Who is like God arbour wrote:Aha, I do not have to be familiar with the term gender - or its possible translation into German as Geschlechtidentität - but at the same time I am too stupid if I do not understand the term gender as opposed to sex and it is my job to know (not only the common) meaning of the term gender.
Serafina wrote:Quite, if you do not UNDERSTAND it, then you are stupid - or bigoted.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Why?
Why do I have to be stupid because I did not understand the term gender as opposed to sex before you pointed out that there is a difference?
I mean, you have not even explained the difference. You only said that I have to bee too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex. Only then I found out what the difference is, that there is a "second" meaning of gender and that while in ordinary speech it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female, in the social sciences it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles. Stupid means lacking intelligence or common sense.
Now, how can that be stupid?
Serafina wrote:So you tell me that you are even too lazy to find a proper definition? Even tough i linked it?
And if something is explaind to you and you do not understand it, you either do not want to or can not understand it.
The latter is indeed indication of lacking intelligence.
You should be more careful when reading what I wrote. And you should try to remember the course of that debate. That's not so difficult because it is written down. You only have to read it.
You linked to a Wikipedia article and thefreedictionary only a f t e r
you claimed that I am too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex and a f t e r
you stated that you think it is my job to know the meaning of gender and a f t e r
you claimed that this term, translated into Geschlechtidentität, is even part of German legal language .
And you never explained the term gender at all.
Please give me a link to a post from you in which you gave me a link to a proper definition and explained anything at all, that was written b e f o r e
the post in which you claimed that I am too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex
Serafina wrote:Either way, gender is all about identity.
Most small-minded people (like you) see only two gender categories and think they are defined by biological sex only.
That's of course quite simple-minded - given that it suits only normal, stereotypical heterosexual men and woman.
It should be obvious that this is far more complicated.
Why should something be obvious to everyone if that something is something most people have never encountered? Why is someone small-minded or simple-minded if he or she does not know that there are such things like more than two genders as opposed to the sexes male and female? Is that supposed to be common knowledge?
Or is that your own bigotry? You know something because it is relevant to your own special situation and suddenly all have to know it too or are small-minded or simple-minded or stupid?
Who is like God arbour wrote:Any yet it is no German law or legal document. It is not written by a German authority. Does that changes the fact that - as it seems - the German legislator has never used this term and that this term is not used in German legal language at all?
That declaration was written by Catherine Ashton, a Brit, and translated into German from the European Union. I would hardly call that evidence that there are German laws and legal documents with the term "Geschlechtidentität".
And claiming that it is a legal document, I expect you to provide an accepted definition of that term. I especially want to know, if a legal document has to have to contain a legally enforceable act, a process, or contractual duty, obligation, or right and if a non-binding declaration can really be considered a legal document.
I found only the definiton according to which a legal document is a document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right. The non-binding declarations does not do so and therefore can't be considered a legal document under that definition.
Not that even if you would be able to provide an accepted definition that shows that this non-binding declaration of good will is a legal declaration, it would change the fact that it does not come from Germany. And that was what was asked: To show a German law and a legal document where the the term "Geschlechtidentität" is used. Because only then you can claim that Geschlechtidentität is part of the German legal language. And only then you can expect that the one or other German lawyer who never had to do with transsexual matters knows that term job-related. Until now you have failed to do that.
Who is like God arbour wrote:It still refers to international treaties. Have you looked into them?
Any yet it is no German law or legal document. It is not written by a German authority. How is it supposed to be relevant for the questions, if the German legislator has ever used the term Geschlechtidentität and if this term is used in German legal language at all, that the translation of this non-binding declaration of good will of the European Council refers to international treaties uses this term?
And you have n o t shown that this non-binding declaration of good will of the European Council is a legal document at all.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Even the wikipedia link to which you have linked explains it:
- In English, both 'sex' and 'gender' can be used in contexts where they could not be substituted — 'sexual intercourse', 'safe sex', 'sex worker', or on the other hand, 'grammatical gender'. [...] German [...] use the same word, [...] Geschlecht [...], to refer not only to biological sex, but social differences as well, making a distinction between biological 'sex' and 'gender' identity difficult. In some contexts, German has adopted the English loanword Gender to achieve this distinction. Sometimes Geschlechtsidentität is used for 'gender' (although it literally means 'gender identity') and Geschlecht for 'sex'. More common is the use of modifiers: biologisches Geschlecht for 'biological sex', Geschlechtsidentität for 'gender identity' and Geschlechtsrolle for 'gender role', and so on.
Althoug it is only Wikipedia, it describes the problem very well. But of course, the Geman language is quite stupid for not having a special term for gender in its "second" meaning.
Searfina wrote:Yeah, that's a fallacy which name escapes me right now.
Either way, "sex" as in "fucking someone" is a different word than "sex" as in "biological sex"
Gender is mostly about gender identity, unless used in a grammatical context. Hence, "Geschlecht" is more akin to "biological sex" and "Geschlechtsidentität" to "gender".
Yes, that's why all Germans are familiar with the meaning of Geschlechtidentität. In fact so familiar that it was not neccessary to include this term into the
DUDEN or the
Langenscheidt Wörterbücher or
Das Deutsche Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm or probably any other German dictionary for general use.
Who is like God arbour wrote:If you are using a term meaning something different from what everyone would understand, you should clarify it. I doubt that most native-English-speakers are knowing the social sciences meanings of the term gender. But I may be wrong. After all, I'm not a native-English-speaker as you know.
Serafina wrote:Oh, really? How curious, a large number appears to know that.
Who is like God arbour wrote:And do not only claim that a large number of native-English-speakers appears to know what the "second" meaning of gender is. Show it. How large is the number? Can you give a relation?
Or could it be that this is merely your perception? I mean, how many native-English-speakers do you know and are they representative for all native-English-speakers? Are you sure, that you do not only know so many native-English-speakers who know the "second" meaning of gender, because you are trying to "surround" you with such people?
Serafina wrote:Assuming your "accustation" is true - so what?
The term has that meaning, especially when talking about transgender issues. Just admit that you did not know it and get over it.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Which accusation?
I have asked concret questions. I want to have an answer to these questions. I have not accused you of anything.
And what shall I admit? That I am not familiar with the term gender in its "second" meaning? Curios, I thought I have done it already.
What is it that you want?
Serafina wrote:Not even understanding your own words.
What do you expect? That there is a statistic telling us how many people understand that word?
Either way, the common definition notes the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex (sex being one category/indicator for gender).
Who is like God arbour wrote:Maybe I do not understand my own words. But you have failed to answer the questions and to show where I have accused you of anything. Now you questioned if I'm able to understand my own words. The prudent thing to do would be to explain how you understand what I have said.
If you claim that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that the term gender has a "second" meaning, you should try to convince me. It's your claim after all.
That does not mean that you have to provide elaborated statistics. I'm not as absurd as Wyrm.
But when even the Wikipedia article to which you have linked says that there is a common meaning and a meaning that is only used in social sciences, I expect you to substantiate your claim.
The American Heritage Dictionary e.g. makes it clear, that there is a distinction between sex and gender and gender as sex and gender as a social roll. But it clearly also states, that this distinction [...] is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.«
Insofar I do not doubt that there are definitions which are noting the different usages of gender and it's distinction from sex.
But as your claim was that a large number of native-English-speakers do know that, I want to see, that John Doe does know that distinction and is observing it.
I mean, if the knowledge and understanding of that distinction were so common as you claim, why are there so many social and legal problems with transsexuals at all?
Why is the by the brain determined gender not enough in German law? Why says the Transsexuellengesetz that you can change your recognised gender/sex only if you have fulfilled a few requirements if alone the by the brain determined gender is important?
Why has a person with only a name change who is in hospital or prison no right to be accommodated according to the gender role they live in, but can be housed according to their legal gender - according to the Yogyakarta Principles (Principle 3 and 9)?
Why varies the degree of legal recognition provided to transsexualism widely throughout the world?
Serafina wrote:Given that gender is widely used in social science, i would expect that a person with knowledge about them knows its meaning.
That's enough proof, since we are effectively discussing an area of social science - hence i can expect the participants to be educated in them.
Now we have come from the common usage of the term gender and how John Doe would understand it to someone from which you can expect to be educated in
social sciences, an area of science that with all its branches is even bigger than all
natural sciences together.
Don't you notice how you are
moving the goalposts all the time?
But the simple fact is that You want to be understood from everyone and not only the ones who have an education in social sciences, don't you?
But if you try to explain something to someone, you have to understand how that someone thinks. You can not simply expect that this someone knows already all there is to know.
Earlier I referred to an article in which was stated that there are 10.000 transsexuals in Germany. Although you claimed that I have falsified the statistic and that the number is outdated, you have not provided another number. But even if I increase that number tenfold, that are only 0,125 per cent of the German people. For most of the German people, transsexuality has no practical relevance. They are no transsexual nor is it probable that they ever will have to do something with a transsexual.
Why should they know anything about transsexuals and gender or Geschlechtidentität?
Why do you think that you are entitled to expect from them to know all that?
Who is like God arbour wrote:See, I knew you would not accept it. I mean there is no qualitative difference in its conclusiveness if it is scanned and parts of it blacked with a modification program or if a sheet of paper is covering what was blacked. Only that the first is easier to do. That's why I will not scan it again with sheets of paper stuck to it. It would change nothing anyway. Even if I could convince you to be a lawyer, you would still believe that you with your Mittlere Reife know it better than me. So what?
Serafina wrote:Everyone can find a scan of such a document on the web and then use paint to put his name on it.
That's why i asked for something where you could see that you possess the physical document.
I have scanned the physical document and changed it with Adobe Acrobat.
But what difference would it make if I print a document I have found in the web, put a sheet of paper over all information that could help to identify me if it were my document and scan it or take a picture of it.
If it is so easy to find such a document in the web, then it should be easy for you to find it. Find a document like that that I could have used to falsify it.
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do not know what I thought thinking I could bluff you.
It is the same with the mantle of Earth. Of course it is liquid. I really do not know how I could believe that, in consideration of the many sources you have referred to, who are clearly saying that the mantle is trough and through liquid, I could fool you.
See, I have to be even so stupid that I really thought I could deceive you. Oh man, how stupid do I have to be to think such a thing.
Serafina wrote:Another instance where you are wrong. The mantle is not completely liquid, neither is it completely solid. Nice false dichotomy.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Excuse me. It seems as I have misunderstood you when you wrote that:
Serafina wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:But you are still insisting that the whole mantle is liquid or that the plume of hot magma is liquid and that plasma can sink through it.
Yes, i do.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Serafina wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:The plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat. Nothing more.
But you are ignoring that and insist on your idea that it is possible to inject plasma from a hotspot into the liquid mantle and that it would sink through the liquid plumes of hot magma against the current through the whole liquid mantle to the core.
Again - why not?
Serafina wrote:It is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle - it is NOT solid.
Maybe I should improve my English. Because I'm still not able to see, where I could misunderstand you. But that's what must have happened if you are saying that you have never said that.
Serafina wrote:I was obviously referring to the liquid parts of the mantle. Are you always that nitpicky?
Who is like God arbour wrote:The quotes you have not quoted are showing that you were obviously not. You argued that the mantle or at least mantle plumes are liquid from the core up to the crust and that it is possible to let plasma sink from empty magma chambers in the crust to the core through 3.000 km of liquid mantle rock in less than a few hours. That was your position, wasn't it?
Serafina wrote:Negative.
But since you never actually adressed the hot-spots, even if it WAS, my theory has still a sufficient mechanism.
I'll not continue this debate with you. Everyone can see what you have written. The only annotation I have to make is that it was not necessary to address the hotspots because these aren't going from the crust to the core. Not even you have claimed that. Even if the plasma is injected at a hotspot, it still has to sink through the whole mantle or a plume in the mantle. And that your opinion is that such a plume in the mantle is liquid from the crust to the core was made clear. Everyone can see that here.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Are you satisfied?
Serafina wrote:If this was not sarcasm - yes, that's a good step, being honest is always good.
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do not know, was it sarcasm?
But you are right - being honest is always good. I feel so relieved to be able to say what you want to hear. You can't believe it.
Serafina wrote:Wait, you do not know what sarcasm is? Sarkasmus?
Who is like God arbour wrote:I do know what sarcasm is. But as it seems that you have the sovereignty of interpretation about what I have said, I didn't want to infringe your competence.
Serafina wrote:You do not know what....sarcasm is?
You do not know what....sovereignty of interpretation is?
Who is like God arbour wrote:And you are right. You have nabbed and convicted me. I admit it. I'm no lawyer. I have not studied legal science. I have not even made my Abitur. I'm a fraud.
There you have it.
And all it needed for this was someone who has only a Mittlere Reife.
And of course you are totally right when you say that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect.
That's exactly what Dr. Anke Eilers, former Law Clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court, has explained in her over 6.000 word long speech. She could have explained it in one single sentence. But that would have been a rather short speech so she decided to stretch the contents of this sentence to over 6.000 words.
But on the bottom line, there is no question that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect. And to be precise: That not only inter partes but inter omnes.
I do not know what I thought thinking I could bluff you.
It is the same with the mantle of Earth. Of course it is liquid. I really do not know how I could believe that, in consideration of the many sources you have referred to, who are clearly saying that the mantle is trough and through liquid, I could fool you.
See, I have to be even so stupid that I really thought I could deceive you. Oh man, how stupid do I have to be to think such a thing.
Are you satisfied?
Or is there something else you want?
Serafina wrote:An apology would be nice, and preferably a change of mind about transsexuals.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Of course: I apologize for pretending to be a lawyer, to have made my Abitur, to have four years of academical studies and two years of residency as an education.
Serafina wrote:That's not what i am talking about, and you know it.
Who is like God arbour wrote:See, now you are even dictating what I do know. To me it seemed that you doubted that I'm a lawyer. You even demanded a scan of my certificate. And even now you doubt it. Then explain me: What were you talking about.
Serafina wrote:Everyone could have done that.
And the apology i was talking about is about being a bigot, and the resulting personal attacks. Of course, given your later conduct, i doubt you will actually ever do so.
What could have everyone done?
You still have to show that I am a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
I do not think so. I am for equal rights for man and woman. I have no problems with women in the military or police or man working as midwife or kindergarten teacher. The only thing I demand is that all are treated the same. That means that at the recruiting test all have to fulfill the same standards and that there are no standards for men and standards for women.
I have nothing against homosexuals. I am for gay marriages and do not like that the german law only allows homosexuals a
second class marriage. I think homosexuals shouldn't have it more difficult to adopt children [
O] than heterosexuals. I think surrogate mothers should be allowed in Germany.
But because I think that the sex and not the gender of a person is foremost deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female, I'm a bigot.
Please explain that. Especially as you have presented nothing until now to convince me of anything. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.
Who is like God arbour wrote:And of course I will change my mind about transsexuals. After you have provided so much convincing arguments, I only have to push a button and my mind about the relevance of sex and the significance of primary and secondary genitals and genome for the determination of sex is changed.
Serafina wrote:Do you look at people genitalia before you adress them?
Eh, you propably couldn't tell that i am a transwoman if you saw me on the street, unless i am having a bad day.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Obviously not. That's why a transvestite could be able to fool me.
If I met such a person ...
... I would think that this person is a woman. But that does not mean that knowing that Georg Preuße is a man I would address him behind the stage as if he were a woman.
In almost the same manner I would not address Dorothy Lawrence ...
... as if she were male knowing that she was female.
Insofar the appearance can fool me. But as soon as I know the sex, I tread a person accordingly unless I'm pretending something e.g. to play along with an act or to keep someone's true sex a secret to protect that someone.
Serafina wrote:We are talking about transsexuality, don't try any red herrings.
You have talked about appearance. How is my reference to transvestites in my reply a red herring?
Serafina wrote:Then you are a bigot who has no respect for a persons deepest wishes, even if expressed openly.
You already stated that a transwoman is already a man, even after she has undergone genital surgery. So fuck off.
You failed to explain why the deepest wish is relevant. Many people have deepest wishes. That does not mean that they are fulfilled while facts are ignored.
Your sex is male.
Your gender is female.
You wish to be treated as if you were female.
I have no problem if you live as if you were a female. I have no problem with you having a female name, wearing female clothes, marrying a male (or female if you are a homosexual transwoman), adopting children or using a surrogate mother.
But why should I ignore the fact that your sex is male only because it is your wish?
Who is like God arbour wrote:Yes, I could tread you as if you were a woman. But as long as you do not really convince me, as long as I do not see you as a woman, it would be only an act.
Serafina wrote:That's the point, now is it bigot?
Why should i have to convince bigots like you to their personal satisfaction? Give me ONE good reason.
Until now you have explained nothing.
I have no reason to doubt that you are a transwoman. But I still do not see why I should ignore the fact that your sex is male.
You want to be addressed as if you were a woman. Explain it.
If you don't do it, don't be surprised if your wish is not fulfilled.
Who is like God arbour wrote:And until now you have done nothing to explain your situation to me or to explain why I should tread you like a woman. You have only said that you are a transwoman and wish to be treated as a woman. You have claimed that the gender is determined by brain and that I should know the difference between gender and sex. You have claimed that it is insulting to tread a transwoman like a man although a transwoman is treaded as a man even by authorities in Germany as long as not at least the name has changed. You have not explained why the gender and not the sex is supposed to be deciding if a person is to be treated as male or female although I have provided several examples in which a person is (even by authorities) treated accordingly to its sex unless certain requirements are fulfilled so that a court can decide that one has to be treated accordingly to the gender. You have called me a bigot. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. But you have done nothing to change my opinion or prejudices or to promote your case in any way.
Serafina wrote:Well - let's pretend legalism is actually a valid moral view for a moment.
It is not only a legal question. It is a practical question. As I have said:
Your sex is male.
Your gender is female.
You wish to be treated as if you were female.
I have no problem if you live as if you were a female. I have no problem with you having a female name, wearing female clothes, marrying a male (or female if you are a homosexual transwoman), adopting children or using a surrogate mother.
But why should I ignore the fact that your sex is male only because it is your wish?
Serafina wrote:Then you have to accept that the german law uses gender instead of sex as the ultimate measurement. That's why i am allowed to change my legal papers.
Yes, than I am more or less forced by the law to act accordingly. But the law does not give truth. The answer why your gender is supposed to be more important than your sex is still not answered.
Serafina wrote:Of course, legalism is NOT a valid morality.
Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on it's actual morality. Mostly, laws advocate things that are moral - but they do not make these things moral. Even in the absence of laws, there is still morality.
That is absolutely correct. Sometimes laws advocate things that are not moral. And sometimes they are allowing the declaration of something that is not true.
I do not need a court decision that says that your gender is female. I believe you that. If it were me, you do not even have to undergo any surgery or fulfil any other requirements to get a court decision that says that your gender is female. You wouldn't even need a court decision at all.
But the question still is, what is with your sex? Why should I ignore the fact that - although your gender is female - your sex is male?
Serafina wrote:You use the law as a cheap excuse for your bigotry. And YES, you are a bigot - you violate a persons wishes based on not being convinced to your personal satisfaction.
Seeing as you have not explained anything until now, I had no opportunity to change my opinion. No one of my question was answered.
Serafina wrote:To a tolerant person, it's quite simple:
Someone want's to be seen as a man/woman, and thus is addressed and treated accordingly.
I have another opinion. I let you live as you want. I will never attack you for being a transwoman and have not the wish to do that. I have not done it in the whole thread. I have never claimed that you are perverse or disgusting or anything similar. I will tread you as I tread every other person. But I do not let you dictate to me what I have to think. You can try to convince me. But you haven't even attempted that yet. You have only cried that you feel insulted because I have addressed you as if you were a male because your sex is male.