if the gender or the sex is deciding. And for obvious reason, for most people the sex is deciding because, although one could get deceived, the sex usually is objective while the gender is subjective.

Or don't you recognize the right for privacy?

• • • • • And it is less incisive to ask every person what their gender is to be able to address them according to that? Sex is something that usually is obviously while gender is not. (And yes, we conclude from the appearance to the sex knowing that in one per cent of all cases that may be wrong) Insofar to choose the sex when addressing someone should protect privacy more than to ask each and every person to disclose their gender, especially if that person is a transgender who has not yet come out and does not want to come out. That person does not want to be addressed according to their gender.

Transsexual people do not WANT to be seen as such.

• • • • • With other words, Serafina claims that transgenders do not want to be seen as people who have a from their gender differing sex. That fact shall be ignored.

Because they are not capable of hiding it. This is not the case with transsexuality.

• • • • • With other words, Serafina claims that transgenders do not want to be seen as people who have a from their gender differing sex. That fact shall be hidden.

The rest shows only that Serafina has not really read what I have written, has not understood it or has not really contemplated it. Serafina’s replies do not even fit to the paragraphs which are replied. Often-times that is due to Serafina’s selective quoting where important sentences are left out.

But these quotes are showing what Serafina wants: Serafina wants to live a secret. The fact that Serafina’s sex is male should be ignored because Serafina is still not able to really differentiate between sex and gender. If someone says that Serafina’s sex is male – although it is the truth – that someone has to be unable to understand that there is a gender too. It seems to be too difficult for Serafina to understand that, although I do not see Serafina as someone with a female sex, I do see Serafina as someone with a feminine gender and that my seeing Serafina as someone with a male sex has no bearing on how Serafina can live. To say that someone who addresses Serafina as a male does not see Serafina as a female is correct because male and female are sex related terms and the sex of Serafina is male. But that has nothing to do with her feminine gender and how Serafina can live.
Although sex is a universal biological category that applies to nearly all animals and plants but a few asexual species, and gender is something that can only be determined by questioning and psychoanalyzing a person – what is not always possible and a fortiori not polite, Serafina thinks that sex is irrelevant and gender is all that’s relevant. That other people have reason to think otherwise is irrelevant. They simply have to change the way they are thinking.




Another point that shows that sex is not totally irrelevant:

Let's see:
-Endocrinologically, i am much more similar to a ciswomen than to a man.
-Genetically, i am male
-My bone structure is male
-The muscular/fat makeup of my body is constantly tending towards female.
-My breasts are definitely female
-My genitalia are still male, tough that will change.
-After that, i will be equal to a female that had her reproductive tract removed
-Psychologically, i behave like a female
-By law, i am still male, tough that will change soon and even more so later on.

Your endocrine system is still that of a man and even after your testicles are removed, your endocrine system is more similar to that of a man that that of a woman because you still lack the glands woman have. Only because you are getting hormones injected into your system your hormonal balance is more similar to that of a woman. But will that stay that way when you would stop to take hormones?
You are right that your genome and your bone structure are that of a man.
Your muscular/fat balance may tend toward being similar to that of a woman but that is also only a result of the hormones you are taking (or a result of obesity). What would happen if you stop to take hormones and your normal hormonal balance is re-established?
Your breasts may seem to be female although I wonder if there are lactiferous glands in them. And I wonder what would happen if you stop to take hormones and your normal hormonal balance is re-established?
Your primary genitalia are male and after the transgender reassignment they will be mutilated. Even if the result looks like a vagina and can deceive a gynaecologist at first glance, it is no vagina and you will never feel exactly what a woman feels with your mutilated penis. I wonder if your prostate will be removed too.
In the end, you will have lost your male reproductive organs and have neither any of the internal reproductive organs (vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix and ovary) nor the external reproductive organs (mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, Bartholin's glands, and clitoris) of a woman. That does not make you more similar to a woman.
That’s why you will not be like a woman who had merely her internal reproductive organs removed.
You may behave totally like a woman. But, if at all, that is only true due to your taking of hormones. Because not only the brain affects our behaviour but the whole endocrine system including glands you’ll never have. The missing hormones have to be injected in you system. And the old question is: What happens if you stop to take your hormones?
Of course you will not totally revert back to the way you were before you have taken the hormones – especially if your testicles are already removed. But as Thomas Beattie has shown, the true sex comes through after no hormones have been taken any more. So to say that you will be a woman while this is only an artificial condition you can only hold as long as you are taking hormones, seems to be not quite correct.



P.S.: I have to go on a business trip and will not be here most of next week. I do not know when I will be able to answer again.


P.P.S.: Serafina, you should use the time to learn the difference between lying and not knowing something and stating an opinion. You have accused me to lie where it doesn't make sense.
For example: I wrote that a gender can only be considered if a person announces it. But that is exactly what transsexuals usually are not doing because that would disclose the fact that they are transgenders. The appearance could not deceive any more and all would know the real sex of the person. From that you quoted only the last sentence and replied that this is a flat-out lie and ignorance of reality.
Maybe the next time you think that I have lied you could show that I know it better and are deliberately saying the untruth. Of course then you would have to show that what I said is the untruth at all.
At another paragraph I wrote that most people do not know transgenders and even if they met a transgender they wouldn’t know it. I concluded that such a behaviour is hardly able to conquer any prejudices because as long as transgenders are not going public and are saying what they are, as long as most of all people are not familiar with the phenomenon, nothing will change. You replied again with accusing me of having said a flat-out lie. How can that be a lie?
Then you argued that the best way to fight prejudices against transsexuality is to simply show that transsexual people are just like every other member of their gender, with the exception of certain biological facts (again, right for privacy). How does is that different from what I said? Or how do you want to show that transsexual people are just like every other member of their gender? Via media where it stay a only theoretical problem because most people do not know that they know any transgenders?
A little tip: If someone has a different opinion than you, that someone does not lie. If someone believes in what he is saying, he does not lie either. Only if that someone states something as a fact, knowing that it is not true, does this someone lie. Be a little bit more carefully with the words you are using and do not throw around words you do not really understand (especially your generous and often-times wrong use of facilities).

[The Dude]

I think you mean fallacies, facilities makes it sound like she is throwing around toilets.

[Serafina]

You have made that leap i do not remember doing so, i was more about agreeing to your right to be anything you decide for ANY reason. Call yourself a Pink Emu if you like serafina its all the same to me.

Yes, because transsexuality is totally just a wild idea and not a well-studied phenomenon.
Got any more non sequiturs?

That is not proven, all that we know so far is that you may have got a reduced quantity of a single hormone out of potentially many that go towards creating a man rather than a woman.

Given that you are most likely not educated in endocrinology at all, you can hardly make that statement.
To put it simply, all i lack right now are a couple of secondary estrogens.

Genetics are hardly unimportant.

I suppose you ask for peoples genetic makeup all the time?

Naturally or artificially because of hormone treatments?.

Since the change induced by hormones is natural - who cares?
Apparently, you are going for the appeal to nature fallacy here.

Again because of artificial treatments.

So what?

Gay men also have feminine personality traits.

Really? As a general rule? And lot's of them? Nice prejudice.

Endocrinologically = not fully known.

Due to your ignorance.

Genetically = naturally male.

Doesn't matter in daily life.

Bone structure = naturally male.

Not perceptible to the normal person

Muscular/fat makeup = maybe naturally male.

Naturally female

Breasts = maybe naturally male.

Same

genitalia = naturally male.

Arguably, yes - but after the OP, indistuingishable even to trained doctors.

Psychologically = feminine characteristics.

Lot's of them.

Law = Naturally male.

Law is hardly natural, now is it?

Nice bigotry there - you are essentially trying to erect a barrier where only "natural" things don't count.
Of course, if even medical professionals can not see a difference (and for breasts and bodyfat, there is indeed NO difference at all.
Of course, appeal to nature is a fallacy anyway.

And yet you are fine demanding that i and the rest of the planet accepts alterations and expansions to the very definition of our sex and to that our my/our wifes/husbands and children.

I am...what?
When did i ever call for a change in the definition of sex?
I AM arguing that people have a right to be treated according to their gender and that the sex is really not all that important - but that's not changing the definition of sex.

Of course, the evil gays are also trying to force a change in the definition of your marriage, aren't they? /sarcasm

It is your choice to decide to ignore genetics, focus on less tangible things and modify and alter yourself through operations or hormane treatments. And you can also demand until you are blue in the face to be considered and thought of as as much a woman as a cis woman is, however i suggest you get used to the fact many individuals will see the differances you wish them to ignore.

Let's see - unless i tell someone, how are they going to figure out my genetic makeup or bone structure?
And if you can't figure out something, why should it matter to you?
Unless you are a bigot and desperate for a reason to discriminate.

And these individuals will not be bigots or want to deny you any rights as a human being they will mearly be logical, accurate minded ppl who see the whole truth instead of only seeing what you want them to see and ignoring other things.

Really?
Well, given that you are incapable of putting up a logical, non-fallacious argument, i don't find this convincing.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Yes, because transsexuality is totally just a wild idea and not a well-studied phenomenon.

If so then the "trans" can be happily applied before male or female depending.

Given that you are most likely not educated in endocrinology at all, you can hardly make that statement.

Nor are you likely educated in endocrinology at all, you can hardly make YOUR statement.

Endocrinologically = not fully known.

Due to your ignorance.

And yours.

Genetically = naturally male.

Doesn't matter in daily life.

I never claimed it did, however accuracy and the whole truth is the thing.

Bone structure = naturally male.

Not perceptible to the normal person

Unimportant to a factual discussion, and a stronger bone structure could give a transwoman certain advantages over a cis woman in some endevors.

Muscular/fat makeup = maybe naturally male.

Naturally female

Breasts = maybe naturally male.

Same

Changes due to artificial hormone treatment is not natural.

genitalia = naturally male.

Arguably, yes - but after the OP, indistuingishable even to trained doctors.

Wrong, a exam would allow any trained person to know the differance.

Psychologically = feminine characteristics.

Lot's of them.

Perhaps but that can also be somewhat attributed to the artificial hormones you are taking.

Nice bigotry there - you are essentially trying to erect a barrier where only "natural" things don't count.

Well, given that you are incapable of putting up a logical, non-fallacious argument, i don't find this convincing.

You mean pointing out the truth about what you essentialy are without surgery and artificial hormone treatment?.

The whole truth is not bigotry or fallacy it is mearly accuracy, you are essentially forcing your body to have female characteristics and demanding that ppl ignore the fact you are doing so and see you as somebody who has not needed to.

[The Dude]

You know, I think it more relevant to ask; "would you vote to oppose rights for transexuals" then whether you personally agree or disagree with what they are.

For example my father is kinda iffy on homosexuals but wouldn't vote against gay marriage.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You know, I think it more relevant to ask; "would you vote to oppose rights for transexuals" then whether you personally agree or disagree with what they are.

I do not see how transexuals rights are being opposed in regards to what they can and cannot do as individuals within our society (although sports is a touchy subject for some), unless you count the fact they wish to force the rest of humanity to ignore the whole truth about their genetic, physical and psycological status.

If they wanna think of themselves as exactly the same as cis women thats fine by me, but the whole truth is that they quite simply are not exactly the same and others are well within their rights to not think of them as such.

And that is not bigotry it is accuracy.

[The Dude]

You know, I think it more relevant to ask; "would you vote to oppose rights for transexuals" then whether you personally agree or disagree with what they are.

I do not see how transexuals rights are being opposed in regards to what they can and cannot do in a society, unless you count the fact they wish the rest of humanity to ignore the whole truth about their genetic, physical and psycological status.

If they wanna think of themselves as exactly the same as cis women thats fine by me, but the whole truth is that they quite simply are not and others will not think of them as such.

And that is not bigotry it is accuracy.

Sorry, maybe I'm not making my point very well. By say referring to "her" as a "him" your just being a dick but your not harming someone other then hurting their feelings. If you voted to say deny them marriage or that proposed law in one of the US states to keep their birth sex on their drivers license, thats far more harmful.

And really, unless your a complete and utter arsehole (like maybe a fundamentalist Christian), who is going to be insulting a transsexual to their face in public?

[Serafina]

From all what Serafina has replied to my last post, only a few sentences seem important to me:

Given your constant obfuscation, that is quite the double standard.
But at least you are quoting me - let's see whether you can keep it in context.

With other words it is important for Serafina what others are thinking of Serafina. And when they do not think that Serafina has a female sex, Serafina is unhappy. And because that’s rude, the others have to change how they are seeing Serafina as if that would be so easy.

And what is wrong with demanding that people are NOT rude.
And of course i care what others think. Maybe not about some anonymous bigots on the internet, but what's wrong with caring about what people i actually interact with think of me?

Addressing anyone by their sex shows only that the sex is chosen as relevant for the grammar gender. It does say nothing about the question how the gender is seen. It is not mutually exclusive. It is possible to see someone as being someone with a male sex and feminine gender or female sex and masculine gender. But when deciding how to address someone, one has to decide if the gender or the sex is deciding. And for obvious reason, for most people the sex is deciding because, although one could get deceived, the sex usually is objective while the gender is subjective.

Bushwah.
You are constantly proclaiming that people are, BY DEFAULT, using sex instead of gender when choosing how to address someone.
Of course, you have never shown this to be true. We DO have a grammatical gender in Germany at all (then again, why should a german lawyer need knowledge of the german language?).

And it is less incisive to ask every person what their gender is to be able to address them according to that? Sex is something that usually is obviously while gender is not. (And yes, we conclude from the appearance to the sex knowing that in one per cent of all cases that may be wrong) Insofar to choose the sex when addressing someone should protect privacy more than to ask each and every person to disclose their gender, especially if that person is a transgender who has not yet come out and does not want to come out. That person does not want to be addressed according to their gender.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASK, bigot.
When you see a transwoman, three things are possible:
-She has not yet begun her transition, in which case she will look male. No one would call you a bigot or even inconsiderate for choosing a male address there.
-She looks like a woman, but there are still giveaways. In that case, it is obvious what her gender is - female, else she would not try to have a female appearance.
-You don't notice any difference to a ciswoman.

YOU are the one who uses the more complex method and claims that gender is indetecable, despite this being blatantly untrue.

With other words, Serafina claims that transgenders do not want to be seen as people who have a from their gender differing sex. That fact shall be ignored.

Hey, bigot - present evidence that transsexual people want to be seen as transsexual rather than simply members of their gender.

The rest shows only that Serafina has not really read what I have written, has not understood it or has not really contemplated it. Serafina’s replies do not even fit to the paragraphs which are replied. Often-times that is due to Serafina’s selective quoting where important sentences are left out.

Ah, right. You conveniently ignore the WHOLE part where i showed that you have not even READ your OWN evidence.
Yes, that's selective quoting - AGAIN. Who is the deceptive one now, bigot?

But these quotes are showing what Serafina wants: Serafina wants to live a secret.

This is bad HOW?

The fact that Serafina’s sex is male should be ignored because Serafina is still not able to really differentiate between sex and gender.

Yeah, that's just a clumsy lie. I am differentiating between sex and gender all the time, everyone with half a brain can see that.

If someone says that Serafina’s sex is male – although it is the truth – that someone has to be unable to understand that there is a gender too.

Not necessarily. However, it is likely.
Since you are constantly arguing about my sex, even more so in your case.
Of course, someone can understand something and still ignore it - bigots do that all the time.

It seems to be too difficult for Serafina to understand that, although I do not see Serafina as someone with a female sex, I do see Serafina as someone with a feminine gender and that my seeing Serafina as someone with a male sex has no bearing on how Serafina can live.

Yet you are the one demanding that i do not share the same rights as other members of my gender, even AFTER all visible signs of my gender have been altered to be female.
That hardly strikes as tolerant, now does it?

Although sex is a universal biological category that applies to nearly all animals and plants but a few asexual species, and gender is something that can only be determined by questioning and psychoanalyzing a person – what is not always possible and a fortiori not polite, Serafina thinks that sex is irrelevant and gender is all that’s relevant. That other people have reason to think otherwise is irrelevant. They simply have to change the way they are thinking.

Hey, bigot - people normally EXPRESS their gender.
I DO express my gender. So, why should anyone have any difficulty recognizing it? (tough some might mistake it for my sex being female).

Your endocrine system is still that of a man and even after your testicles are removed, your endocrine system is more similar to that of a man that that of a woman because you still lack the glands woman have.

If you are performing an endocrinologic test on me, it will show female.
Amusingly, transwomen can even give a false positive on pregnancy tests, operation or not.

Your muscular/fat balance may tend toward being similar to that of a woman but that is also only a result of the hormones you are taking (or a result of obesity). What would happen if you stop to take hormones and your normal hormonal balance is re-established?

So what?
If someone was to look at my body fat, he would determine me to be female.
It is not artificial, since it has grown naturally to be that way - of course, appeal to nature(naturality) is a fallacy anyway.

Your breasts may seem to be female although I wonder if there are lactiferous glands in them. And I wonder what would happen if you stop to take hormones and your normal hormonal balance is re-established?

And you claim to have made your abitur in biology? :lol:
Male humans (and IIRC mammals) HAVE lactation/mammary glands, they are merely small and inactive due to their hormonal balance.
Someone who made his abitur in biology should really, really know that.

Your primary genitalia are male and after the transgender reassignment they will be mutilated. Even if the result looks like a vagina and can deceive a gynaecologist at first glance, it is no vagina and you will never feel exactly what a woman feels with your mutilated penis.

Aaah, "mutilated". Nice fallacy.
Besides, sensory tests have shown that the stimulation of the nerves is pretty damn close.

In the end, you will have lost your male reproductive organs and have neither any of the internal reproductive organs (vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix and ovary) nor the external reproductive organs (mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, Bartholin's glands, and clitoris) of a woman. That does not make you more similar to a woman.

Ah, conveniently snipping the part where i said that that would make me identical to a ciswoman that had her reproductive system removed.
Besides, ALL of the external ones exist. You are clearly doing absolutely no research on this and are arguing from ignorance.

You may behave totally like a woman. But, if at all, that is only true due to your taking of hormones.

As per you saying so.
Oh, and appeal to naturality again.

What happens if you stop to take your hormones?

Right now? Can you really not figure it out?
The changes do not actually completely revert, if you think that.
Anyway, after the SRS it would be the same as with every woman who doesn't produce estrogen - which is not exactly a rare phenomenon (you have made an bio-abi, you can tell me why).

But as Thomas Beattie has shown, the true sex comes through after no hormones have been taken any more. So to say that you will be a woman while this is only an artificial condition you can only hold as long as you are taking hormones, seems to be not quite correct.

Does it now?
I ask anyone to look at his face and tell me that that looks female. Or at his breats and tell me that they look female.
Another LIE, and this time definately not caused by lack of knowledge.

P.S.: I have to go on a business trip and will not be here most of next week. I do not know when I will be able to answer again.

Yeah, sure.

P.P.S.: Serafina, you should use the time to learn the difference between lying and not knowing something and stating an opinion. You have accused me to lie where it doesn't make sense.

So you admit that you are arguing from ignorance?
Most of the things you made errors on are easy to find out, if you know how to use Google. According to your claims, you should already know many of the things you made false statements on, such as, for example
-the binding nature of supreme court decisions
-the legal status of tranwomen according to the TSG
-that something that has not been signed by any german government authority is part of german law (Yogyakarta Principles)
-that males have mammary glands

A lawyer should know the first three, or understand it after looking at the facts for about five minutes. Heck, i learned that back in school.
The fourth is actually a widely-known fact, i also learned that back in school.

For example: I wrote that a gender can only be considered if a person announces it. But that is exactly what transsexuals usually are not doing because that would disclose the fact that they are transgenders.

This is so blatantly wrong that you are either a moron or lying.
EVERY human being displays his or her gender identity. YOU do it, our chancellor does it, Mahatma Ghandi did it, Ioses Stalin did it, I do it.
How? Simply by behavior and outward appearance such as clothes.
You would have a point if i was dressing gender-ambiguous, which i am NOT doing.

Maybe the next time you think that I have lied you could show that I know it better and are deliberately saying the untruth.

Done, see above. Either you are lying about your qualifications, things you actually know or you are just stupid.

At another paragraph I wrote that most people do not know transgenders and even if they met a transgender they wouldn’t know it. I concluded that such a behaviour is hardly able to conquer any prejudices because as long as transgenders are not going public and are saying what they are, as long as most of all people are not familiar with the phenomenon, nothing will change. You replied again with accusing me of having said a flat-out lie. How can that be a lie?

I explained that as well in the same post. Yes, apparently, you are LYING again.
Besides, there is a difference between there being a public MOVEMENT and every INDIVIDUAL going public.
The first is necessary, the latter not - or do you demand that every homosexual person publicly declares his or her sexual orientation as well?

Then you argued that the best way to fight prejudices against transsexuality is to simply show that transsexual people are just like every other member of their gender, with the exception of certain biological facts (again, right for privacy). How does is that different from what I said?

'You are arguing that transsexual people are different from cissexual people - when in fact the whole difference are a few biological facts. Drawing attention to THEM hardly furthers acceptance.

Or how do you want to show that transsexual people are just like every other member of their gender?

Easy-peasy. I do it all the time, most transsexual people do it all the time - because they DO behave like other people of their gender.

A little tip: If someone has a different opinion than you, that someone does not lie.

Never claimed that.
But if someone claims to have a qualification and then shows that he knowns nothing about his supposed field of expertise, he is a liar - either about his qualifications or what he is saying in that instance.
If someone deliberately ignores whole fields of science while claiming to address them, he is a liar.
If someone deliberately leaves out parts of his opponents posts where he is shown that his own evidence is proving him wrong, he is ALSO lying.
If someone deliberately leaves out parts of his opponents posts where the question he is answering in his own next post are answered, he is also lying when claiming that there is no answer to his questions.

So, yes, WILBA, you ARE a liar. Face it.


You are also constantly focusing on a transwomans sex (strangely, not on transmen).
Why do you do that?
Most likely because you want to deny that a transwoman is female in every way possible.
You tried it with grammar, you tried it with law and now you are trying it with biology.
In other words, you are a bigot who can not just accept that transwomen are female just like every other female (except for nearly unnoticable biological differences)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Sorry, maybe I'm not making my point very well. By say referring to "her" as a "him" your just being a dick but your not harming someone other then hurting their feelings. If you voted to say deny them marriage or that proposed law in one of the US states to keep their birth sex on their drivers license, thats far more harmful.

And really, unless your a complete and utter arsehole (like maybe a fundamentalist Christian), who is going to be insulting a transsexual to their face in public?

I do not understand any of that sorry.

To clarify i am happy for anybody to marry anybody else no matter what.