All about Serafina (Split)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

It would be taking away rights from transsexual people they currently have.

What rights, we are talking about accurate terminoligy not denying anybody anything?.

It would also force them into a gender role that does not fit with their gender.

Actually a fully accurate description would do nothing of the sort.

However going the other way would mean my currant gender description would no longer apply to me in many ways i feel are important.

The only purpose of such extra categories is to keep them out of the "proper" ones (which would stay the majority), which is obviously bigoted.

The purpose would be accuracy and clarity and if it is accurate that they do have "differances" (and they do) defining them is not bigotry and it is not "keeping them out" of anything because they were technically never there.

The existance, recognition and definition of a minority in society is not bigotry in fact it goes a long way to reduce bigotry and increase acceptance in the long run.

[Serafina]

What rights, we are talking about accurate terminoligy not denying anybody anything?.

Men and women do not have identical rights.
If we impose that bigoted policy, then transsexual people would not have the same rights as others of their actual gender - transwomen not the rights of women and transmen not those of men.

Since we already HAVE those rights, that change would take them away.

Actually a fully accurate description would do nothing of the sort.

However going the other way would mean my currant gender description would no longer apply to me in many ways i feel are important.

Given that this proposed role does not have any evidence for it, it's simply based on already demonstrated bias.

The purpose would be accuracy and clarity and if it is accurate that they do have "differances" (and they do) defining them is not bigotry and it is not "keeping them out" of anything because they were technically never there.

Again, you present zero evidence that transsexual people acually belong to a third gender other than your biased perception that their biology somehow necessiates a new definition.

The existance, recognition and definition of a minority in society is not bigotry in fact it goes a long way to reduce bigotry and increase acceptance in the long run.

We are ALREADY accepted, at least legally.
Taking that acceptance away is NOT an improvement.


Like WILGA, you apparently have to deny that a transwomans gender is female and vice versa for transmen.
Given that there is zero evidence for this assertion, it is pure bigotry.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Men and women do not have identical rights.
If we impose that bigoted policy, then transsexual people would not have the same rights as others of their actual gender - transwomen not the rights of women and transmen not those of men.

Since we already HAVE those rights, that change would take them away.

While that may apply on a limited issues basic human rights are the same.

Also your points regarding that little detail show their is no bigotry unless women or men are having there basic human rights limited just because they are not identical?.

Are you saying that?, are you saying that a lack of identical rights are bigotry and if so when do you intend start protesting for men/women or what ever gender is getting predjudiced against?.

Given that this proposed role does not have any evidence for it, it's simply based on already demonstrated bias.

Actually i never said "role" as that is totally misleading and predjudicial however a third gender is supported by biology, chemistry, genetics and even psycology.

Again, you present zero evidence that transsexual people acually belong to a third gender other than your biased perception that their biology somehow necessiates a new definition.

The science showed they fall well short of a womans brain make up and add to that being physically fully male and the fact that the operations and hormones mearly change appearance and it is not a complete change id say the evidence is stacked very high in favor of a third option.

While certainly not male you fall well short of female on way to many levels.

The problem is not in the least a lack of evidence the problem is that the result of examining ALL the evidence supports something that is counter to your personal bias, and as you are incapable of refuting the facts or the results you try to disallow the evidence with very weak excuses.

[Serafina]

Actually i never said "role" as that is totally misleading and predjudicial however a third gender is supported by biology, chemistry, genetics and even psycology.

Present that evidence then. Go on, do it.

[Jedi Master Spock]

It WAS an attempted ad hominem, since he did not actually show that my arguments are not logically sound.
Pointing out that they are emotional hence served only to undermine my person, which is widely known as an ad hominem attack.

No, it was not. You're having a great deal of trouble correctly understanding what is actually said:

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.

What you precisely replied to with claims of ad hominem. There is no personal attack here; he is saying that this particular argument that you have offered to him is a weak argument (which, in the previous reply in the exchange of points, he referred to as emotional) and that he will dismiss it.

He is attacking your argument, not your person; moreover, in attacking your argument, he is saying that it should be dismissed, not that the conclusion should be gauged incorrect. This is not argumentum ad hominem.

Oh, wait, he is flat-out saying it:

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

Right there in his own words:
He wants that transsexual people are not seen as members of the sex their gender belongs to. His main method to do this while pretending not to be a bigot is advocating a third gender category.

No, right there he's saying that once born a man, always a man. What is meant by "opposite sex" in that context means one of the sexes, not both of them.

W.I.L.G.A.'s position as stated is quite simple.

Either way, just because he doesn't say so he can still say it between the lines.

By which we can say that you are guessing at what you think he thinks. Which is to say that you are not responding to what he's saying, and are therefore constructing a strawman out of your own speculations.

It's that simple, and it also makes you look bad, because you're very clearly putting words in his mouth that he has not said and motivations in his head that he may not have.

And it was not ME that brought this whole thing up

A matter which I am not in a position to judge particularly well without digging through SDN and comparing a bunch of timestamps and replies.

Still, the point holds. If someone is changing the topic because they're losing, they're going to change it.

Uh...what?

You may have just proved my point.

We are talking about something COMPLETELY different here.
And i see no reason why switching away from transsexual rights to the rights of a much broader group should be in any way beneficial to solving the issue of transsexual rights, other than pointing out the rights others have.

Perhaps I will demonstrate when W.I.L.G.A. comes back from his business trip, if he's interested.

Sorry, but then you are blinded by his obfuscation.

I believe I'm reading what he actually wrote, rather than engaging in gross speculation of what he might have meant.

I didn't? Are you reading what i am writing?

Yes. You have objected to it, but chosen instead to spend much more of your time writing about hijra, from what I can tell, a topic that has consumed a shockingly large portion of your posts.

Either way, that policy would not only violate human rights but serve NO PURPOSE other than ENABLING DISCRIMINATION.
Why should a random person have the right to know about my past or genetic makeup?
Why should an employer have the right to know?
Why should a law enforcement officer have the right to know?
Why should a judge have the right to know?

Actually, a law enforcement officer or judge may have a reason to wish to know, and existing law would already bind you to tell them the truth if asked under penalty of perjury, if I'm not greatly mistaken.

Your employer may actually have need to know about your medical history under certain circumstances, and under such circumstances, it will not be necessary for you to be compelled to tell them, as it will be generally in your own interest to do so.

I would call it hesistant. If he thought it was a good thing, he would speak in favor of it.
If he was honestly admitting that he thinks it to be bad, he would say so.
He does neither - in light of his other "talking points", it is pretty clear that he thinks it to be bad - especially after his appeal AGAINST changing language.

You assume.

Remember my objective:
WIGLA is a bigot, you can't convince bigots. Hence, i want to show that he is a bigot with bigoted policies.

Your objective, then, is to attack the character of Who is like God arbour, so that others will not listen to him? That would be the definition of argumentum ad hominem. A normal argumentative technique on SDN, but not especially well looked on elsewhere. The fact that you feel the need to build strawmen to do so renders it especially bad form.

I recommend that you focus on his actual arguments and concentrate on addressing what is actually said rather than attempting a large indirect argumentum ad hominem intended to convince what few uninvolved readers may happen to run by this thread through Google.

Got anything more than a general wikipage?

It's not really necessary. I'd really recommend checking out an introductory psych textbook more than hitting the psych literature, and Wikipedia is apt, though brief.

I was simply pointing out that your approach at statistics were wrong, since it is right now IMPOSSIBLE to be classified as trans- AND intersexual.

Which distinction is not visible to the unexamined.

By all means, do so.

There is very strong evidence that transsexuality is simply a female brain in a male body and vice versa.

Emphasis added; case closed. You claimed simply; that would imply nothing more, nothing less.

I have a statistic listing several unnamed cases in front of me. It's (print from) a school textbook, so it doesn't actually have scientific references.
Either way, out of 36 studies including 93 subjects in total only one subject did not reverse (his?her? no information) gender identity or committing suicide.

Interesting, but there is a key selection problem. If what we have is a key selection of case studies that have come to the attention of the literature precisely because they are case studies, that is one thing, but there could easily be some going the other direction that I've overlooked.

I was able to locate a couple somewhat relevant studies, but nothing that precisely addressed the larger demographic-scale question of how many intersexuals come to realize their status through symptoms generally associated with GID in the DSM-IV. One older study was concerned with the fact that intersexuals transitioning actually would fall under the description in the DSM-III.

Either way, i'll try to look up extra studies - but they are old enough that they are extremely unlikely to be found online.
I think most studies were not as radical as Reimers case, at least i hope so.

The Reimers case was unusual in a number of ways, one being that John/Joan was not actually classed as "ambiguous" at birth but the reassignment operation was carried out (to what sounded like remarkably shoddy standards) anyway following a botched circumcision at eight months of age.

It's the sort of case study that makes for a wonderful cautionary story and a good morality tale, but it doesn't tell us much about how thoroughly gendered the brain is.

I would call a choice where the other option involves death forced and not a choice.
Wouldn't you?

There are always at least two non-death related "choices." It's quite possible that none of them involve a happy life, however.

Using a scale that has long since fallen out of favor amongst psychiatrists is hardly a good example.

It's still quite useful for illustration and discussion.

Actually, it is.
If it IS triggered, there is a trigger. No actual trigger has been found, and it should have been in the latter two cases.

Triggers are not always easy to find, and in the case of trigger-repression essentialist models, there may be a multiplicity of potential triggers. No skin off of my nose - as I said, I have my doubts about such models - but not an easy negative to prove.

[Serafina]

No, it was not. You're having a great deal of trouble correctly understanding what is actually said:

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.

What you precisely replied to with claims of ad hominem. There is no personal attack here; he is saying that this particular argument that you have offered to him is a weak argument (which, in the previous reply in the exchange of points, he referred to as emotional) and that he will dismiss it.

What the hell?
Look, i argued that transsexual people in general suffer if not addressed properly and laid out reasons for that.
Claiming that my argument was "ppl should think the way i want them to or im a sad bunny" is simply a strawman.
Unless you want to argue that transsexual people are not offended by this or that this offense is okay.

He is attacking your argument, not your person; moreover, in attacking your argument, he is saying that it should be dismissed, not that the conclusion should be gauged incorrect. This is not argumentum ad hominem.

Given that it was a strawman, it is simply completely invalid.
He attempted an ad hominem as well, but that is not what invalidates it.

No, right there he's saying that once born a man, always a man.

Extreme bigotry - are you agreeing with him?

What is meant by "opposite sex" in that context means one of the sexes, not both of them.

Uh...what?
He was saying that he wanted to prevent transwomen from being seen as having a female sex, and vice versa. How the hell does that address that in any way?

By which we can say that you are guessing at what you think he thinks. Which is to say that you are not responding to what he's saying, and are therefore constructing a strawman out of your own speculations.

It's that simple, and it also makes you look bad, because you're very clearly putting words in his mouth that he has not said and motivations in his head that he may not have.

Rhetoric analysis. It works.

Still, the point holds. If someone is changing the topic because they're losing, they're going to change it.

Which is dishonest.
So, why do you want to change the topic again?

Perhaps I will demonstrate when W.I.L.G.A. comes back from his business trip, if he's interested.

You don't actually believe that business trip story, do you?
Remember that he attempted to quit this debate before, which brought me here in the firs place.

Actually, a law enforcement officer or judge may have a reason to wish to know, and existing law would already bind you to tell them the truth if asked under penalty of perjury, if I'm not greatly mistaken.

Name these reasons and why that should give them the right to do so.
Besides, you are only allowed to ask questions that are relevant to the case, which this will not be in nearly all cases.

Your employer may actually have need to know about your medical history under certain circumstances, and under such circumstances, it will not be necessary for you to be compelled to tell them, as it will be generally in your own interest to do so.

Name these circumstances.

Overall, you do not seem to value the protection of a transsexual persons personal data.

Your objective, then, is to attack the character of Who is like God arbour, so that others will not listen to him? That would be the definition of argumentum ad hominem. A normal argumentative technique on SDN, but not especially well looked on elsewhere. The fact that you feel the need to build strawmen to do so renders it especially bad form.

Actually, no. You do not understand what an ad hominem is.

I AM attacking WILGA, yes. By pointing out how his talking points are bigoted. I am doing that with valid logic, NOT with attacks on his person. I do not say "you are a bigot, hence you are wrong" but rather "you are wrong, and these claims also make you a bigot".

It's not really necessary. I'd really recommend checking out an introductory psych textbook more than hitting the psych literature, and Wikipedia is apt, though brief.

You are ignoring everything else i said about hindsight bias.

Emphasis added; case closed. You claimed simply; that would imply nothing more, nothing less.

As i said and admitted, i worded it badly.

There are always at least two non-death related "choices."

What are they supposed to be?
Emigration from Iran is not easy, especially if the police already wants to execute you (many of these changes are forced after ones homosexuality has been discovered).
And you can not actually change your sexual orientation. Besides, if you are already found out, that's no use either.

Triggers are not always easy to find, and in the case of trigger-repression essentialist models, there may be a multiplicity of potential triggers. No skin off of my nose - as I said, I have my doubts about such models - but not an easy negative to prove.

We have been looking for more than forty years now.
NOT finding ANYTHING is quite telling as as much as you can prove a negative - sufficient for science anyway.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Actually i never said "role" as that is totally misleading and predjudicial however a third gender is supported by biology, chemistry, genetics and even psycology.

Present that evidence then. Go on, do it.

Again?.

Genetics.
Geneticaly a transwoman is male.

Chemistry.
We have been over this already, NONE of the transgender tests showed anything more than a slight hormonal imbalance that steared towards the feminine in regards to that one hormone.

Biology.
A transwomans body would remain and act like a males unless hormonal treatments are introduced.


Physicality.
In some cases if not most transgenders go from being perfectly fertile to being sterile because of the operations, as such the operations are no more than a bit of superficial plastic surgery that sometimes do considerable harm.

Psycology.
The hormones transgenders take are also part of why a transwoman changes, they take estrogenic components to become less male and more feminine and even take anti-androgens to reduce male aspects. These hormones have also been shown to effect and even alter the brain in the same way in certain areas (but not all the areas a cis woman has) and as such if they are required how can the brain already be female?.

[Serafina]

Okay - serious lol.
NONE of these are related to or define gender. Go buy a dictionary.

Okay, for some reason i feel nice, so here is the evidence you need:
You need to show that a transsexual person (not just transwomen, there are also transmen) does NOT have a normal female (or male) gender.
This is a field for psychology, everything else has NOTHING to do with it.

Again, your appeal to nature is still a fallacy.
You fail.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Okay - serious lol.
NONE of these are related to or define gender. Go buy a dictionary.

No need.

Any other definition uses "gender" to refer to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

And as such is unbelievably steryotypical, predjudicial.

Pure science fact is the only non predjudicial guide.

Again, your appeal to nature is still a fallacy.

Your insistance to dismiss clear scientific evidence because you cano0t refute it or its results is the fallacy, quite disgracful actually.

Is it a combo of several fallacies you are trying including a slippery slope?, force acceptance of "A" by ignoring scientific facts, then after claim that if "A" is true "B", "C" ect is true?.

So what would you go for after "A" if its gender?, are you going to claim you are the same sex next and after that what?.

[Jedi Master Spock]

What the hell?
Look, i argued that transsexual people in general suffer if not addressed properly and laid out reasons for that.
Claiming that my argument was "ppl should think the way i want them to or im a sad bunny" is simply a strawman.

Which is precisely what you should have said in response to it, not claiming ad hominem.

The two are quite different beasts. Someone may be using perfectly valid techniques on a strawman.

He attempted an ad hominem as well

Not in what you quoted and replied to with claims of ad hominem. Elsewhere? Earlier, much earlier, definitely.

Extreme bigotry - are you agreeing with him?

I'm stating his claim accurately. I don't agree with it.

He was saying that he wanted to prevent transwomen from being seen as having a female sex, and vice versa.

Which is not the same thing as saying transwomen belong to a third gender.

It works.

For Ann Coulter on FOX and Mike Wong on SDN, perhaps, but not on SFJ. Argumentum ad hominem is bad argument, plain and simple. Argumentum ad hominem upon a strawman is obscenely bad form.

So, why do you want to change the topic again?

An interesting assumption.

You don't actually believe that business trip story, do you?

I have no reason not to.

Name these reasons and why that should give them the right to do so.
Besides, you are only allowed to ask questions that are relevant to the case, which this will not be in nearly all cases.

"Ten years ago, a man was sighted walking down..."

Any more silly questions? Testimony is required to be accurate and complete. If you lie under oath, you are quite likely to be prosecuted for perjury.

In some cases, at least in the US, you may be prosecuted for perjury for lying under oath for matters that you personally may not think are relevant to the case. So long as the judge is willing to permit the question as relevant to making decisions, you are out of luck. The best you can do is refuse to testify, which in some cases may get you contempt of court.

Name these circumstances.

Are you familiar with the fact that in the US, the better employers offer medical coverage? Often running it directly? And that you might be able to convince them to pay for, say, SRS-related expenses?

As I said earlier, there is hardly a need for a law enforcing disclosure to employers. In the rare case where an employer actually has an bona fide interest in knowing you are transgendered, it will generally be something that is in your interest as well, such as pressuring an insurer to cover sex reassignment surgery.

Overall, you do not seem to value the protection of a transsexual persons personal data.

I don't? Are you, perhaps, making assumptions now about what I think, based on things that W.I.L.G.A. has written?

Let me ask you a question to speculate upon - since you speculate so much upon the inner contents of W.I.L.G.A.'s mind, you should not have any objections to engaging in a little directed speculation: Do you think that W.I.L.G.A. would favour banning lying when the lie does not protect against a clear and present danger?

Actually, no. You do not understand what an ad hominem is.

I do, unfortunately for you. It's an attack upon the person. Literally, argument upon the person.

It may be true; it may be false. If your goal is to show that he is a bigot and therefore he shouldn't be listened to, that is argumentum ad hominem.

Attempting to show that his proposed policies enable bigotry, however, is not argumentum ad hominem. As you crudely attempted to say earlier, it is possible for one individual to offer up multiple arguments. I do it all the time as a matter of course - in my debate with Thanatos, I offered no less than eight distinct parallel arguments about lascannon yields.

In this case, you are outlining a two-pronged argument. One is attacking his arguments; another is attacking him. In practice, this approach usually degenerates into spending most of your time on the ad hominem and very little on material counter-argument.

I AM attacking WILGA, yes. By pointing out how his talking points are bigoted. I am doing that with valid logic, NOT with attacks on his person. I do not say "you are a bigot, hence you are wrong" but rather "you are wrong,

Argument number one: Claiming that W.I.L.G.A.'s claims are wrong. This is simple rebuttal, and whether it is fallacious or not depends on the means by which you attempt to prove them wrong.

and these claims also make you a bigot".

Argument number two is an argument ad hominem intended to convince others not to listen to W.I.L.G.A.

You are ignoring everything else i said about hindsight bias.

And? It indeed happens. If you wish to use your experiences an example, that's fine by me.

As i said and admitted, i worded it badly.

Agreed.

What are they supposed to be?
Emigration from Iran is not easy, especially if the police already wants to execute you (many of these changes are forced after ones homosexuality has been discovered).
And you can not actually change your sexual orientation. Besides, if you are already found out, that's no use either.

Living a sad and unhappy life pretending to straight and trying to die a virgin.

We have been looking for more than forty years now.
NOT finding ANYTHING is quite telling as as much as you can prove a negative - sufficient for science anyway.

Yes, that would be a good reason for not putting too much stock in an essentialist repression/trigger model. What, precisely, are you wound up about here? You seem to be violently disagreeing with yourself.

[Serafina]

No need.
Any other definition uses "gender" to refer to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

Yes, that is about the definition in social sciences.
Biology doesn't play any part in it.

And as such is unbelievably steryotypical, predjudicial.

How so?

Pure science fact is the only non predjudicial guide.

Yes - social sciences in this case, since gender is a term used in social science.
Hence, biology is completely irrelevant to it.

Your insistance to dismiss clear scientific evidence because you cano0t refute it or its results is the fallacy, quite disgracful actually.

Yes, i dismissed your scientific evidence. Because it is NOT relevant to the definition of gender, a social science term.


Again:
Use social science to show that transsexual people have another gender than female or male.
Else, your premise is simply false.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Yes, that is about the definition in social sciences.
Biology doesn't play any part in it.

Social science regarding gender does not exclude the natural science results in fact all should be applied.

Again you take a tiny part of the truth instead of all of it because all of it is against your bias, that is dishonest.

Use social science to show that transsexual people have another gender than female or male.
Else, your premise is simply false.

WOW you must be desperate to pull out a False Dilemma, Burden of Proof and maybe a Appeal to Authority.

You prove you are just as much a woman as my wife using ALL the sciences and evidence instead of cherry picking the ONE you want and ignoring ALL the others.

[Serafina]

For Ann Coulter on FOX and Mike Wong on SDN, perhaps, but not on SFJ. Argumentum ad hominem is bad argument, plain and simple. Argumentum ad hominem upon a strawman is obscenely bad form.

A rhetoric analysis is NOT an ad hominem. It is a valid tool to analyze what someone is actually saying. It is NOT fallacious.

I have no reason not to.

Other that he has lied about his qualification and education and tried to quit the debate - no reason at all, yes.

"Ten years ago, a man was sighted walking down..."

Any more silly questions? Testimony is required to be accurate and complete. If you lie under oath, you are quite likely to be prosecuted for perjury.

I named that. Such information is already available, i explicitly said so. After all, the identity change is a legal process. It is hidden to those who do not need to know, but that would not be the case here.
And again, just because you are under oath you do not have go answer any question put to you, at least not in Germany.

In some cases, at least in the US, you may be prosecuted for perjury for lying under oath for matters that you personally may not think are relevant to the case. So long as the judge is willing to permit the question as relevant to making decisions, you are out of luck. The best you can do is refuse to testify, which in some cases may get you contempt of court.

Yes - questions about ones past that are not relevant to the case are not allowed, which would be the case with transsexuality most of the time.
If such a question was permitted regardless, it could be a reason for a mistrial.

Are you familiar with the fact that in the US, the better employers offer medical coverage? Often running it directly? And that you might be able to convince them to pay for, say, SRS-related expenses?

Yeah, the US health care "system" simply stinks.
Did you know that in most cases, being transsexual exempts you from all medical insurance anyway? And even if that is not the case, expenses for being transsexual are NOT covered.
This is not the case in most european countries - my employer simply has no legal interest in that, he pays the same for my health insurance as for every other employee (actually, that's hypothetical, since i an privately insured).

As I said earlier, there is hardly a need for a law enforcing disclosure to employers. In the rare case where an employer actually has an bona fide interest in knowing you are transgendered, it will generally be something that is in your interest as well, such as pressuring an insurer to cover sex reassignment surgery.

Pretty much what i am saying:
There is no reason to enforce it by law, doing so would be wrong.

I do, unfortunately for you. It's an attack upon the person. Literally, argument upon the person.

No, it's not. It's a dismissal of ones argument based upon the person who made it.
Attacking a person alone is not an ad hominem.

It may be true; it may be false. If your goal is to show that he is a bigot and therefore he shouldn't be listened to, that is argumentum ad hominem.

Actually, no - since i am essentially showing that his arguments are wrong.
Let's replace "bigot" with "liar". If you show that someone is a liar, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that you should not listen to him.

Given that i have dismissed NO argument simply because he is a bigot, i have NOT used an argumentum ad hominem.

In this case, you are outlining a two-pronged argument. One is attacking his arguments; another is attacking him. In practice, this approach usually degenerates into spending most of your time on the ad hominem and very little on material counter-argument.

One does not invalidate the other.

Argument number one: Claiming that W.I.L.G.A.'s claims are wrong. This is simple rebuttal, and whether it is fallacious or not depends on the means by which you attempt to prove them wrong.

Of course i claim that his claims are wrong. Then i proceed to show it. Is that wrong?

Argument number two is an argument ad hominem intended to convince others not to listen to W.I.L.G.A.

It's a little thing called "convincing the audience". Yes, that part is not logical - it does not have to be, it's basis is, the rest of my argument is.

And? It indeed happens. If you wish to use your experiences an example, that's fine by me.

It was an illustration of a general principle. All i have for scientific evidence is a not-yet published study by a friend, tough my (and my therapists) experience in general confirms it as well.

Living a sad and unhappy life pretending to straight and trying to die a virgin.

Hardly what i would call a viable alternative. The threat of deadly force is still there.

Yes, that would be a good reason for not putting too much stock in an essentialist repression/trigger model. What, precisely, are you wound up about here? You seem to be violently disagreeing with yourself.

How am i disagreeing with myself, much less violently?

[Serafina]

Social science regarding gender does not exclude the natural science results in fact all should be applied.

Yes it does. When discussing social science (and/or psychology), social science matters. NOT biology.
You are demonstrating remarkable ignorance right now.

Again you take a tiny part of the truth instead of all of it because all of it is against your bias, that is dishonest.

Ooh, the "ITS THE TRUTH" part again.

WOW you must be desperate to pull out a False Dilemma, Burden of Proof and maybe a Appeal to Authority.

Let's see:
False dilemma: Nope. I do not wrongly limit your options, i merely insist on accurate evidence.
Burden of Proof: Your claim, your BOP. Besides, BoP is not a fallacy in the first place.
Appeal to Authority: To what authority? Appealing to science is not an appeal to authority.

You prove you are just as much a woman as my wife using ALL the sciences and evidence instead of cherry picking the ONE you want and ignoring ALL the others.

Now THAT is a burden of proof fallacy, as well as a strawman distortion.
Remember what we were talking about?
Gender.
And whether transsexual people have a different gender than non-transsexual people.
I do not have to show that a transwoman is identical to a ciswoman. I do not even have to show that her gender is female (though i did).
YOU have to show that there is another gender category. That is YOUR claim and your burden of proof.

Besides, you do not need to tell me that you will never accept me as a woman. You already proclaimed your bigotry more than often enough.

[Jedi Master Spock]

A rhetoric analysis is NOT an ad hominem. It is a valid tool to analyze what someone is actually saying. It is NOT fallacious.

Oh? You were speaking of your construction of strawmen?

I named that. Such information is already available, i explicitly said so. After all, the identity change is a legal process. It is hidden to those who do not need to know, but that would not be the case here.

Actually, it would not necessarily be already available to any particular law enforcement officer, lawyer, judge et cetera et cetera. In some cases, the court may not even have direct access to those documents or know that they exist, such as if you were living in Texas and had grown up and transitioned in Germany.

Yeah, the US health care "system" simply stinks.

And?

No, it's not. It's a dismissal of ones argument based upon the person who made it.

Which description of argumentum ad hominem precisely describes attempting to paint someone as a bigot, in the hopes that others will not listen to them.

Ad hominem itself is on the person. Any attack made on a person is ad hominem - it is not necessarily argumentum ad hominem (argument upon the person), but it is in fact ad hominem. However, since outside of political campaigns, the purpose of ad hominem is nearly always that of swaying people in argument, ad hominem is taken as synonymous with argumentum ad hominem. In fact, nearly every personal attack offered as a method of persuasion is an implicit argumentum ad hominem. They are rarely explicit in any event.

For example, if Kor had said Oh, you're just being an emotional woman, that would indeed have been an ad hominem argument for dismissing you. What you described as your intentions:

I AM attacking WILGA, yes. By pointing out how his talking points are bigoted. I am doing that with valid logic, NOT with attacks on his person. I do not say "you are a bigot, hence you are wrong" but rather "you are wrong, and these claims also make you a bigot"

In fact perfectly describes, as I mentioned before, an ad hominem argument, perhaps offered in parallel with a material argument of some kind.

Actually, no - since i am essentially showing that his arguments are wrong.
Let's replace "bigot" with "liar". If you show that someone is a liar, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that you should not listen to him.

Actually, that would also be argumentum ad hominem. Bigot, liar, Republican, rat, werewolf, vampire, or Kantian, whatever you're attempting to convince us of W.I.L.G.A.'s character to get us to not listen to his argument is the ad hominem cornerstone of an implicit argumentum ad hominem.

One does not invalidate the other.

Nor does it excuse the other, or eliminate its existence.

Of course i claim that his claims are wrong. Then i proceed to show it. Is that wrong?

No, that's what you should be spending your copious posting energy on.

It's a little thing called "convincing the audience".

Really? I would call it bad form. Others might say "dirty tricks."

And by doing it, you open yourself to return ad hominem. Things spiral rapidly downwards, and it becomes more of a mud-throwing contest than an argument.

It was an illustration of a general principle. All i have for scientific evidence is a not-yet published study by a friend, tough my (and my therapists) experience in general confirms it as well.

Would you like to clarify something that you're attempting to set forth as an argument? I'm not quite sure what you intend to dispute about my assertion that if you took a random woman aside and convinced her she was biologically about half male on the inside, she would most likely re-color her own experiences to reflect this new information.

Hardly what i would call a viable alternative.

I'd call it better than stoning, personally. I don't know, I'm pretty attached to living.

How am i disagreeing with myself, much less violently?

Transsexuality HAS triggers, that is a well-accepted fact under specialist psychologists.

If it IS triggered, there is a trigger. No actual trigger has been found, and it should have been in the latter two cases.

We have been looking for more than forty years now.
NOT finding ANYTHING is quite telling as as much as you can prove a negative - sufficient for science anyway.

You've gone from stating unequivocally that transsexuality has triggers to saying that you're pretty sure there isn't a trigger, that the experts have been looking for forty years without finding them.