All about Serafina (Split)

[Serafina]

Wait, you were referring to that piece of crap?

And YES, it IS crap, because psychologist are not treating transsexuality as an addiction in any way. They are NOT trying to treat it like an addiction, and earlier attempts to do so have failed utterly.

Note that the following is not targeted at Mr. Oragahn, but rather at the article he linked.

Now, let's go step by step.

The behavior is exhibited over a long period of time (at least 12 months) in an excessive, aberrant form, deviating from the norm or extravagant (e.g., regarding its frequency and intensity)
A transsexual's feelings towards gender transition generally intensify as time progresses. It is extremely rare to see a transsexual, who is committed to a gender transition, veer off. As it is extremely rare to see a transsexual veer off, transsexuals easily surpass twelve months where the behavior becomes more extreme. Ironically, in the vast majority of cases of male to female transsexuals, transsexualism was barely on the radar screen prior to the onset of their cross-gender variant behavior. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Actually, it doesn't. There is no infinite progression, and often not a progression at all.
Sure, yes, many transsexual people have to work on accepting their new-found gender identity, but once that is done, it is done - and is not on any other level than that of any other person.

Loss of control over the excessive behavior (duration, frequency, intensity, risk) when the behavior started
Transsexuals, who begin a gender transition, have difficulty turning off their intense feeling towards gender transition. Their personal gender transition emerges in virtually all aspects of their life. Transsexuals, also, generally fail to appreciate the risk they are taking in the pursuit of in a gender transition. In the case of transsexuals, who are gainfully employed, transsexuals generally do not weigh the issues surrounding re-entering the workforce, should they lose their jobs for one reason or another. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

This is not true at all. Virtually EVERY single transsexual person who i have ever met or talked to had or did worry about the consequences of transition. There were only two cases (of over 40) where this was no the case - one of those was extremely stupid anyway, the other lived in an extremely tolerant environment and did not have to worry about money all that much.
Transitioning is generally accompanied by great deal of fear about it's consequences, this is simply a LIE.

Reward effect (the excessive behavior is instantly considered to be rewarding)
As the person takes steps in their respective gender transition, each one seems the correct one. As the person regards each step in their respective gender transition as being well founded, he/she experiences reward. Over time the individual has to act out in ever increasing degrees to feel the same degree of satisfaction. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Yes, there is an initial satisfaction when you make an important step. That is normal - every normal person feels that way, whether that step is in a relationship, job-related or anything else.
However, except for those steps, there is no such reward mechanism. I felt very satisfied when i first managed to have the courage to go out as a woman. Nowadays, i don't - it's an every day experience and nothing special. I also felt very happy when i was first able to wear something with a deeper neckline, but that was in no way different from what my sister felt when she was able to do so.
There is no reward loop or addiction.

Development of tolerance (the behavior is conducted longer, more often and more intensively in order to achieve the desired effect; in unvaried form, intensity and frequency the desired effect fails to appear)
As a transsexual progresses through a change in gender appearance, he/she often opts to undergo more procedures and not less, indicating the degree of satisfaction derived from each procedure diminishes in intensity, requiring the individual to act out in ever increasing degrees. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

This is simply another lie. Virtually all transsexual people i know don't do any other procedures after SRS, UNLESS they are absolutely necessary.
We do not get a kick out of operations, electrolysis or hormone treatment, we simply need them.
By the same token, i could argue that an ill person is addicted, given that she will potentially require treatment after treatment. But after the treatment is successful, no more will be required (in general).

The behavior that was initially perceived as pleasant, positive and rewarding is increasingly considered to be unpleasant in the course of the addiction
Virtually all transsexuals publicly cross-dress prior to undergoing a gender transition. The vast majority of transsexuals report their former cross-dressing experiences as being fun and exciting, However, as transsexuals advance in their respective gender transitions, the thought of periodic cross-dressing is abhorrent. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

No, it doesn't.
In fact, most transsexual people i know find "cross-dressing" an abhorrent thought right from the start. We do not want to crossdress - and if we do it, it is out of necessity to achieve acceptance according to our gender.

rresistible urge/craving to execute the behavior
The drivers, underlying transsexualism, are psychological and sexual in nature. Sexual urges are irrepressible. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Bullshit. There is no primary sexual urge behind transsexuality. It is often part of it, but only because it is part of expressing ones gender.
If given the choice between "male sex life, female social life" and the other way round, i would pick the first one - and i suspect every other transwoman would, too, if that choice was necessary.
Indeed, most transmen are aware that they will NOT be able to have sex like a cisman, which further proves my point.

Function (the behavior is primarily employed as a way to regulate emotions/mood)
The vast majority of transsexuals cannot emotionally function if precluded from acting out cross-gender behavior due to one circumstance or another. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Gee. The majority of people can not function normally if they are forced to uphold a gender role contrary to their own.
AT least for a longer period of time, when i had to pose as a man for any reason (there were a few) i was able to do so, although often discomforted.

Expectancy of effect (expectancy of pleasant/positive effects by carrying out the excessive behavior)
As a transsexual takes steps in his/her gender transition each one seems the correct one. Transsexuals often report their life 'improving' in the period leading up to a major surgical procedure, which matches their expectations. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

And this is different from achieving ANYTHING ELSE at all?
If you work to get a specific job position, or towards marriage or kids - is it any different?
Right, the difference is that an addiction DOES NOT STOP - it does in the case of transsexuality, showing that this is, again, simply wrong.

Limited pattern of behavior (also applies to buildup and follow-up activities)
See 10.

Yeah, right.

Cognitive occupation with the build-up, execution and follow-up activities of the excessive behavior and possibly the anticipated effects of the excessively executed behavior
Transsexuals find gender transition and the associated steps-which is a process and not a state of existence-exciting. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Gee, working towards an important goal is exiting? Get out of here.
Again, this is no different from working towards any other goal in life.

Irrational, contorted perception of different aspects of the excessive behavior
The vast majority of transsexuals are utterly incapable of realizing their masturbation thoughts are not indigenous to those of a member of the opposite sex. Further, the vast majority of transsexuals have no real construct of what it means to be a member of the opposite sex. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Masturbation? WTF?
First, many transsexual people do not masturbate at all. Those who do generally employ female sex fantasies (if they are transwomen) or male ones (if they are transmen). This is shown by comparing their sex fantasies to those of other women/men.
A notable effect is that the sex fantasies of transwomen (not sure about transmen) are often more like those of women several decades ago, for the simple reason that their social situation is different (the fantasies are often less adventurous and more passive)

Withdrawal symptoms (psychological and physical)
When circumstances preclude transsexuals from acting out cross-gender variant behavior, they report discomfort and psychological withdrawals. Ironically, the vast majority of transsexuals report that they had no difficult living as members of their assigned gender prior the consideration of a change in sex. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Yes, and if YOU have to act contrary to your gender, you will ALSO experience extreme discomfort. And if YOUR sex hormones were to suddenly vanish, you would also have physical problems.
And the vast majority of transsexual people HAS problems prior to their inner coming-out. They might manage, but they are rarely happy with it - that is a problem, don't you think?

Continued execution of the excessive behavior despite negative consequences (health-related, occupational, social)
On the lose of employment or similar crisis, transsexuals typically do not opt to revert to living as a member of their assigned gender role even on circumstances where doing so would be in their best interest. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Yes, because such a reversion would fucking destroy them. And who are you to define their best interest anyway?

Conditioned / learned reactions (resulting from the confrontation with internal and external stimuli associated with the excessive behavior as well as from cognitive occupation with the excessive behavior)
Transsexuals are very resistant to pleas from friends, family members and intimacy partners to discontinue what are often ill conceived gender transitions and consider alternative treatments. They often seize on the concept that gender dysphoria is an accurate portray of their feelings and experiences. They also seize on the prescribed treatment regiments for gender dysphoria as set down by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), including hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and genital surgery. As gender identity disorder in sexually developed individuals is fundamentally flawed, so too is the prescribed treatment regiment set down by the HBIGDA. Transsexualism (coupled with the currently flawed medical response) satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Yeah, you can easily claim that internationally accepted standards are fundamentally flawed without evidence. And the earth is flat, too.
Either way, this is not necessarily true. Indeed, most of my friends have encouraged and helped me with my transition, and so have certain family members.
Just because you do not listen to friends and family, you do not have to be addicted. They might simply be wrong.

Suffering (desire to alleviate perceived suffering)
The vast majority of male to female transsexuals regard any obstruction to surgical procedures that aid in their respective gender transitions as a form of suffering. A number of male to female transsexuals regard gender reassignment surgical (GRS) procedures as 'life saving' surgery and sacrosanct to their health interests, indicating a degree of discomfort in the absence of the procedure. Further, a number of transsexuals report they will commit suicide, if they are unsuccessful with respect to being approved to undergo a GRS procedure or similar procedure that protracts the testes. male to female transsexuals rarely commit suicide in the period leading up to a major surgical procedure that protracts the testes. In fact the vast majority of cases of transsexuals who commit suicide do so after undergoing a GRS procedure and not prior. 5% of all post-operative, male to female transsexuals commit suicide, which is 50 times higher than that of the greater population. In the vast majority of cases of suicide the reasons had nothing to do with prejudice. Whether the individual suffers or not is immaterial. The perception is all that matters. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.

Another bunch of lies and false applications of diagnostic criteria.


To summarize, this person simply misapplies diagnostic criteria.
Most of what she describes as evidence for addiction in regards to transsexuality is ALSO true for every other important wish of a person. It is NOT a sign of addiction. She also lies, distorts and falsifies transsexual behavior - many of her claims are just made up.
The most important downfall is that transsexuality is, indeed, a PROCESS (she even admits that) - an addiction is never a process. An addiction is BY DEFINITION a perpetual look of behavior and reward (be it drugs, games, sex or whatever) that has to be broken because it doesn't stop on it's own.
Contrary to that, Transsexuality has a clearly defined goal which wants to be achieved. Once it IS achieved, the "behavioral pattern" breaks down, no further treatment is required - a transsexual person just lives her life according to her or his gender.
This is never the case with addictions, there is no goal and nothing that can be achieved in order to stop the behavior.


I think Mr. Oragahn, me and all others can simply agree that this claim "transsexuality is an addiction" is simply an unsubstantiated claim, as i have said all along.

[Tyralak]

Given that i have neither clue nor interest in who Timothy Jones is, that doesn't tell me much.

So, you're from SDN and you don't know who Timothy Jones was? Here ya go. Don't say I never gave you anything. http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/trolls/townmnbs.html
And before you get your panties in a twist, I'm not comparing you to him as an insult. The way you've behaved yourself here, and the way you can't seem to realize when others here are sympathetic to your side is a dead ringer for what he used to do.

Either way, i was not arguing against you - i was merely stating that that video was not funny (to me at least) along with the reasons for that opinion.
Even IF i was arguing against you - just because you agree with me that doesn't mean i have to agree with everything you say.

Regarding the "only one" business - neither you nor JMS have been making a serious argument for your position (until now in the case of JMS). You have been randomly popping in and stating your opinion. While it's good to know that this forum doesn't just contain intolerant people, that doesn't exactly qualify you as on anyones side - comparable to silent, non-voting majorities.
Particularly JMS did have state that he is on my side, but his opinion had no more weight than anyone else's he wasn't exactly enforcing it despite it being a simple rule of politeness.

Well, at least that is my perception so far. You might agree with me, but you don't see anything (or enough) wrong with WILGA/Kor/Oraghans opinion to defend yours (which agrees with me).

I'm not arguing with Kor/WILGA and Oraghan because the points you guys are so intensely arguing are stupid and completely irrelevant to my point of view. It makes zero difference to me which one of you are right on these points. What matters to me is that someone be treated fairly under the law as to whatever gender they identify with. I don't care about male/female brain structure, etc. If you legally change your gender to female. You live as a woman, and especially if you take the extraordinary step of gender reassignment surgery, you should be treated as a woman. Period. End of line. I'm not chiming in more, because there are only so many ways that fairly simple, logical point of view can be explained. And I do hate repeating myself.

[Tyralak]

Jeezzzz.... This thread is as much fun as pink eye. Have a good time, guys. Oh, and Serafina, lighten up a bit. You're far too intense.

You should know better. That clip was offensive.
I had to endure for dozens of seconds a rock band which, like many other rock bands during those days, liked to be shot while "performing" their single on stage, in a big and vast building with half the instruments missing and no public whatsoever, while the main singer demonstrated his talent for some kind of jellyfishy simiesque impression.

Oh, I agree. You're lucky though. I could have posted a link to any random Gwar or Winger video.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm not arguing with Kor/WILGA and Oraghan because the points you guys are so intensely arguing are stupid and completely irrelevant to my point of view. It makes zero difference to me which one of you are right on these points. What matters to me is that someone be treated fairly under the law as to whatever gender they identify with. I don't care about male/female brain structure, etc. If you legally change your gender to female. You live as a woman, and especially if you take the extraordinary step of gender reassignment surgery, you should be treated as a woman. Period. End of line. I'm not chiming in more, because there are only so many ways that fairly simple, logical point of view can be explained. And I do hate repeating myself.

That is the lazy and easy way. Excuse me for being pedantic for a moment, but you just can't shrug it off, as at some point there's something called law, and law is based on words which have very specific definitions.
Most of the debate was about what the definitions should be. Serafina thinks she has the upper hand by claiming persecution and that what she asks for would make her happy and then that makes her right. She has however never considered that her opinion on the definition of the term would not please other people. Considering that she's a fraction of a minority, I find that little enthronement of hers particularly absurd and big headed.

@ Serafina
I don't really care about what psychologists say as a whole. If anything, the consensus of a "majority" of "qualified" people is not always a sign of accuracy.
The paper presented by Pichler was, from what was presented, logically connected with the description of behavioral addiction he picked as his template.
The point is, you're not much of a good debater.
Your first quote, for example, makes one glaring errors, and is followed by a point which doesn't help your argument:

Actually, it doesn't. There is no infinite progression, and often not a progression at all.
Sure, yes, many transsexual people have to work on accepting their new-found gender identity, but once that is done, it is done - and is not on any other level than that of any other person.

First, by claiming that Pichler claimed "infinite progression", which you invented out of thin air. Especially since there's clearly a finite curve as the end goal is the last stages of more or less complete transition.
Secondly, by actually admitting that TS people have to work to accept their new-found gender identity. New found when, under what conditions? Who helped you find this gender? When did it pop up in your mind that you were of the "other" gender. And most of all, if it requires work to accept it, why not actually cut that work and stay where you are, and eventually get support to admit what you already are, and not what one psychologist thinks he can make you become?

This is not true at all. Virtually EVERY single transsexual person who i have ever met or talked to had or did worry about the consequences of transition. There were only two cases (of over 40) where this was no the case - one of those was extremely stupid anyway, the other lived in an extremely tolerant environment and did not have to worry about money all that much.
Transitioning is generally accompanied by great deal of fear about it's consequences, this is simply a LIE.

His point is not that there's not fear. His point is that the thoughts and judgments are wrong. Remember, his point is that transition is not such a good thing. So from his position, anyone going for transition, no matter the reflexion, has not thought enough, since if one had done so, transition would be rejected.

Yes, there is an initial satisfaction when you make an important step. That is normal - every normal person feels that way, whether that step is in a relationship, job-related or anything else.
However, except for those steps, there is no such reward mechanism. I felt very satisfied when i first managed to have the courage to go out as a woman. Nowadays, i don't - it's an every day experience and nothing special.

"...there is no such reward mechanism. I felt very satisfied..."

Pwned much?
Which corresponds to the "end" or near-end. However, if you plan on getting further into the transition, then it's easy to consider you're lying to yourself if you don't take pleasure (or satisfaction if you want to call it that) in moving in, one success at a time, step by step.

This is simply another lie. Virtually all transsexual people i know don't do any other procedures after SRS, UNLESS they are absolutely necessary.
We do not get a kick out of operations, electrolysis or hormone treatment, we simply need them.
By the same token, i could argue that an ill person is addicted, given that she will potentially require treatment after treatment. But after the treatment is successful, no more will be required (in general).

Because you start with SRS I suppose? *rolls*
Way to miss his point.
Of course the use of the term "need" is certainly not being particularly helpful to you either.

No, it doesn't.
In fact, most transsexual people i know find "cross-dressing" an abhorrent thought right from the start. We do not want to crossdress - and if we do it, it is out of necessity to achieve acceptance according to our gender.

Taking your word on that, it's rather curious to see you say that you and others like you actually reject cross-dressing to match the dressing code which corresponds to the female gender in our society.
Of course if we summarize all that you have to go through in order to finally see yourself as a woman, that is: work hard (psychological convincing), admit your other gender, force yourself to wear women clothes despite your strong rejection (which is actually a manly reaction), take extensive treatments and, last but not least, undergo plastic surgery... one would really wonder if you're not unwittingly proving Pichler right, here.

Bullshit. There is no primary sexual urge behind transsexuality. It is often part of it, but only because it is part of expressing ones gender.

Which precisely is what he says. Sexual and psychological.

In the end, one can really verify if Pichler's claims are bollocks only from studying a large sample of different TS people, from all ages and origins.
You could, for all we know, be the exception that confirms the rule.
He claims to be a person with a lot of background on the question and to have studied many TS cases as much as you rely on your experience and that of other people like you (which could skew your sample since you and your friends would be the "results" of the psychological and physical therapy which you underwent).
That pretty much makes both of you even.

Anyway, I could go on and on, and eventually I hope I'll get the motivation to post a reply to your longer post, but frankly, I'm not sure it's any useful at all.

[Mike DiCenso]

Serafina thinks she has the upper hand by claiming persecution and that what she asks for would make her happy and then that makes her right.

And there is where the whole mess started. I hate to keep reminding people, but Serafina was highly successful in diverting people off the original Star Trek versus Star Wars debate topic at hand by playing the oppressed/harassed minority card, and both WILGA and Kor fell for it all hook, line, and sinker instead of just staying focused on the phaser drilling subject that they were otherwise being very successful at arguing against Serafina on.

Let this be a lesson for all.
-Mike

[Serafina]

That is the lazy and easy way. Excuse me for being pedantic for a moment, but you just can't shrug it off, as at some point there's something called law, and law is based on words which have very specific definitions.
Most of the debate was about what the definitions should be. Serafina thinks she has the upper hand by claiming persecution and that what she asks for would make her happy and then that makes her right. She has however never considered that her opinion on the definition of the term would not please other people. Considering that she's a fraction of a minority, I find that little enthronement of hers particularly absurd and big headed.

There already IS law - in Europe, Canada and parts of the USA. You are completely ignoring it.
And you have NEVER demonstrated how the implementation of my rights harms the rights of other people. Not ONCE, period.
Oh, and nice "you are just a minority and therefore unimportant".

I don't really care about what psychologists say as a whole. If anything, the consensus of a "majority" of "qualified" people is not always a sign of accuracy.

Oh, so the consensus of the majority of qualified people means nothing?
Great. Then the Earth is flat, the center of the universe and only 6000 years old. And HIV is not the cause of AIDS and the Holocaust never happened.
Do you even know what you are talking about? You just declared that you are happy to ignore scientific consensus just to further your argument.
In other words, you are happy to make shit up.
And you wonder why i suck at debating with you three? Because you can't argue with people like you!

The paper presented by Pichler was, from what was presented, logically connected with the description of behavioral addiction he picked as his template.

Bullshit.
It fails at a very major point: It is NOT a behavioral circular pattern.
If you are addicted to something, you get a good emotional response out of it and are addicted to the response. But since you grow more and more resistant to the activity, you have to indulge in it more and more.
But Transsexuality is a PROCESS. You go trough a defined series of steps. Once each step is done, you do not NEED that step any more. A transwoman doesn't get a kick out of taking hormones, electrolysis or GRS.

You simply CAN NOT call something which has a defined goal an addiction. Else, i could call founding a family, getting a car, a job, a promotion, a girlfriend or good grades an addiction, too!
This is your and her basic failure. An addiction is a self-reinforcing cycle, transsexuality is a process.

First, by claiming that Pichler claimed "infinite progression", which you invented out of thin air. Especially since there's clearly a finite curve as the end goal is the last stages of more or less complete transition.

Yes, there is such a term. An addiction is a self-reinforced spiral, which is essentially an infinite progression. That's what an addict would need to get equal reward from the activity, it's of course not practically possible (due to time constraints or health).
And again - transsexuality is a PROCESS.

Secondly, by actually admitting that TS people have to work to accept their new-found gender identity. New found when, under what conditions? Who helped you find this gender? When did it pop up in your mind that you were of the "other" gender. And most of all, if it requires work to accept it, why not actually cut that work and stay where you are, and eventually get support to admit what you already are, and not what one psychologist thinks he can make you become?

Let's see..First, you are ignorant again. Second, it's obvious. Most people grow up with very heavy reinforcement that they ARE "a boy" (transwomen) and that you can't and don't "switch genders".
After you have found your actual gender identity, you still have to work trough that thicket you gathered while growing up. That's what i am talking about.
And it's new-found because many people suppress it for most of their childhood or even more than that.
The work required is in learning to ignore all the bigots who tell you otherwise.

His point is not that there's not fear. His point is that the thoughts and judgments are wrong. Remember, his point is that transition is not such a good thing. So from his position, anyone going for transition, no matter the reflexion, has not thought enough, since if one had done so, transition would be rejected.

Last i checked, the author was a woman.
Yay, what bigotry. Of course, you see transitioning as something inherently bad, thanks for the admission.
And you are wrong, again. Transitioning does not harm most transwomen of my generation long-term. They got the jobs they wanted, though perhaps only after transitioning. They are happy, and they have an improved social life.

Pwned much?
Which corresponds to the "end" or near-end. However, if you plan on getting further into the transition, then it's easy to consider you're lying to yourself if you don't take pleasure (or satisfaction if you want to call it that) in moving in, one success at a time, step by step.

You are an uneducated person who does not understand the concepts about addiction.
First, all i described here is nowhere near the end of transitioning.
Second - just because you are satisfied about something ONCE, you are not addicted to it. That's the point you are continuously ignoring.

Because you start with SRS I suppose? *rolls*
Way to miss his point.
Of course the use of the term "need" is certainly not being particularly helpful to you either.

Oh, right. I suppose when you need antibiotica or a new liver, you are also addicted to it.

Taking your word on that, it's rather curious to see you say that you and others like you actually reject cross-dressing to match the dressing code which corresponds to the female gender in our society.
Of course if we summarize all that you have to go through in order to finally see yourself as a woman, that is: work hard (psychological convincing), admit your other gender, force yourself to wear women clothes despite your strong rejection (which is actually a manly reaction), take extensive treatments and, last but not least, undergo plastic surgery... one would really wonder if you're not unwittingly proving Pichler right, here.

WHY should i cross-dress? For me, cross-dressing means returning to my old gender role, which is something i do not want. And i have nothing against other people cross-dressing.
The rest is just as much bullshit and nicely reveals what you think of transsexuality.
Here is how it actually goes:
Admit your actual gender identity. Work to overcome your own prejudices and those of others. Remove the doubts that are instilled into you. Happily start to wear clothing of your actual gender. Take the medical treatment your need (for medical and practical reasons).
You do NOT force yourself into a new gender identity. Who would do that?
You do NOT force yourself to wear new clothes, you do NOT have a repulsion against doing so (you made a complete strawman here).

Which precisely is what he says. Sexual and psychological.

The author is still a woman.
And you completely ignored my point. There is no sexual CAUSE behind transsexuality. Even if there WAS, it is still NOT an addiction.

In the end, one can really verify if Pichler's claims are bollocks only from studying a large sample of different TS people, from all ages and origins.
You could, for all we know, be the exception that confirms the rule.
He claims to be a person with a lot of background on the question and to have studied many TS cases as much as you rely on your experience and that of other people like you (which could skew your sample since you and your friends would be the "results" of the psychological and physical therapy which you underwent).
That pretty much makes both of you even.

Yes, of course i must be the exception if i do not fit into your narrow-minded idea. And the 40+ transpeople i know must also be an exception.
And you are STILL ignoring the consensus of the psychological community. Transsexuality is NOT listed as an addiction, it is NOT treated as an addiction, addiction is not even MENTIONED.

Go on. Find a scientific paper, published in a peer-review journal, that talks about transsexuality as an addiction.
Otherwise, you are just appealing to a single persons claims and ignoring science.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Geez.
When I talked about cross dressing, it was as a female. We were talking about the idea of a man transitioning to a woman. It has never been about the other way. Can't you even follow that?
Boy, this is just beyond hope. I'm so done with this silly debate.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Geez.
When I talked about cross dressing, it was as a female. We were talking about the idea of a man transitioning to a woman. It has never been about the other way. Can't you even follow that?
Boy, this is just beyond hope. I'm so done with this silly debate.

The concerning thng is that this thread has clearly shown over and over that serafina knows jack shit about a crap tonne of the issue under discussion.

Most of the info dug out and presented regarding biology, genetics, brain makeup and even in a lot of casses Psychology directly contradicted serafinas "beliefs" and "claims" regarding the subject.

But then the medical community is well aware of "transgender narratives" (a PC term for then making up bullshit to get what they want) from certain types of ppl.

[Serafina]

And you are both ignoring the majority consensus of psychologist.
You know, the people who actually study transsexuality.

Of course, debating on a forum that has no rules of evidence at all (per JMS admission) is rather pointless to start with, since that allows you to ignore any evidence i want.
I am a woman, regardless of the biological causes. I deserve (and will have) completely equal rights to every other woman. Psychology agrees with me that i am a woman.

Mr. Oraghan fails even more than Kor - an addiction is (at least theoretically) treatable by psychological means. Transsexuality is NOT treatable by psychological means, psychology can not remove it. This has been shown more than half a century ago.
And the assertion that him or a random article know more than the collective experience of the international psychologists community over a time of half a decade is just pure arrogance. Transsexuality is NOT an addiction and is NOT treated like one, not even remotely.

You both ran away when you were challenged to provide evidence from psychology.
That's because you know that areas where the evidence is actually solid (instead of still under research or just pure speculation), you fail. You are wrong there. Once you get onto solid territory, my opinion that you are just little bigots get's a lot of backup.
That's why you are focussing on biology, because the biological casue of transsexuality is still unknown - so you are free to make stuff up or ignore existing evidence.

WILGA is just as bad, BTW - he never went into actual law (despite him being a "lawyer", for whom that should be the primary approach) or psychology either. Instead, he is literary arguing semantics.


Arguing against you three is like arguing against a young-earth creationist. You rely on shaky science and if you are shown hard science, you shut up, run away or pretend it doesn't exist. You ignore everything that doesn't suit your prejudice - like Mr. Oraghan claiming that "you must be the exception then" because i did not fit into his pet-hypothesis. And most importantly, there is NO WAY to change your minds. WILGA is still insisting that it is the moral thing to violate a persons wishes and personality for the sake of (supposedly) grammatical correctness - despite the existance of laws that contradict him, moral arguments against that and a shaky definition of "grammatically correct".
And Kor is still insisting that there is no evidence for a biological orgin of transsexuality - despite the fact that there are more and more recent studies that show that there is, compared to the other claim.
And if you wonder why i present no papers that support my womanhood - that's because this is also comparable to the evolution-debate. Just like evolution is no longer doubted by scientists, no scientists doubts that transwomen are women. That's why there is no one arguing that fact, but rather looking for the details of it.
You can easily look at evidence for my "claim" tough - there are the international standards of care, there are numerous laws. And before Kor claims that they exist purely for PC - they don't. Both have been cemented long before there was any significant TS-lobby.


Conclusively: WILGA, Kor and Oraghan are prejudiced people who do not want to listen to solid evidence that contradicts them. Arguing with such (IMO bigoted) people is pointless - which is why i have been trying to convince the audience rather than them.
Everything else is impossible on a forum without standards of evidence anyway.
Of course - this forum doesn't seem to have much evidence anyway, so it might be even more pointless than i thought.

Oh, and FYI, this is how people like those three are treated on SDN. It's funny to see that they are arguing for the same things a a drunken fool. Be quick to take a look, i think it's going to be HOSed soon.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You both ran away when you were challenged to provide evidence from psychology.

Oh look yet another lie.

Actually we both posted referances to papers and studies by the psychological community (in my case refering to Ray Blanchard and MANY other sexologists and psychologists), you just chose to dismiss them WITHOUT posting any papers or referances of your own but with hand waves about your personal opinon.

And Kor is still insisting that there is no evidence for a biological orgin of transsexuality - despite the fact that there are more and more recent studies that show that there is, compared to the other claim.

AND another lie.

I clearly pointed out that the evidence DID NOT show that transgenders had "simply female" brains as YOU claimed. Even after that was PROVEN you tried to spin a false dilemma fallacy on Mr. Oraghan that included it..........showing clearly what a liar you are regarding this subject.

However i also clearly said there were SOME anomolies in the brain and even discussed them in detail, you are a fucking DISGRACE to the debate community with your exhagerations and lies.

Oh, and FYI, this is how people like those three are treated on SDN. It's funny to see that they are arguing for the same things a a drunken fool. Be quick to take a look, i think it's going to be HOSed soon.

A fine example of how the so called pro debaters on SDN do not research as well as us.

They are arguing the "female brain in a mans body" bollocks like you tried before being proven wrong. They are even using the debunked (in this very thread) J.-N Zhou study as referance for proof....LOLOLOL.

In other words they are arguing the same bullshit you tried to pitch on here the only differance is that THEY AND the person they are arguing with is not investigating it as thoroughly as we did on here and even if he did it would likely be ignored or he would get banned for such honesty...erm i mean BIGOTRY due to it being SDN where truth takes second place to popularity.

SDN tend to ban the thorough and astute that debate and point out the errors of the popular.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And you are both ignoring the majority consensus of psychologist.
You know, the people who actually study transsexuality.

Of course, debating on a forum that has no rules of evidence at all (per JMS admission) is rather pointless to start with, since that allows you to ignore any evidence i want.
I am a woman, regardless of the biological causes. I deserve (and will have) completely equal rights to every other woman. Psychology agrees with me that i am a woman.

Mr. Oraghan fails even more than Kor - an addiction is (at least theoretically) treatable by psychological means. Transsexuality is NOT treatable by psychological means, psychology can not remove it. This has been shown more than half a century ago.
And the assertion that him or a random article know more than the collective experience of the international psychologists community over a time of half a decade is just pure arrogance. Transsexuality is NOT an addiction and is NOT treated like one, not even remotely.

You both ran away when you were challenged to provide evidence from psychology.
That's because you know that areas where the evidence is actually solid (instead of still under research or just pure speculation), you fail. You are wrong there. Once you get onto solid territory, my opinion that you are just little bigots get's a lot of backup.
That's why you are focussing on biology, because the biological casue of transsexuality is still unknown - so you are free to make stuff up or ignore existing evidence.

WILGA is just as bad, BTW - he never went into actual law (despite him being a "lawyer", for whom that should be the primary approach) or psychology either. Instead, he is literary arguing semantics.


Arguing against you three is like arguing against a young-earth creationist. You rely on shaky science and if you are shown hard science, you shut up, run away or pretend it doesn't exist. You ignore everything that doesn't suit your prejudice - like Mr. Oraghan claiming that "you must be the exception then" because i did not fit into his pet-hypothesis. And most importantly, there is NO WAY to change your minds. WILGA is still insisting that it is the moral thing to violate a persons wishes and personality for the sake of (supposedly) grammatical correctness - despite the existance of laws that contradict him, moral arguments against that and a shaky definition of "grammatically correct".
And Kor is still insisting that there is no evidence for a biological orgin of transsexuality - despite the fact that there are more and more recent studies that show that there is, compared to the other claim.
And if you wonder why i present no papers that support my womanhood - that's because this is also comparable to the evolution-debate. Just like evolution is no longer doubted by scientists, no scientists doubts that transwomen are women. That's why there is no one arguing that fact, but rather looking for the details of it.
You can easily look at evidence for my "claim" tough - there are the international standards of care, there are numerous laws. And before Kor claims that they exist purely for PC - they don't. Both have been cemented long before there was any significant TS-lobby.


Conclusively: WILGA, Kor and Oraghan are prejudiced people who do not want to listen to solid evidence that contradicts them. Arguing with such (IMO bigoted) people is pointless - which is why i have been trying to convince the audience rather than them.
Everything else is impossible on a forum without standards of evidence anyway.
Of course - this forum doesn't seem to have much evidence anyway, so it might be even more pointless than i thought.

Oh, and FYI, this is how people like those three are treated on SDN. It's funny to see that they are arguing for the same things a a drunken fool. Be quick to take a look, i think it's going to be HOSed soon.

Seriously, one big post such as this one to serve as a platform for more insults... I'm so compelled.
And why the hell should we read four pages of tripe by a drunken person? Not to say that it's quite a stretch to think that a person is still drunken up to the fourth page of the same thread.

[Serafina]

Actually we both posted referances to papers and studies by the psychological community (in my case refering to Ray Blanchard), you just chose to dismiss them WITHOUT posting any papers or referances of your own but with hand waves about your personal opinon.

Given that Ray Blanchards hypothesis is ignored by the international standards of care, you are still wrong.
Appealing to fringe science is not the same as posting valid scientific papers. You did not even link any published studies from the scientific literature, despite your claim to the contrary. You merely posted excerpts from an unlinked, unnamed study by a person whose theory is widely rejected as an explanation for Transsexuality.

In other words, you are a liar. Not only did you NOT show any scientific consensus that supports your bias, but you ALSO did not link to any study.
You did not cite any study from a peer-review paper that agrees with you. Because there is no such study - you are WRONG, plain and simple.

I clearly pointed out that the evidence DID NOT show that transgenders had "simply female" brains as YOU claimed. Even after that was PROVEN you tried to spin a false dilemma fallacy on Mr. Oraghan that included it..........showing clearly what a liar you are regarding this subject.

Scientific research can point into a certain direction.
There IS evidence that transwomen have female brain. Unless you can show that the multiple studies from multiple researchers over a decade who all come to the same conclusion are all fraudulent, that evidence still exists.
Your single paper at best shows that there is no scientific consensus. That was actually a big concession, since i have the majority of evidence on my site.
If you do not grasp that "not conclusively proven"=/=false, then that's not my problem.

Odd that they are arguing the "female brain in a mans body" bollocks like you tried before being proven wrong. They are even using the debunked (in this very thread) J.-N Zhou study as referance for proof.

No. Other than (apparently most active) people on this forum, they merely understand that you can not hand-wave evidence away with a single study. Other than you, they understand that the evidence points into a certain direction. And in the case of many transwomen this has been known to be true for a long time, due to them NOT having XY-chromosomes (but rather XXY or similar structures).

In other words they are arguing the same bullshit you tried to pitch on here the only differance is that the person they are arguing with is not investigating it as thoroughly as we did on here and even if he did it would likely be ignored or he would get banned for such honesty...erm i mean BIGOTRY due to it being SDN where truth takes second place to popularity.

Yes, that person is putting EXACTLY as much thought into it as you are. You are merely on a forum where everyone can claim everything he wants as long as he is polite - even if that claim is by itself impolite.
And the reason that person is flamed is because he is as bigoted as you, Oraghan or WILGA - he is refusing to address transwomen according to their gender and wants to treat them as an "it". You are merely doing it better concealed - after all, this forum values politeness over evidence. And the owner of the forum actually admitted that - you do not need to post evidence, but you need to be polite.

SDN tend to ban the thorough and astute that debate and point out the errors of the popular.

Yes, because that person has clearly been astute.
Just like you - who never linked to a single psychological study.


Oh, and JMS, if you read that and it offends your sensibilities:
That just proves my point that you do not value evidence, but rather politeness.
None of the three people i am arguing against here is in any way polite to me, given that they have claimed that i am
-mentally ill
-just want "seductive feminime power"
-an addict
-literary an "it"=member of a third gender
-need corrective brain surgery
-brainwashed by psychologists
-lying
-called me a freak
-slandered about me on another forum
and probably much more.
All that has happened in response to that was
-general censorship in the form of a closed thread
-a ban of a single day for one of them
-absolutely no enforcement of politeness rules except for that, despite their supposed great value
-free reign for bigoted statements
None of their arguments are backed up by hard science. Even Kors brain-structure evidence was not backup for his argument. WILGA and Oraghan have not posted a single scientific study.

In other words: You accuse me of debating badly.
I accuse you of having probably one of the worst debating platforms around.
Which is actually no surprising, given that you have no rules of evidence at all and do not consider bigotry to be offensive.

Furthermore - why should ANY minority feel welcome here after a thread like that?
On SDN, there are harsh rules against the persecution of minorities - which is one of the major reasons why a large amount of minority members populate it (we have a large amount of homosexual and transsexual people, for example). If there are any on this forum, they pretty much have to be silent.

And YES, you can call this an ad hominem. I call it criticism, since it does not make an argument. And if you do the former, you did it as well by using "you are debating badly" as an argument.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Given that Ray Blanchards hypothesis is ignored by the international standards of care, you are still wrong.

Appealing to fringe science is not the same as posting valid scientific papers.

Fringe, ignored?....

Blanchard served on the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders and was named to the DSM-5 committee. According to the Web of Science, Blanchard's scientific articles have been cited more than 1800 times, with an h-index of 27.

There IS evidence that transwomen have female brain.

Thanks for the clear lie il bookmark it.

Unless you can show that the multiple studies from multiple researchers over a decade who all come to the same conclusion are all fraudulent, that evidence still exists.

Ok you post the MULTIPLE STUDIES FROM MULTIPLE RESEARCHERS that CLEARLY SAY transgenders have female briains in male bodies first.

Considering you have NEVER done so id say you are yet again making leaps of total bullshit because a study or two showed a small brain DEFECT.



POST YOUR MULTIPLE STUDIES FROM MULTIPLE RESEARCHERS PROVING FEMALE BRAINS IN MALE BODIES OR CONCEDE..........LIAR.

1, mentally ill
2, just want "seductive feminime power"
3, an addict
4, literary an "it"=member of a third gender
5, need corrective brain surgery
6, brainwashed by psychologists
7, lying
8, called me a freak
9, slandered about me on another forum
and probably much more.
All that has happened in response to that was
10, general censorship in the form of a closed thread
11, a ban of a single day for one of them
12, absolutely no enforcement of politeness rules except for that, despite their supposed great value
13, free reign for bigoted statements

1, yup and on more than one level.
2, dunno but likely part of it.
3, You do show many signs of a obsessed addict to a very high level of delusion.
4, ALL the sciences back that up somewhat and a lot more than they do in regards to you being female (although i use "trans" unless you piss me off not "it").
5, Certainly could not hurt, as you are so screwed up in the head in more ways than just the transgender issue.
6, To counter the "Brainwashed by yourself" issue you already suffer from as your delusions and need to lie and strawman clearly show.
7, CONSTANTLY (part of your mental issues id say).
8, A accurate insult because you insulted me.
9, It has to be wrong to be slander and it was correct.
10, A paused and then moved thread LIAR.
11, WOOP.
12, A rule you constantly abuse.
13, Accuracy is not bigotry.

[Jedi Master Spock]

you are just little bigots

See, you cannot even restrain yourself simply to the accusation of bigotry, you have to drag height into it as well. And how do you think the little think about that presumption of yours? /dry humour

I told you after banning you and Kor that I would not be lax with either of you. In this case, I am not in a mood to be patient, and you are clearly just stirring up trouble.

On which topic:

you are a fucking DISGRACE to the debate community with your exhagerations and lies.

That crosses the line as well, and quite clearly.

Serafina, I have already warned you three times since your temporary ban. At no point have these warnings been interrupted by a week of active good behavior, with the most recent warning being on July 18th:

http://starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopi ... 685#p22685
http://starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopi ... 757#p22757
http://starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopi ... 872#p22872

You are therefore issued a temporary ban. As indicated in your posts, you are clearly aware of when your temper is running high and you decide to start stepping over the line,

Kor_Dahar_Master, I have warned you twice since your temporary ban. You had four days of active good behavior before resuming attacking Serafina since your most recent warning on July 15th:

http://starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopi ... 806#p22806
http://starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopi ... 802#p22802

Step over the line again and you'll join Serafina.

[Who is like God arbour]

Before I reply to Jedi Master Spock's last post tomorrow, I want to post a few sides out of the already mentioned human rights report 2010 from the Campaign Transsexuality and Human Rights.



















As this report shows, there is no » consensus of the majority of qualified people «. » People who actually study transsexuality « do disagree with Serafina's opinion.

For that, they and not their arguments are attacked in that report although among them are professors from such famous universities like the John Hopkins University.

But of course, these are also only intolerant and discriminating bigots of the worst kind because their opinions are only based on prejudices.

I have posted this only to show that there is no consensus as Serafina claims.