Ah, good - WILGA is back. Now JMS can debate him.
My argument was, that my position regarding the treatment of transsexuals can hardly be called an extreme position while Serafina's position can't get any more extreme.
Actually, no. You are the one that advocates changing laws, while i am the one upholding the laws that satisfy both the needs of society and transsexual people.
I admit that I forgot to include in my first paragraph the opinion that I expect from transgenders that they adhere to the same statutes all other people of the same sex have to adhere to too. But that was merely an oversight and obviously not intentional. After all, I brought that point in the last sentence of this argument. If I had tried to omit that opinion of me, I wouldn't have brought it in the last sentence. Furthermore, even that opinion included, my position can hardly be called an extreme position. Insofar the omitting of that opinion wouldn't have been relevant.
In other words, i have to adhere to the same standards as a man in your opinion.
Of course, these standard DO include behavioral standards - so you are either contradicting yourself when you say that i can live like i want, or the latter statement is simply a lie. But let's see.
And contrary to what Serafina claims, I do not demand, advocate, wish or desire that transgenders are not allowed to live how they want to live; that they should be forced to live the life of a stereotypical person of their sex. I made that clear already several times. But as usual Serafina decides to ignore what was already written, or claims that one is lying or does mean it totally different from what was said.
Do you now?
Transsexual people CAN NOT live like they want if they are DENIED the rights that every other person of their gender has.
You therefore want to limit my freedom.
On the bottom line, Serafina has not addressed the argument that my position regarding the treatment of transsexuals can hardly be called an extreme position while Serafina's position can't get any more extreme. Instead Serafina has done a good job with putting up a smoke screen.
And you have NOT addressed any of my above points at all, you merely stated that they are not true. That's not an argument.
I asked for proof that average citizens know that there is a gender beside sex because this knowledge would be necessary to be able to contemplate the gender at all when addressing someone. Besides unsubstantiated claims, no evidence was presented.
The Wikipedia article about gender starts with: Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female. It can extend from sex to social role or gender identity. As a word, "gender" has more than one valid definition. In ordinary speech, it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female. In the social sciences, however, it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles.
Ooh, so just because something is used in a specific way in ordinary speech,l ordinary people can not possibly know better?
Either way - this is a TOTAL non-sequitur. Even IF most people do not understand the concept of gender identity already, it is a concept that is easy to explain. It can be done within minutes, after all everyone has a a gender identity and there are a lot of examples.
Again nothing but unsubstantiated claims and individual fates were presented. After Serafina claimed that there are enough studies which are proving that transsexuals are suffering to an extend that they are committing more suicide than others, I asked for evidence that they are suffering because they are addressed according to their sex and not because this merely enables discrimination by disclosing the fact that sex and gender are differing. No evidence was provided.
And it does not matter. When something is the ENABLER of something, it is also a CAUSE of something.
You would therefore be the cause of discrimination, suffering and potentially suicide. Unless you think that someone who enables a crime carries no guilt.
Therefore I stay convinced that transgenders are not suffering because they are addressed according to their sex but because they are living in a intolerant and bigot society. They would not suffer if they are addressed accordingly to their sex if it happens in a tolerant society in which transsexualism is regarded as what it is but is not seen as a reason to discriminate. I'll continue to call a dog a dog, a cat a cat, a man a man, a woman a woman and a transwoman a transwoman and a transman a transman and hope for a society in which everybody can live as one wants and can admit to be homosexual or transsexual or whatever else and that the mere fact that someone is uncommon is not seen as a reason for unequal treatment where this uncommonness is objectively not relevant.
You are completely ignoring that transsexual persons WANT to be addressed according to their gender. And you completely ignore the psychological factors that make this a very strong, innate desire whose violation can cause suffering.
A typical distortion of what I have said. I have never said that sex in general is more important than gender.
Then why is it more important when addressing someone? After all, gender pronouns can be used to describe both a state of gender and sex (her can denote both female sex and gender etc.) You select one of both criteria over the other - because it is more important to you.
I have said that I differentiate between both and that sex is what is contemplated when addressing someone. In that instance, sex is more important than gender.
QED. Sex is more important to you when addressing someone.
And of course sex is more important where sex segregation is already in place. This say nothing about the importance of gender in all other instances, e.g. live style. But seeing that Serafina has already claimed that I would demand that transgenders are not allowed to live how they want to live; that they should be forced to live the life of a stereotypical person of their sex, that lie is hardly surprising anymore.
Actually, no. While i believe that you would prefer it that way, that is not my actual argument.
What i DO argue is that you want to force transsexual people into a publicly noticeable lifestyle that differentiates them from other members of their gender.
I.E. you want to bare transwomen from all facilities for women, therefore denying them that part of their live and also publicly exposing them as transwomen.
Given the high value you place on someones sex, you can not even argue that transsexual people are member of a third gender and therefore require separate facilities without contradicting yourself - after all, you state that gender is not the decisive criteria for such things!
Again, what I said was totally ignored.
A proposal is a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one , put forward for consideration by others. I could now ask since when » considering a possibility « is already a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others. But I won't because I probably get a stupid answer again.
Again: Not considering or deliberately ignoring the downsides of a proposal suggests that you are arguing in favor of it - that you are advocating it.
IF you would consider it from a neutral PoV, you would consider all sides.
No argument was addressed; no evidence against the possibility of a multitude of genders presented.
The burden of proof is on YOU if you want to propose something new.
Needles to say that I do not totally agree with Judith Butler. While I agree with her opinion about the artificiality of gender categories, I think that the dualism between male and female sexes are a natural result of evolution on Earth. The female produces gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes while the male produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which female gametes can be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. That distinction is not artificial but observed not only found in humanity but in nearly all animals and plants too and are necessary for sexual reproduction. Insofar I agree with Descartes that the body and soul are separated and that, while talking about the body, nothing is said about the soul – or with other words, while contemplating the sex of a person, the gender is not disrespected.
BTW, your translation sucks.
You are missing her point entirely. Her point is that
gender roles are
social constructs. They are NOT fixed to the reproductive system - if you take your own example of animals, we can observe a great many different gender roles/behaviors that can vary wildly regardless of sex (females of one species can express behavior that is expressed by males of another etc.)
Besides, Descartes mind-body dualism is proven wrong by modern science - the mind is obviously located in the mind and pat of the body. There is no such thing as a soul, change the physical mind and you change ones personality. There is simply no mechanism to separate the two.
As interesting is a paragraph on the English Wikipedia site about Androgyny about alternatives to androgyny. Here it is written that » An alternative to androgyny is gender-role transcendence, the view that when an individual's competence is at issue, it should be conceptualized on a personal basis rather than on the basis of masculinity, femininity, or androgyny. « More to that can be found here.
Are you going to do anything but using random Wikipedia-articles for obfuscation? What point are you making here, given that you make no comment on the actual article? When citing something, you are expected to comment on it.
And of course there is the Wikipedia article about the Third Gender: » Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Note that this does not refer to or mentions transsexual people at all. It mentions transgender, but that umbrella-term obviously refers to androgyny.
Transsexual people are NOT in-between genders any more than cispeople are.
Traditional societies in which the third gender role was present had a well defined social space for the third genders, one that was apart from the men's spaces and women's spaces. They had their own gender roles, separate from both men and women. Furthermore, third genders had access to both men's and women's spaces, whereas the access of men and women to the other's social spaces was often restricted. Third genders continued to have a separate space and identity in the Middle Ages although their status went on diminishing.
Soo...tribal cultures are doing it, so we should do it? Great argument.
Note that it actually contradicts your discrimination policy, since that would allow transsexual people access to the facilities of their gender.
Throughout the majority of the modernized world, the third genders have been ostracized and marginalized, remaining on the fringes of the society. For most of the Middle Ages, individuals in the West, who were classified as 'third gender' retreated from society limelight because of religious persecution. In these societies, the third gender roles and identities have been redefined in terms of the contemporary Western concepts of sexual orientation as well as transgender identity, and have become associated with LGBT.
Third gender identities, although far more stigmatized than earlier, still thrive in the non-Western world today. Among these are the Hijras of India and Pakistan who have gained legal identity, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, and Sworn virgins of the Balkans, and the term 'third gender' is still used by many of such groups to describe themselves.
Ah, so again you claim that just because something has not changed for thousands of years, it must invariably be better than.
Also, the third-gender societal role you name here has SEVERE restrictions. Hijra have noticeably less rights than either men or women (else, give a source to the contrary). Sworn Virgins are, not surprisingly, required to live a chaste live.
NONE of these is about living in a normal female, role, they are always separated. In other words, their rights are restricted. You are either advocating such a restriction or simply making an obfuscating non-sequitur here.
That shows that the concept of a third gender is not new and only in western societies, where the sexual dualism is transferred to genders, are there problems with that notion.
This is an obvious lie, unless you consider lack of rights to be no problem.
That should be evidence enough to consider a third gender or a multitude of genders possible. But Serafina has not only not presented one single evidence against it, it wasn't even attempted to argue against that possibility. Instead I was accused of lying, obfuscating and advocating the implementation of a third class for transgenders who then are supposed to have no rights.
NONE of this is scientific evidence. I expected that you would go ahead and dig out a scientific study that transsexual people (else it is irrelevant to the discussion) are members of a third gender. You did not do so.
Your argument seems to be twofold:
-We must uphold sex segregation, transsexual people must not be allowed to cross that line.
-Transsexual people are members of a third gender and ought to be treated as such.
First of all, both violate existing laws, the wishes of transsexual people and medical expert opinions. The first argument is based on the false notion that harm would come from allowing TS-people to cross that line, which is based on pure paranoia. The second argument is presented without any scientific evidence for the whole statement, you merely present some cultural phenomena nad play make-believe from then on.
Again a nice example for how Serafina failed to comprehend what Serafina read. I did not claim in that paragraph that Serafina was wrong (although that is in some cases a given). My statement was that Serafina's claim to have learned all that in school as a Mittlere Reife student is a lie. That claim was, as usual, ignored.
If at all, one could interpret the mention of the Fachoberschule für Sozialwesen as a confession that Serafina has not learned all that as a Mittlere Reife student but while trying and failing to get an Abitur at a Berufsoberschule.
Yes, this is a total ad hominem argument. My education does not make my arguments more or less valid, they stand or fall on their own merit.
Worse is that, although Serafina tries to convince me or any bystanders of Serafina's opinion, I'm the one who is supposed to do the research. Again an argument, namely that Serafina has to present evidences if we are to be convinced, was ignored. But as usual, that is not surprising anymore.
Yes, you are supposed to do YOUR OWN research! YOU are the one advocating changing existing laws and medical procedures, after all. Without research, it is simply a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
I presented evidence and facts, namely medical and psychological studies and procured the existing law. You did none of that.
Try to imagine a legislative procedure where the legislature invited someone like Serafina to present evidence and answer questions before a law is passed. Not the parliamentarians have to do all the research. Serafina has to present all done research and answers all questions.
Which i have. Besides - if there was no evidence, how do you think that the TSG came to be?
Besides that, I want to provide a quote out of the article, Serafina has referred to:
» While transsexual woman proudly regard their breasts as an important sign of their femininity and womanhood, they rarely consider their biological purpose.
Some years ago an English national newspaper published a story about a young woman who was breast-feeding her baby. Nothing extra-ordinary about this except that the woman in question was a male-to-female transsexual who had begun female hormone treatment simultaneously with his/her wife becoming pregnant. She was now happily and enjoyably sharing nursing duties, even in public places such as a busy restaurant. The story was inevitably intended to be rather sensationalist, but probably even many transsexual women reading it were rather surprised to learn that their breasts may well be capable of the natural function that they are intended and designed for. «
That shows how » horribly uneducated « I am and that I can't have made my Abitur as I have claimed because I wondered if there are lactiferous glands in the breasts of Serafina. [here, here].
That of course shows how unreasonable Serafina is if he expects from everyone to know things he knows after he had many years to learn them when probably even many transsexual women did not know that.
Yes, it is evidently unreasonable to expect you to do research when you make a statement. I should not do that.
Note that a short
Wiki-searchgives you the necessary information on that.
(moved that here due to preserving my finish).
I have found an interesting article about the psychological effects of infertility in real woman: Understanding Infertility: Psychological and Social Considerations from a Counselling Perspective from Petra Thorn, Ph.D. On page 2 Petra Thorn explains how infertility alters an individual’s perception of his/her self, of his/her concept of identity. She explains that as a result of the strong link between femininity and motherhood, women may experience an identity crisis as there is a conflict between their ideal sense of self as a woman who can become a mother and their real self as being infertile. The experience of infertility requires both men and women to adapt and to integrate infertility into their sense of self. The manifold diagnostic and treatment procedures require couples to adapt their identity not just once, but several times and in stages.
What a shock - not being able to get kids causes a psychological crisis! Just because it uses the word "identity" it does not mean that that persons gender identity changes.
On page three she continues to explaining how Infertility may be a life event that alters individuals’ identity profoundly and permanently and not only in those cases where couples remain childless. As a major life crisis, it may be a chronic sorrow which re-emerges periodically even though childlessness has been accepted.
That again shows how closely sex and the ability to procreate is an element of an individual’s perception of their self, of their concept of identity.
Yes. So what? Does it mention a change in gender identity at all? If not, then you are again commiting a fallacious equation of words - the word identity has multiple meanings, you can not just conclude that it means what you want without evidence.
Now one could argue that a male with a feminine gender has not a real feminine gender if he thinks that a gender reassignment makes him a woman. Such a surgery does not enable him to do what many women think is an essential part of their identity. Quite the contrary, such a surgery takes away what has made him able to procreate as a male in the first place.
Yes. So she now is in the same situation as other infertile women. So what? Are infertile women no longer women?
Besides, as i mentioned earlier - i am still able to have my own children. So no identity crisis here.
He had a fully functional and healthy body, able to produce gametes and to fertilize a woman, and decided to give that all up to become something that is not a woman.
And if the capability to procreate is as important as your article states, then there must be a pretty damn big incentive to give it up, don't you think?
If that male really had a pure feminine gender and not only a more feminine gender than males with a pure masculine gender have, he would understand that and never claim to be a woman only because his penis was mutilated and looks now like a vagina and, due to hormonal treatment, a breast has grown and some other superficial changes have occurred. Many woman and man don't think that this is what defines a woman and would be outraged if a transwoman comes and claims to be a real woman only because he looks like a woman but has nothing that makes a woman a woman. They too think that it is only appearance but that nothing has changed where it really counts. He may look like a woman and even behave like a woman but he is no woman as a Rolls Royce replica is no Rolls Royce but only a replica.
Nice comparison. Except, you know, not.
And again, i ask you:
What does, for you, define a woman?
I'm sorry if that truth hurts some transgenders. But it is the truth and you have to live with it and cannot demand that it is ignored only because you do not like it. Your sex is what your sex is and your gender is what your gender is. It is more likely that your gender will change than that your sex will change. But whatever your gender is, it should never be an excuse for discrimination. If your sex is male, you should be treated like any other male and if your sex is female, you should be treated as any other female. But your life style, regardless if it is chosen or determined by transsexualisms, does not depend on your sex and should be irrelevant in most circumstances.
WHAT is the truth? That transwomen are not able to give birth? So what - it sucks, but we can live with it.
Your silly "it's the truth" is simply clinging to a very narrow definition. Yes, my sex is male - but that does not give you the right to discriminate based on my sex. Ironically, since german language is limited according to you, german law states that you are NOT allowed to discriminate against me based on it:
Art. 3 GG. wrote:(3) Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden. Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden.
There. If "Geschlecht" always denotes gender (as according to you), you are forbidden to discriminate against me based on it. In other words, it is NOT a legal criteria - which, surprise, is in accordance to the TSG as well.
You, however, ARE advocating discriminating against me due to my sex. You want to determine all my legal rights based on my sex, in violation of our constitution and other laws. According to you, i would have none of the legal rights of a women.
That's why i call you a bigot. You are the one who wants to take my legal rights away from me based on his prejudice, even when that violates numerous laws and even the constitution.
Seeing as Serafina failed to address only one single argument or to provide counter-arguments or evidence for any of his numerous claims, I'll consider stopping that debate. I really do not see a sense in it anymore. If I'll continue or will simply ignore Serafina's next reply simply depends on what is said.
Ah, so you decided to go the same route as Kor did. You go out without presenting any scientific studies while you are still advocating changing the law for 500 million people.
My claim is very simple:
Transsexual people want to live according to their gender. No harm comes to society from giving them all legal rights of their gender in order to do so safely and happily.
Laws already exist for that, there is no need for a paradigm shift.
You did nothing to attack that claim. You simply argue that transwomen are not women and that people ought to be discriminated according to their sex. You then point out a couple of third-gender roles and claim without evidence that TS-people fall into that category in order to cover up your discrimination. Finally, you appeal to biology as if that was a valid method of determining ones rights.
And based on that, you contradict your own constitution, supreme court and laws.
Now go ahead and take up the challenge from JMS, if JMS actually does that.
