All about Serafina (Split)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Now as JMS is likely not going to be happy about our continuing little argument i suggest we go to ASVS where the rules as less strict.

I will from now on reply to you on their.

http://www.asvs.us/topic/1633-the-hot-trans-topic/

[Serafina]

Oooh, so you want to hop to another forum yet again?
Ones where the rules are less strict - like about backing up your claims?
Besides, why go to a SWvsST/sci-fi board again? Indeed, why not to a scientific board, or a board with stricter rules of evidence? Why do you want to go to a board where you can claim anything you want without any rules of evidence? Why bother another board at all?

By the way, JMS, i am interested in your opinion about whether Kor has to use social science to back up an social science argument, or whether he has to back up anything at all.


Either way, it is really simple.
Peoples rights are decided by and affect society.
Since this is an issue about society itself, we turn to social sciences.
The rights of every person are determined that way - by society and by extension by social sciences.
We do not decide peoples rights with biology. (occasionally by medical needs, but that's it).

YOU want to decide the rights of transsexual people by biology.
Now, i do not think that you use the same logic when talking about the rights of anyone else. I hope that you do not decide the rights of homosexual people, women, black people (and other "races"), disabled people and so on based on their biology. No, instead you look at their needs and at social issues, ideally trough the lens of social science.
YOU are applying a double standard - for everyone else, his biology has nothing to do with his rights - but for transsexual people it matters.

Again, we do not decide someones rights based on his biology.
We should not do it - because people are not responsible for their biological makeup and we do not want to punish people for things they are not responsible for.
Yet the latter is exactly what you are advocating - restricting the rights of transsexual people based on their biology.

So unless you can give a reason based on social science why our rights should be restricted by that and back it up with evidence - you have no valid argument.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

r...........

http://www.asvs.us/topic/1633-the-hot-trans-topic/

[Serafina]

r...........

http://www.asvs.us/topic/1633-the-hot-trans-topic/

Yeah, not only is that reply bullshit, but what you did was the height of your dishonesty.
You literary have jumped over board now - without asking anyone, you just abandoned this debate and started it on a COMPLETELY unrelated forum. Where you did not even link to this thread.

But hey, i'll rip to it to shreds anyway.

Gender is not exclusivly a social science term.

Prove it is or conceed.

Oh wait lets see if other sciences like biology apply......

http://en.wikipedia....ology_of_gender

Il save time.

Consession accepted.

1-0

Oh, wait - i never said that they do not apply. Another lie, Kor.
But i challenged you to cite a social science paper. Which you did not do - and no, an unlinked quotation that doesn't say what you claim it says doesn't count. See my reply above.

Actually the BIOLOGICAL evidence is a big part of it as it shows "trans" do not have the same kinds of brains as females, some areas may lean towards females but not all the way and not all the brain.

Oh and your request to not include other sciences including biology is denied and shown above to be incorrect to try to do so.

Consession accepted

Again, focusing solely on biology - something we do NOT do when determining the rights of any other group. Quite telling, that double standard.

Because you are clearly not a ciswoman you are a "trans", however your human rights as a "trans" i fully support.

You do not fully support my rights. My rights include (by german and european law) exactly the same rights as that of every other woman. You want to change that, hence you are opposing my rights.

A wonderful example of you again "reinterpreting" somethng into summat its not so you can attack it.

You brian is obviously the issue here of that i am now certain.

How was that not what you said?
You said that we can not rely on these studies. You provided no evidence for it (again, you did not link or name the study, it could be all made up or not a study at all), despite doing so when linking to studies earlier. That some people are lying does not invalidate tens of thousands of other accounts. Since a pattern has to be explained, your claim essentially says that every transperson ever is lying.
But then again, you admit that you do not have to back up anything at all:

I am not required to back up the product of your diseased mind.

Keep going...........you should send these posts to your psycologists.

Actually, i have read excerpts of this to her (she doesn't surf).
Tell you what, she agreed with me.

Discussing all the facts reeks of ignorance..........what a wonderful comment to make, still it fits in with your desire to hide amoung real women instead of having the courage to stand.

When i discuss physics, i do not scream "WE MUST USE ALL OF SCIENCE". Then again, i am not so dishonest as to run away to another forum.

You mean the ones by the psycologists and sexologists (social sciences i believe?) that ended with ........"there is no evidence for a core essence of femininity".

Which only rejects one proposal for the gender issue (there are others, "essence of feminity" is very specific) and is not linked or named by you at all.
Even IF that was true, everyone (should) know that a single study does not necessarily invalidate all others. Golden bullet fallacies do not work in science.

[Serafina]

Oh, so you can't actually debunk what i said and just go on with repetition. Lovely.
And i note that you quote quite selectively - another piece of dishonesty, Kor.

NO BY THE TRUTH.

Basic human rights apply to all humans, provisions ect regarding sex or other things should be done accuratly, scientifically and fairly.

You do not understand human rights. Dignity and freedom of expression are human rights.
Try reading the Yogyakarta principles.

Should my wife and daughter have to be forced into the same changing rooms or other female only situations with essentially a mutilated biologicaly and genetic male?.

Oooh, the horror! They could meet a transwomen, that would be HORRIBLE!
You are not even appealing to a pre-op transwoman here, you are talking about post-OP. They would not notice a thing in such a case anyway.

Your material has simply showm me the truth, YOU introduced and demanded the medical suff, YOU introduced and demanded the biological stuff, YOU introduced and demanded the genetic stuff and all it did was show that yes slightly less male but it also showed not very close to female.

And you cannot handle ALL the truth.

You simply use "my" material (i did not these studies, i would not call it mine) to justifiy your apparent bigotry.

Now your crying about it and claiming that all of that crap YOU introduced and demanded WAS introduced into the discussion must now be ignored and is not relavant because the truth is it shows you to be in no-man and no-womans land.

Bullshit.
I never said "ignore it". I just said "it does not matter for rights anyway".

Did we define the rights of homosexuals by making them str8 in the eyes of the law?.

No. We improved their rights by removing the distinction between straight and gay. Just like we removed the distinction between trans and cis.

Did we define the rights of women by making them men in the eyes of the law ect?.

No, we improved their rights by removing the distinction between men and women (in most cases). Just like we remove the disctinction between trans and cis.

Did we define the rights of black people (and other "races") by making them white in the eyes of the law ect?.

No, we improved their rights by removing the distinction between black and white. Just like we removed the distinction between trans and cis.

Did we define the rights of disabled people by making them able bodied in the eyes of the law ect?.

No, we improved their rights by removing the distinction between disabled and healthy. Just like we removed the distinction between trans and cis.

Do you get this? YOU want to uphold the difference between trans and cis.
Which is the exact opposite of how any of the rights for any of the groups above have been improved.
What YOU would have done is creating seperate rights for homo-and heterosexual people.
What YOU would have done is creating seperate rights for men and women.
What YOU would have done is creating seperate rights for black and white people.
What YOU would have done is creating seperate rights for disabled and healthy people.
Just like you want to create seperate rights for trans- and cispeople.

No we accepted them for who they were as fellow human beings and acted accordingly in that regard.

You want to be accepted as a WOMAN instead of what you are, did blacks ask to be white or did they demand the same rights as blacks?.

I AM a woman. A transwoman, but your wife is also both a ciswoman and a woman. Both categories are subcategories of "woman". It's even in the bloody word.

Now your human rights for what you are should be observed but you have no human right to force me to believe a lie or what is incorrect.

Of course. Everyone is free to engage in any bigotry he wants within certain limits of actions. And i am equally free to challenge you according to that.


By the way, please excuse my somewhat harsher language, but Kor is simply extremely dishonest with that action.
And by the way - may i call him bigot until he returns here to continue this debate?

[Tyralak]

Oooh, so you want to hop to another forum yet again?
Ones where the rules are less strict - like about backing up your claims?
Besides, why go to a SWvsST/sci-fi board again? Indeed, why not to a scientific board, or a board with stricter rules of evidence? Why do you want to go to a board where you can claim anything you want without any rules of evidence? Why bother another board at all?

No, what he means by less strict is rules of behavior not debate. That I will let you guys fight it out however you please. This way you can debate this to your heart's content with no interference, and simultaneously stop polluting JMS's board with this kind of bickering. He doesn't appreciate it. You know very well SFJ is meant to be a board for civil debate. Show some respect. Mine however, isn't. You want a fight? THAT'S the place to take it.

[Serafina]

Oooh, so you want to hop to another forum yet again?
Ones where the rules are less strict - like about backing up your claims?
Besides, why go to a SWvsST/sci-fi board again? Indeed, why not to a scientific board, or a board with stricter rules of evidence? Why do you want to go to a board where you can claim anything you want without any rules of evidence? Why bother another board at all?

No, what he means by less strict is rules of behavior not debate. That I will let you guys fight it out however you please. This way you can debate this to your heart's content with no interference, and simultaneously stop polluting JMS's board with this kind of bickering. He doesn't appreciate it. You know very well SFJ is meant to be a board for civil debate. Show some respect. Mine however, isn't. You want a fight? THAT'S the place to take it.

Yeah, because i totally did not already register here in order to continue this debate.
He just switched to another board without asking or actual announcment - that's utterly dishonest.

Looks like Serifina's too much of a chickenshit to fight here, she keeps replying at SFJ. Typical.

So - i am a chickenshit when i join a forum (SFJ) just to continue a debate? Because i did that.
The reason i do not do it here is because ASVS is totally unrelated (while the original was a cross-board debate) and because he did not even ASK.

Kor clearly ran away. He does not quote my posts correctly, snipping imporant parts, and he abandoned this debate. He also insisted earlier that insults should not happen in a debate - and now he is going to a forum where he can use them?

[Serafina]

DIGNITY?.

You do not know the meaning of the word, and by mentioning DIGNITY are you conceeding that your condition is undignified and as such you need to hide amoungst ACTUAL WOMEN?.

I do not actually consider you a frea, i do think you are a total c*/t but that is a personality trait but you obviously have a very low opinion of yourself if you think your situation lacks dignity.

I am not "hiding". I am living just like them, as it is my legal right to do so.
YOU are the one who wants to take that right away.

Accuracy is not bigotry "trans".

Was that supposed to be an insult? Try again.

COMPLETE LIES, we did not remove any distinctions a gay man is still a gay man, a black man is still a black man.

What we did was accept them for who they are and give them the same rights as anybody else.

Yes, we DID remove the legal distinctions. There is NO legal difference between a gay or heterosexual person (or there should be no difference), there is no legal difference between a black and white person and so on.
They are still gay and straight and black and white - but there is no LEGAL difference.

You, however, insist on different treatment and rights for trans- and cispeople.

You have no idea wtf you are talking about.

A distinction like gay, black, white, cis, trans has nothing to do with equal rights, they are mearly accurate descriptions.

Learn the differance.

I am not objecting to you describing me as trans.
I AM objecting to giving me different rights than every other woman.

A TRANSWOMAN IS NOT A CISWOMAN.

Human rights must be observed but you will always be a transwoman.

Which makes me a woman. Which gives me equal rights to her.
Note that i already HAVE these rights - you are the one who wants to take them away.

Do so and i will begin to refer to you as something more accurate but considerably less pleasant.

Oooh, scaary.
Weren't you the one who insisted on not using insults? Very consistent.

Because you never stopped using them, care to come to a forum where the gloves are off or do you need a real man or woman to join first and hide behind like you do in real life?.

You were just running away, since you could not provide evidence.
Now you joined a forum where you hope that you do not have to provide evidence.

[Serafina]

Well, this is the essence of what i percept as Kors bigotry:

I am not objecting to anything but a mutilated male having the right to undress in front of or have my female family member undress in front of each other without their knowledge.

I think that speaks for itself.

You see transwomen as male, you think that they are mutilated and you feel that you need to protect your family from them.

QED.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Round 2 !

Fight !

[Jedi Master Spock]

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Now, why are you attempting to determine whether or not the people you are arguing with are, in fact, bigots?

In order to make the argumentum ad hominem that they have no credibility, that you may convince a third party audience not to listen to them.

The actual exercise of how you have decided to label your opponents bigots, however, logically reduces to a very simple argument. What common "prejudice" have you judged sufficient to label someone a bigot?

prejudicial conception that transwomen are not women.

objects that transwomen are treated as women.

The idea simply that transwomen are not women is something you have classified as a prejudice, and the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted" you have determined by the fact that they have failed to change their minds to our way of thinking about it.

So as a result, your argumentum ad hominem in this case is a very broad one with more than a small hint of circularity, since that precise issue happens to be the topic of debate:

If someone disagrees with you, they are prejudiced, and thus if they persist in disagreeing with you, they are a bigot. Implicitly, then, we come to the final conclusion of every smear campaign, that they should not be listened to because they are bad people [bigots].

A logical reduction of this argument being made is then "If someone disagrees with me persistently, you should not listen to them." How convincing is that?

And that's the whole aim of that entire post I excerpted from, which proves precisely my point earlier:

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.

When you focus on ad hominem attacks, material argument suffers and in many cases disappears from view.

Oooh, so you want to hop to another forum yet again?
Ones where the rules are less strict - like about backing up your claims?
Besides, why go to a SWvsST/sci-fi board again? Indeed, why not to a scientific board, or a board with stricter rules of evidence? Why do you want to go to a board where you can claim anything you want without any rules of evidence? Why bother another board at all?

No, what he means by less strict is rules of behavior not debate. That I will let you guys fight it out however you please. This way you can debate this to your heart's content with no interference, and simultaneously stop polluting JMS's board with this kind of bickering. He doesn't appreciate it. You know very well SFJ is meant to be a board for civil debate. Show some respect. Mine however, isn't. You want a fight? THAT'S the place to take it.

It is a board for civil debate. I made that clear to you when you e-mailed me, and I underlined that again when I issued temporary bans to you and Kor. Since being lenient simply led to you clearly not respecting the board rules, I don't intend to be lenient in regulating this thread anymore. Your last several replies have in many places not been polite.

Or, directly:

please excuse my somewhat harsher language

No. If you keep it up here, you're going to wind up with another temporary ban. This one will be longer.

Look. I'm perfectly happy to have a lengthy detailed discussion on transsexuality here. However, I'm not at all interested in watching a mudslinging contest. If what you want to do is try to make the argument that Kor is a bigot, take it somewhere else. Take the argumenta ad hominem and any strawmen you still have stuck in your baggage - I'm not interested in carrying out an inspection - with you.

I'll have a cozy little debate and try to convince W.I.L.G.A. of all the things you think his mind is shut to, when he gets back from his trip, while you and Kor call each other names on ASVS, where such things are encouraged, appreciated, and the staff aren't going to censor either one of you. OK? The peanut gallery might even find Club ASVS more amusing to watch.

[Mike DiCenso]

Yeah, because i totally did not already register here in order to continue this debate.
He just switched to another board without asking or actual announcment - that's utterly dishonest.

I don't see his starting a thread at ASVS and then inviting you over as dishonest, I see it as a genuine, if slightly clumsy attempt on his part to do the right thing and take the mudslinging over to a more appropriate venue.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

It would be absurd to reject an invitation to ASVS. Over there, it's open-slander! :)

Imagine the numerous quotes which could be picked out of context and pasted all over anti-fundie websites!

Woaaahh!!!

*collapses* x_x

[Jedi Master Spock]

On the topic of "I told you so," I believe this pair of quotes may demonstrate my understanding of how the art of convincing people works:

I'm now wondering if you haven't managed to convince people of the precise opposite of what you appeared to intend to.

I cannot go into details about my opinion of you and your personality regarding the discussion or your likely future (because of board rules ) but congratulations you have taken me from a position of support regarding how you should be refered to simply because of the facts posted, ALL THE SCIENCE (and the fact that you seem at least emotionally unstable and perhaps mentally unstable as well) you will now be refered to with the prefix "trans" (one seemingly communally accepted as per transgender) until a better frefix is given to describe your condition.

I'm happy he picked something that's not actually a slur AFAIK, and that Serafina seems perfectly OK with:

Was that supposed to be an insult? Try again.

But that's pretty clearly still an "I told you so" moment for me. If you want more context for the contrast, go back about two weeks to when Kor was all apologetic about having called Serafina a man when it was still a cross-site debate between here and SDN.

[Serafina]

Now, why are you attempting to determine whether or not the people you are arguing with are, in fact, bigots?

In order to make the argumentum ad hominem that they have no credibility, that you may convince a third party audience not to listen to them.

Yes, that's what i am doing.
However, i am still showing that their arguments are wrong. As i said:
It is only an argumentum and hominem when you invalidate something because of the person. I am not doing that, i am invalidating it and then declaring that the person is not thrustworthy.

The actual exercise of how you have decided to label your opponents bigots, however, logically reduces to a very simple argument. What common "prejudice" have you judged sufficient to label someone a bigot?

The idea simply that transwomen are not women is something you have classified as a prejudice, and the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted" you have determined by the fact that they have failed to change their minds to our way of thinking about it.

Yes, i have.
Contemplate the word - a transwoman is a woman in the same way that a race car is a car or a cargo ship a ship or a bird of prey a bird.
They have also presented no evidence to the contrary, while i have laws, psychology and some biological evidence on my side.

Besides, are you telling me that this is not bigoted?

I am not objecting to anything but a mutilated male having the right to undress in front of or have my female family member undress in front of each other without their knowledge.

So as a result, your argumentum ad hominem in this case is a very broad one with more than a small hint of circularity:

If someone disagrees with you, they are prejudiced, and thus if they persist in disagreeing with you, they are a bigot. Implicitly, then, we come to the final conclusion of every smear campaign, that they should not be listened to because they are bad people [bigots].

A logical reduction of this argument being made is then "If someone disagrees with me persistently, you should not listen to them." How convincing is that?

You are apparently not listening.
My argument does not work that way.
First, i determine that transwomen are women and deserve the same rights as them. I have done so using law, some biology, psychology and social sciences (and some linguistics as well).
Then i try to explain that - and when they are not listening and still cling to their prejudice, then they are bigots.
This is the case here.

It is a board for civil debate. I made that clear to you when you e-mailed me, and I underlined that again when I issued temporary bans to you and Kor. Since being lenient simply led to you clearly not respecting the board rules, I don't intend to be lenient in regulating this thread anymore. Your last several replies have in many places not been polite.

So, let me get your rules straight:
You do not have to provide evidence when challenged to do so, but you can not use harsh words.
You can lie as much as you want, but you can not use harsh language.
You can run away from a debate in order to insult someone, but you can not insult someone.

Again, as a reminder, i asked you on your oppinion on Kor jumping over board and on his need to provide evidence. You seem to be more concerned with words than with such things. If not, please answer the questions.

I'll have a cozy little debate and try to convince W.I.L.G.A. of all the things you think his mind is shut to, when he gets back from his trip, while you and Kor call each other names on ASVS, where such things are encouraged, appreciated, and the staff aren't going to censor either one of you. OK? The peanut gallery might even find Club ASVS more amusing to watch.

On the topic of "I told you so," I believe this pair of quotes may demonstrate my understanding of how the art of convincing people works:

I tell you what:
You challenge Kor, since he is obviously here right now. Try getting trough to him. He is available right now. He is making claims that are just as bad as WILGAS.
And then you can tell me whether he is behaving in a fair, honest, civilized way or not.
And whether such a person can be convinced at all or not.