All about Serafina (Split)

[Tyralak]

So, Sarafina. Are you a post-op or pre-op?

[Serafina]

So, Sarafina. Are you a post-op or pre-op?

Still pre-op. And i am not attacking anyone who wants to keep me out of, say, changing rooms based on that (not that i would risk such exposure anyway).

However, WILGA is not arguing based on that. He is arguing that a post-op transwoman has to be kept out of womens facilities and has to be denied the rights every other woman has. There is simply not basis for his claim other than, literary, semantics - he presents no actual reason or harm from not doing it.
He is obfuscating a lot, but his whole argument boils down to: "Transwomen have male genetics, hence they are male. Sex is all that matters for such matters and justifies my discrimination." You won't find any justification based on morality (the good of society) or psychological studies that advocate against it.

[Tyralak]

So, Sarafina. Are you a post-op or pre-op?

Still pre-op. And i am not attacking anyone who wants to keep me out of, say, changing rooms based on that (not that i would risk such exposure anyway).

However, WILGA is not arguing based on that. He is arguing that a post-op transwoman has to be kept out of womens facilities and has to be denied the rights every other woman has. There is simply not basis for his claim other than, literary, semantics - he presents no actual reason or harm from not doing it.
He is obfuscating a lot, but his whole argument boils down to: "Transwomen have male genetics, hence they are male. Sex is all that matters for such matters and justifies my discrimination." You won't find any justification based on morality (the good of society) or psychological studies that advocate against it.

This is how I have always felt on this subject and others like it. As a Libertarian (Yes, I know how most SDNers feel about Libertarians) I ask 3 questions about issues. Only two of which apply in your case. 1. Does the Constitution permit it? (Not applicable here) 2. Does it harm me? 3. Does it infringe on the rights of others? There is no right to not be annoyed or offended. I can't see how a post-op transwoman using women's facilities hurts me or anyone else. I can't see why it should matter to anyone. The only possible exception I can see, is perhaps in sports, if the transwoman's male genetics would give her an unfair advantage. Other than that, I can't see why anyone would care.

[Jedi Master Spock]

(Who is like God arbour, if you missed my post to you, it is here.)

So once the actual medical, biologcal facts regardng the MTF brain had been established and clearly showed that tranasgenders at best had brains that were slightly less male at best and not "simply female".

Example:

Female brain.........................................MTF transgender brain.....................Male brain.

As a result i proposed that as MTF transgenders were essentially neither male or female (as serafinas own yardstick regarding "gender identity" is used *see quote above*) a third or even several genders with equal human rights for all would be more accurate.

Well, here's the problem - one that I did point out earlier to Serafina - regarding brains, and one that is a simple start on the issue.

There is a great deal of variation within each gender. Sure, we may indicate clearly a substantial difference between the average masculine brain and the average feminine brain, however - as is clear in, for example, the case of size.

Size is in fact the largest difference between male and female brains, and is thought largely to be an issue of difference in body size - and indeed, the average difference between brain sizes differs fairly little relative to the average difference in body mass (or at least body frame, with obesity being a significant confounding factor).

Closely looking at the data, for example, here, we see that in terms of composition, controlling for size, the gendered variation is minute and subtle, and the gendered asymmetries are correlated within both male and female populations. If I pulled a random brain out of a hat, the odds are very good that it would fall in a range where it could easily either be a male brain or a female brain as far as physical examination is concerned. It is not wholly remarkable to examine a cis woman and find a brain that seems as masculine as the average man, or vice versa.

Thus, we have discussions of male and female "types" of brains, but they are only roughly tied to the sexes themselves. If the average MtF transsexual has a brain type that is overall somewhat feminized from the masculine average, then the average MtF transsexual will fall in the ambiguous range between the male average or female average where a brain could quite easily belong to either gender based on its physical features. If we correct the brain's overall size for, say, height (as determined by skeletal structure), we may well have better success guessing sex based on the raw height, rather than the shrunk or enlarged brain's composition and relative size.

[Serafina]

This is how I have always felt on this subject and others like it. As a Libertarian (Yes, I know how most SDNers feel about Libertarians) I ask 3 questions about issues. Only two of which apply in your case. 1. Does the Constitution permit it? (Not applicable here) 2. Does it harm me? 3. Does it infringe on the rights of others? There is no right to not be annoyed or offended. I can't see how a post-op transwoman using women's facilities hurts me or anyone else. I can't see why it should matter to anyone. The only possible exception I can see, is perhaps in sports, if the transwoman's male genetics would give her an unfair advantage. Other than that, I can't see why anyone would care.

Well, that's not so much of a Libertarian POV than a humanistic/utilitarian one. Except for the first one, which is basically an appeal to authority. Oh, and of course you forgot "does it harm society". I guess it IS Libertarian then.
I don't have a problem with Libertarians per se - it's just that many of their claims are just - plain - STUPID!
Such as "Capitalism is the most moral system" - when all it cares about is profit.
Or "Government is always inefficient" - which is derived from the fact that government has other goals than profit.
And of course the appeal to the constitution - if your main worldview/moral system is not applicable to 90+% of humanity, something is wrong with it IMO.
Some of it has value of course, but the more extreme Libertarians are usually full of objectively determinable crap.

As far as WILGA goes, i can't actually identify his moral system.
He is no humanist, since he never seriously contemplated the effects on society.
He is no legalist either (tough he is a "lawyer" and talked a lot about the law), since he wants to change the law (and even violate our constitution).
He is doing a lot of "appeals to nature", but i can't think of any moral system that is defined by that.

Thus, we have discussions of male and female "types" of brains, but they are only roughly tied to the sexes themselves. If the average MtF transsexual has a brain type that is overall somewhat feminized from the masculine average, then the average MtF transsexual will fall in the ambiguous range between the male average or female average where a brain could quite easily belong to either gender based on its physical features. If we correct the brain's overall size for, say, height (as determined by skeletal structure), we may well have better success guessing sex based on the raw height, rather than the shrunk or enlarged brain's composition and relative size.

Well, that has been my point after Kors (actually quite good) exchange of scientific evidence: We do not know yet how gender is actually determined. And more importantly - which, if any, regions of the brain are always different between people with male or female gender? How big are they etc.?
It can't be major or large regions, as you pointed out - but we still can not exclude that small region give us defining differences.

There are three possible outcomes if research finds the answer:
-There are no defining brain differences between men and women. No problem for TS - rather, it would remove one of the few bastions of bigotry against it. Note that size and hormonal influences do not count, since they are not fixed and change in TS-people.
-There are such differences, and TS-people have them according to their gender. Which would be a great explanation for TS.
-There are such differences, but TS-people do not have them according to their gender.
Which looks bad at first - but you still can not deny that gender is more than brain structure and that TS exists.

Either way, we do not yet know the answer, as Kor and i determined.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, here's the problem - one that I did point out earlier to Serafina - regarding brains, and one that is a simple start on the issue.

There is a great deal of variation within each gender. Sure, we may indicate clearly a substantial difference between the average masculine brain and the average feminine brain, however - as is clear in, for example, the case of size.

Size is in fact the largest difference between male and female brains, and is thought largely to be an issue of difference in body size - and indeed, the average difference between brain sizes differs fairly little relative to the average difference in body mass (or at least body frame, with obesity being a significant confounding factor).

Closely looking at the data, for example, here, we see that in terms of composition, controlling for size, the gendered variation is minute and subtle, and the gendered asymmetries are correlated within both male and female populations. If I pulled a random brain out of a hat, the odds are very good that it would fall in a range where it could easily either be a male brain or a female brain as far as physical examination is concerned. It is not wholly remarkable to examine a cis woman and find a brain that seems as masculine as the average man, or vice versa.

Thus, we have discussions of male and female "types" of brains, but they are only roughly tied to the sexes themselves. If the average MtF transsexual has a brain type that is overall somewhat feminized from the masculine average, then the average MtF transsexual will fall in the ambiguous range between the male average or female average where a brain could quite easily belong to either gender based on its physical features. If we correct the brain's overall size for, say, height (as determined by skeletal structure), we may well have better success guessing sex based on the raw height, rather than the shrunk or enlarged brain's composition and relative size.

So, assuming that the make up and size of the brain are defined by the way hormones shape brain growth, would it mean that a transman's brain would pop out of his ears while a transwoman's brain would wiggle inside?

On another note, it seems obvious thus far that what defines gender is the way one behaves and thinks, all determined thus far, as far as we can tell, by the way the brain is programmed and built.
It seems a stretch to plan to argue gender solely on the merits of conceptual premises while dissociating the definition from biology.

Also, social sciences are only relevant to your gender if you believe that you are and behave like a woman or a man according to interactions with other humans.
Outside of social sciences, it would be impossible of identifying a gender of a person living strictly alone and who believes to be the only human on Earth.

Accepting social sciences as a factor, if not the factor, means you're basing your gender on interactions and the knowledge of existence of other humans.
However, if your opinion is that no matter the human you meet, you want anyone to treat you as a woman, then suddenly social science becomes irrelevant.

So that's why appealing to social sciences is very tricky.

Social sciences only matter when you're judged by the group. The question then is how many people living around you will agree with your opinion.
The point is that social science can't be supportive.
It's an assumption that allows one to be gauged based on intereactions with others.

You can't say I've been proven to be a woman based on social sciences, since it's precisely accepting social sciences as a prerequisite of the argument, by being reliable evidence to define gender, which allowed evidence X or Y to be presented as a result.

If anything, social sciences are only a filter which provides a conclusion, or possibilities, based on context. The context being what I am within a human population.

However, the other tricky part is that it's also hard to convene of a definition outside of social sciences - therefore solely based on the concept of the one human on Earth, ouside of any influence - since we're a sexual species which requires interaction no matter what, and that sexual intercourse is only the conclusion of a long chain of interactions, which start with being able to gauge if a human appears to be male or female, for which we use gender as the indicator.

Then it might be possible to be seen as a woman while the sex would still be identified as male, and I'd point out here that there's nothing, absolutely nothing which can be done about the sex. No operation can change the fact that if professors, doctors or scientists have to define the sex of an individual, they will only think in terms of male and female, and how much one has tried to take distance from one sex to get closer to the other, while failing. A transwoman will never be a female.

---
Sidenote: Now, a society that doesn't recognize the meaning of gender will have greater issues about this.
Apparently in Germany there's such a problem. How can one claim that an individual is a woman if his/her body is that of a male?
I'll leave it to the Germans here since it's too long to dip into this part of the topic. Surely, if this is nothing new to you, just ignore this point.
---

Finally, if the taking of hormones actually happens to modify the structure of the brain, as far as to make a transwoman's brain looking a bit more like a female brain, then if it could be possible, would it be a good option to take a treatment that would make the brain come closer to the human brain the transwoman is supposed to have, to enjoy the pure male body and male genitals already available?

If a treatment could do that, wouldn't it be better? Some transwomen may accept that option (those who would have had issues making the jump closer to women anyway) while individuals like Serafina may have greater problems to accept that.
However, if this opinion, this reluctance, is the sole result of how the brain works, and if the brain can be altered, how much attention should be paid to said opinion?
It can be a shocking question but I feel it needs to be asked.

As an analogy, which like all analogies is severely limited and imperfect, let me say this:

Have an individual who sees his/her brain being modified (more properly polluted) by the repeated use of drugs, to the point of becoming addicted to drugs.
The individual thinks that taking more drugs is good and vital because that's the kind of messages the brain sends.
Would you give him drugs because he's craving for them?

[Serafina]

Also, social sciences are only relevant to your gender if you believe that you are and behave like a woman or a man according to interactions with other humans.
Outside of social sciences, it would be impossible of identifying a gender of a person living strictly alone and who believes to be the only human on Earth.

Gender is mostly a social concept. That's simply a fact.
Hence, social science is the science most capable of making qualified statements about it.

Your assertion of bias is simply that - an assertion, based on nothing but speculation.

Accepting social sciences as a factor, if not the factor, means you're basing your gender on interactions and the knowledge of existence of other humans.

Yes. That's what gender is all about - it's part of your behavior in society. And humans are intrinsically social beings.

However, if your opinion is that no matter the human you meet, you want anyone to treat you as a woman, then suddenly social science becomes irrelevant.

Why? How does that follow at all?

Social sciences only matter when you're judged by the group. The question then is how many people living around you will agree with your opinion.
The point is that social science can't be supportive.
It's an assumption that allows one to be gauged based on intereactions with others.

Again, Transsexuality IS mostly about how you are perceived by others. If there is no one around, it hardly matters.
Your statement that social science does not support Transsexuality is simply a bald-faced lie.

You can't say I've been proven to be a woman based on social sciences, since it's precisely accepting social sciences as a prerequisite of the argument, by being reliable evidence to define gender, which allowed evidence X or Y to be presented as a result.

So you are dismissing social science out of hand when discussing an issue of social science? Nice anti-science rhetorics there.
By the same token, i can throw out all science by claiming that accepting science is a prerequisite for discussing them.
You would have to SHOW WHY social science does NOT apply when discussing gender.
So far, you have failed utterly.

Then it might be possible to be seen as a woman while the sex would still be identified as male, and I'd point out here that there's nothing, absolutely nothing which can be done about the sex. No operation can change the fact that if professors, doctors or scientists have to define the sex of an individual, they will only think in terms of male and female, and how much one has tried to take distance from one sex to get closer to the other, while failing. A transwoman will never be a female.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Womb transplants are about five years away, cloned, functional ovaries about ten years (as far as you can estimate these things). It is certainly not a scientific impossibility, the only thing that might be forever unattainable is changing the genetic code - but who the fuck cares about that?
Furthermore, your assertion is extremely limited. It focusses SOLELY on biology, and even there it fails - a neovagina is about 90% identical to a real one, there is no biological difference between my breast and that of other women and the hormonal status is also very female. Indeed, if i send my blood is sent in for hormonal testing it has to be noted that i am transsexual, else the results would give wrong data (it would appear female and not check the balance properly). Transwomen can also give false positives on pregnancy tests.
But gender is way more than that, which you conveniently ignore.

Sidenote: Now, a society that doesn't recognize the meaning of gender will have greater issues about this.
Apparently in Germany there's such a problem. How can one claim that an individual is a woman if his/her body is that of a male?
I'll leave it to the Germans here since it's too long to dip into this part of the topic. Surely, if this is nothing new to you, just ignore this point.

Actually, WILGA is lying here - a lot.
German HAS a word for gender, it merely happens to be the same as the word for sex.
Most people (i know) do not have any problem of making that mental difference between sex and gender at all.

Finally, if the taking of hormones actually happens to modify the structure of the brain, as far as to make a transwoman's brain looking a bit more like a female brain, then if it could be possible, would it be a good option to take a treatment that would make the brain come closer to the human brain the transwoman is supposed to have, to enjoy the pure male body and male genitals already available?

"Closer to the human brain"? Are you suggesting that my brain is not human?
Either way, it has been shown that same-sex hormone treatment does not work for as a "cure" for transsexual people. Indeed, given that most TS-people have normal hormonal levels and no diagnosed receptor weakness, they already HAVE a "natural hormonal status" - if that was a "cure" it would fix itself.

If a treatment could do that, wouldn't it be better? Some transwomen may accept that option (those who would have had issues making the jump closer to women anyway) while individuals like Serafina may have greater problems to accept that.
However, if this opinion, this reluctance, is the sole result of how the brain works, and if the brain can be altered, how much attention should be paid to said opinion?
It can be a shocking question but I feel it needs to be asked.

Except that, oh, it DOESN'T WORK!

Have an individual who sees his/her brain being modified (more properly polluted) by the repeated use of drugs, to the point of becoming addicted to drugs.
The individual thinks that taking more drugs is good and vital because that's the kind of messages the brain sends.
Would you give him drugs because he's craving for them?

Okay, my inclination for verbal abuse is definitely rising now.
That comparisons is BULLSHIT. Being transsexual is in no way comparable to being addicted to drugs, there is no actual damage from hormone treatment (certainly nothing comparable to a drug addiction) AND it has been proven to be GOOD for the individual.

If you are going for a bad analogy, how about choosing one that doesn't make you look like an assholish bigot by being incredibly insulting?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Gender is mostly a social concept. That's simply a fact.
Hence, social science is the science most capable of making qualified statements about it.

So outside of a society, you would have hard times telling which gender you are.
And yet, despite being so dependent on the society to determine who you are, you also totally reject what the judges may say as it wouldn't match your opinion... an opinion which funnily enough, is supposed to be based on the unarguable opinion that originates from the same society.
We're a split hair from a paradox here.

Accepting social sciences as a factor, if not the factor, means you're basing your gender on interactions and the knowledge of existence of other humans.

Yes. That's what gender is all about - it's part of your behavior in society. And humans are intrinsically social beings.

The definition I've seen of gender either directly refers to sex, or talks about behaviour and other factors which don't mention any social context.

However, if your opinion is that no matter the human you meet, you want anyone to treat you as a woman, then suddenly social science becomes irrelevant.

Why? How does that follow at all?

Using social science is fruitless if it's not going to alter your view about your gender.
Basically, with or without a society, you made up your mind.
Now, if social interactions matter, it means that depending on the society you live in, you admit you could reconsider your gender, which then makes your absolutism completely absurd.
You're not looking for evidence from the society, you want society to obey you.

Social sciences only matter when you're judged by the group. The question then is how many people living around you will agree with your opinion.
The point is that social science can't be supportive.
It's an assumption that allows one to be gauged based on interactions with others.

Again, Transsexuality IS mostly about how you are perceived by others. If there is no one around, it hardly matters.

Mattering is not the question. The question is if you're capable of identifying your gender without people around.

You can't say I've been proven to be a woman based on social sciences, since it's precisely accepting social sciences as a prerequisite of the argument, by being reliable evidence to define gender, which allowed evidence X or Y to be presented as a result.

So you are dismissing social science out of hand when discussing an issue of social science? Nice anti-science rhetorics there.

Your argument would be good if you would prove that social science IS the key factor. You reject anything which can be observed independently of society, mostly the biology.

By the same token, i can throw out all science by claiming that accepting science is a prerequisite for discussing them.
You would have to SHOW WHY social science does NOT apply when discussing gender.
So far, you have failed utterly.

No, because you don't understand that you can live outside of society. However, society cannot exist without the ever going interaction within the sum of biological entities such as we are. So one is an ensemble, and the other belongs to said ensemble.
Society comes second, so that's why it's a filter.

Then it might be possible to be seen as a woman while the sex would still be identified as male, and I'd point out here that there's nothing, absolutely nothing which can be done about the sex. No operation can change the fact that if professors, doctors or scientists have to define the sex of an individual, they will only think in terms of male and female, and how much one has tried to take distance from one sex to get closer to the other, while failing. A transwoman will never be a female.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Womb transplants are about five years away, cloned, functional ovaries about ten years (as far as you can estimate these things). It is certainly not a scientific impossibility, the only thing that might be forever unattainable is changing the genetic code - but who the fuck cares about that?

Furthermore, your assertion is extremely limited. It focusses SOLELY on biology, and even there it fails - a neovagina is about 90% identical to a real one, there is no biological difference between my breast and that of other women and the hormonal status is also very female. Indeed, if i send my blood is sent in for hormonal testing it has to be noted that i am transsexual, else the results would give wrong data (it would appear female and not check the balance properly). Transwomen can also give false positives on pregnancy tests.
But gender is way more than that, which you conveniently ignore.

It shouldn't be a surprise that my assertion focused solely on biology because I discussed of biology.

But I admit that I was not aware of the existence of the womb and ovaries transplants.
However, I find it formidable that science is managing to move forward so far as to focus on the principle of gouging, fiddling and reshaping the body around the "broken" brain, but has deemed any attempt at "fixing the" brain to be impossible.
Selling organs, that makes a lot of money though. There could be ethical questions that need to be addressed though, but transsexual people are the perfect vector for the application of an absolutely libertarian and trans-humanist view about the human body.
I'm sure a science that is much more advanced than ours would probably find it more practical to bring a small alteration to the brain than treat the body as a pile of spare parts which need to be replaced in order to match a pattern in a partially faulty brain.

Sidenote: Now, a society that doesn't recognize the meaning of gender will have greater issues about this.
Apparently in Germany there's such a problem. How can one claim that an individual is a woman if his/her body is that of a male?
I'll leave it to the Germans here since it's too long to dip into this part of the topic. Surely, if this is nothing new to you, just ignore this point.

Actually, WILGA is lying here - a lot.
German HAS a word for gender, it merely happens to be the same as the word for sex.
Most people (i know) do not have any problem of making that mental difference between sex and gender at all.

I'll leave it to both of you. It seems to be a big mess right there.

Finally, if the taking of hormones actually happens to modify the structure of the brain, as far as to make a transwoman's brain looking a bit more like a female brain, then if it could be possible, would it be a good option to take a treatment that would make the brain come closer to the human brain the transwoman is supposed to have, to enjoy the pure male body and male genitals already available?

"Closer to the human brain"? Are you suggesting that my brain is not human?

Surely no.

Either way, it has been shown that same-sex hormone treatment does not work for as a "cure" for transsexual people. Indeed, given that most TS-people have normal hormonal levels and no diagnosed receptor weakness, they already HAVE a "natural hormonal status" - if that was a "cure" it would fix itself.

Yes.

If a treatment could do that, wouldn't it be better? Some transwomen may accept that option (those who would have had issues making the jump closer to women anyway) while individuals like Serafina may have greater problems to accept that.
However, if this opinion, this reluctance, is the sole result of how the brain works, and if the brain can be altered, how much attention should be paid to said opinion?
It can be a shocking question but I feel it needs to be asked.

Except that, oh, it DOESN'T WORK!

IF.

Have an individual who sees his/her brain being modified (more properly polluted) by the repeated use of drugs, to the point of becoming addicted to drugs.
The individual thinks that taking more drugs is good and vital because that's the kind of messages the brain sends.
Would you give him drugs because he's craving for them?

Okay, my inclination for verbal abuse is definitely rising now.
That comparisons is BULLSHIT. Being transsexual is in no way comparable to being addicted to drugs, there is no actual damage from hormone treatment (certainly nothing comparable to a drug addiction)

...

It wasn't really a question of damage but a point about alteration of the brain chemistry and structure to some degree.
You still are addicted to the belief that you are a woman. It makes you feel good to think you're one, and you like being considered one, as just like everything that makes people feel good, the brain gets used to the stimuli that makes people feel good and require greater magnitudes of stimulation.

AND it has been proven to be GOOD for the individual.

It's all relative, don't you think? Who says it's good? Not the doc, since he can only ask questions and get replies from those who take the treatment.
Doesn't the treatment turn you further into what your body, built by your genotype, says you should not be?
Your genotype and your body, outside of your brain, say you should have (had) a male brain.
I'm not even trying to settle this definitely, it's a complex issue.
Do you think it could ever be possible that, somehow, you would start feeling good after being repeatedly said that you do look good as a man?

Now imagine some technology, perhaps a small implant, which allows to either destroy or grow more neurons in the proper regions (if we go by certain studies like Zhou's, but some people dispute them). Let's imagine that this technique "realigns" the brain and you suddenly find yourself thinking the way your genotype says you should.
Do you take it, or do you reject it and take the route that satisfies your need to feel more like a woman?

PS: Finally, it appears that I wasn't totally brain farting when I typed the bit which JMS quoted, when talking about the grumpy old man. Basically my words were describing AGP without the elegance of a proper scientific definition.
AGP TS exist, and therefore the problem was the style, not the substance (1)
My only fault is that my limited experience with ts people is the older transitioners. Of course a perfect young transitioner wouldn't stick out, so in theory this would be a problem of bad sampling.
It seems to be precisely what AGP TS people are, according to Blanchard in 1989. Oh yes, I know, Ser also said to Kor something along the line "you don't believe that Blanchard tripe do you" and "he's widely rebutted" (2). Perhaps he's a quack, I don't know, but at least it appears that what I pulled out of my [...] wasn't without echo in the milieu of TS study.
Then there is this, which refers to Ray Blanchard's theory as widely accepted (doesn't mean it's a correct theory, but it surely puts into perspective your attacks against Kor).
Some TS people reject it, other defend it.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Okay, my inclination for verbal abuse is definitely rising now.

Yes, that is readily apparent in your post. Curb it.

[Tyralak]

This is how I have always felt on this subject and others like it. As a Libertarian (Yes, I know how most SDNers feel about Libertarians) I ask 3 questions about issues. Only two of which apply in your case. 1. Does the Constitution permit it? (Not applicable here) 2. Does it harm me? 3. Does it infringe on the rights of others? There is no right to not be annoyed or offended. I can't see how a post-op transwoman using women's facilities hurts me or anyone else. I can't see why it should matter to anyone. The only possible exception I can see, is perhaps in sports, if the transwoman's male genetics would give her an unfair advantage. Other than that, I can't see why anyone would care.

Well, that's not so much of a Libertarian POV than a humanistic/utilitarian one. Except for the first one, which is basically an appeal to authority. Oh, and of course you forgot "does it harm society". I guess it IS Libertarian then.
I don't have a problem with Libertarians per se - it's just that many of their claims are just - plain - STUPID!
Such as "Capitalism is the most moral system" - when all it cares about is profit.
Or "Government is always inefficient" - which is derived from the fact that government has other goals than profit.
And of course the appeal to the constitution - if your main worldview/moral system is not applicable to 90+% of humanity, something is wrong with it IMO.
Some of it has value of course, but the more extreme Libertarians are usually full of objectively determinable crap.

As far as WILGA goes, i can't actually identify his moral system.
He is no humanist, since he never seriously contemplated the effects on society.
He is no legalist either (tough he is a "lawyer" and talked a lot about the law), since he wants to change the law (and even violate our constitution).
He is doing a lot of "appeals to nature", but i can't think of any moral system that is defined by that.

You seem to have a very odd definition of what constitutes an appeal to authority. Libertarians generally have quite a bit of respect for the law, and most of the issues I debate are domestic in nature. So, when dealing with a domestic issue involving laws and regulations being passed, consideration of what the Constitution permits and doesn't permit is extremely important. Since you're in Germany, discussion of our constitution is not applicable. (hence why I said "not applicable here")

Also, one thing many people (especially those from SDN for some odd reason) seem to have trouble separating is Libertarianism vs. Objectivism. The two are NOT the same. They're ideological cousins, but they have a lot of differences. I like to think of Libertarianism as a more "human" form of minarchist thought, as opposed to the cold, selfish, completely social darwinism driven Objectivism. Ayn Rand had some very good ideas, but I find her world view too harsh and unyielding. Objectivism also REQUIRES atheism as a major part of it's philosophy. This means a huge portion of humanity is excluded. I feel government has it's place. Government is a tool that should be used wisely and sparingly. It should be targeted toward the things it does very well, and the things that it does inefficiently should be left to those who can handle them better. That way people are not overburdened with excessive taxation, and have less chance of the government becoming tyrannical and abusing it's people. I agree completely with General Washington when he said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[Mr. Oragahn]

For what looks like the beginning of an off topic thread, see here.

[Serafina]

So outside of a society, you would have hard times telling which gender you are.
And yet, despite being so dependent on the society to determine who you are, you also totally reject what the judges may say as it wouldn't match your opinion... an opinion which funnily enough, is supposed to be based on the unarguable opinion that originates from the same society.
We're a split hair from a paradox here.

Define "outside of a society". If i GREW UP without ANY contact to other humans (leaving aside the impossibility of that), then YES, i would have problems telling that.
Otherwise, gender begins to manifest at an age of about 3-4 years - and you will need other humans to get to that stage anyway.

You seem to like to engage in totally hypothetical scenarios and then draw some random conclusion from them.
But if a human being could grow up outside of society, there simply would be NO gender identity.

The definition I've seen of gender either directly refers to sex, or talks about behaviour and other factors which don't mention any social context.

Gender is defined as "everything that distinguishes between male and female". While sex is included there, it is only ONE criteria and by no means the most important.
When one discusses gender, sex is typically the least important factor.

Using social science is fruitless if it's not going to alter your view about your gender. Basically, with or without a society, you made up your mind.
Now, if social interactions matter, it means that depending on the society you live in, you admit you could reconsider your gender, which then makes your absolutism completely absurd.
You're not looking for evidence from the society, you want society to obey you.

So by the same logic, using social science with ANYONE is fruitless, since they are not going to alter their view about their gender.
Ask yourself: When did you decide that you are male?
Of course, you didn't - no one does. Transsexual people might discover their actual gender later in life, but you have no means of actively deciding your gender.
Hence, your attack is simply pointless, even more so since you do not explain why that should be a necessity.
Oh, and cut the "absolutism"-angle. If i would happen to live in an intolerant medieval society without no way to move out (say, the american bible belt) then i would either
-not dare (subconsciously) to discover my actual gender at all and try to settle into the gender role society has forced on me while being massively unhappy
-or just try it anyway and get killed (given that the murder rate of transwomen is 17 times higher in the USA) or eventually kill myself due to outside pressure.
I have neither the means nor the will to actually oppress anyone on that matter - unless you think that living as a woman alone is already too much and oppression of others.

Mattering is not the question. The question is if you're capable of identifying your gender without people around.

Are you? How would you know without anyone around?
Of course, this is purely hypothetical, since you can not survive on your own at the age where you discover your gender.

Your argument would be good if you would prove that social science IS the key factor. You reject anything which can be observed independently of society, mostly the biology.

I am doing it RIGHT NOW.
It is really that simple: Gender identity is a about the perception of one self and the behavior of one self in relation to others. Hence, it is a factor of society. Hence, it is a matter for social sciences.
You would have to show anyway that gender is NOT a social science term and that you can ignore what social science says about it. Dismissing it out of hand because "it doesn't change your opinion" is just an utter scientific failure.

No, because you don't understand that you can live outside of society. However, society cannot exist without the ever going interaction within the sum of biological entities such as we are. So one is an ensemble, and the other belongs to said ensemble.
Society comes second, so that's why it's a filter.

Human beings are NOT made to live outside of society. And it is impossible for them to grow up outside of society.
It seems that you are loosing the grip on reality there.

But I admit that I was not aware of the existence of the womb and ovaries transplants.
However, I find it formidable that science is managing to move forward so far as to focus on the principle of gouging, fiddling and reshaping the body around the "broken" brain, but has deemed any attempt at "fixing the" brain to be impossible.

That's because
-"fixing" TS will most likely never be possible at any stage but pre-birth (and perhaps the first 1-2 years thereafter) without massive trauma and brain damage. The brain is just too complex for that.
-The brain is not broken in the first place.

Selling organs, that makes a lot of money though. There could be ethical questions that need to be addressed though, but transsexual people are the perfect vector for the application of an absolutely libertarian and trans-humanist view about the human body.
I'm sure a science that is much more advanced than ours would probably find it more practical to bring a small alteration to the brain than treat the body as a pile of spare parts which need to be replaced in order to match a pattern in a partially faulty brain.

So helping human people is now a trans-humanist view? Lol.
Either way, you seem to be completely unaware of the medical history of transsexuality.
Male-to-female genital surgery was originally developed for biological women with accidents - and the surgery of transmen was even more developed for cismen.
Hormone treatment was purely developed for cispeople - indeed, you won't find even a single mention of transsexuality on the package insert of my hormones.
Breast surgery was obviously developed for other purposes. Hair removal was originally developed for ciswomen. Logopedics for transwomen are derived from acting classes. And so on.

And again, your assertion that it would ever be possible to just "flick a switch" in the brain without any consequences is utterly ignorant, the brain is most likely way to complex for that to work.

IF.

As i said, you seem to like to engage in pure speculation rather than objective discussion.

It wasn't really a question of damage but a point about alteration of the brain chemistry and structure to some degree.
You still are addicted to the belief that you are a woman. It makes you feel good to think you're one, and you like being considered one, as just like everything that makes people feel good, the brain gets used to the stimuli that makes people feel good and require greater magnitudes of stimulation.

Again with that comparison?
First, you have no idea how drug addiction actually works - it works by receptor over-stimulation, which is something completely different from the alterations of hormones on the brain or body.
Second, a psychological addiction (except that it isn't one) works very differently from a non-psychological one.
Third, your comparison is still WRONG. I do NOT get used to any stimuli, dressing as a women does NOT release any endorphines or similar substances. There is NO addiction mechanism AT ALL - your comparison fails utterly, since there is NOTHING that transsexuality has in common with a drug addiction.

It's all relative, don't you think? Who says it's good? Not the doc, since he can only ask questions and get replies from those who take the treatment.

The increase in happiness in transsexual people is objectively measurable (see: lower suicide rate due to treatment)

Doesn't the treatment turn you further into what your body, built by your genotype, says you should not be?
Your genotype and your body, outside of your brain, say you should have (had) a male brain.
I'm not even trying to settle this definitely, it's a complex issue.
Do you think it could ever be possible that, somehow, you would start feeling good after being repeatedly said that you do look good as a man?

Oh, sure, i must be transsexual because i was unsuccessful as a man. What a nice prejudice (and YES, it is one objectively since it is not based on sufficient information).
Let me tell you something - there are a lot of transsexual people who were quite successful when they lived according to their sex. Balian Buschbaum for example was a successful athlethe (he is a transman) before he transited. He had no social problems either. Being successful is utterly unimportant, since that success does not make you happy (well - if we are talking about social things, not other success such as in sports etc.)

Now imagine some technology, perhaps a small implant, which allows to either destroy or grow more neurons in the proper regions (if we go by certain studies like Zhou's, but some people dispute them). Let's imagine that this technique "realigns" the brain and you suddenly find yourself thinking the way your genotype says you should.
Do you take it, or do you reject it and take the route that satisfies your need to feel more like a woman?

I "discussed" that with Kor earlier.
The problem is that it is PURE SPECULATION, that any such treatment would most likely cause MASSIVE DAMAGE AND TRAUMA and that it would therefore be an utterly immoral thing to use.
And furthermore - why SHOULD i take it? What advantage would that be to me?
I am HAPPY as a woman. The only problem i will have in the long run with my body is that i can't get pregnant (which would not be the case if we had medical tech that advanced) - which would not be the case due to this chip anyway.
The ONLY reason to take it would be if society is utterly intolerant and effectively forces me to radically alter my personality to confirm.
Indeed, such a treatment would most likely violate the integrity of my personality - possibly that much that you could say that the "current me" is dead.

AGP TS exist, and therefore the problem was the style, not the substance (1)

Did i say that there are no AGP-transwomen? No, i didn't - i said that AGP (Autogynophilia for those who are not good with acronyms) is not the CAUSE of transsexuality, since it also exists in ciswomen.
Blanchard is discredited for proposing AGP as a cause for TS, NOT for studying AGP.
But as a mechanism for TS, it utterly fails since it does not explain
-transwomen who are attracted to men
-transmen of all sorts
-asexual transsexuals
-transsexuality in children
The current model can explain all of the above and is hence of superior explanatory value - and therefore the better theory.


You are really promoting a lot of misconceptions about transsexuality.
AGP, obviously - then the "you just need to be told that you look good as a man"-misconception, the "gender=sex"-misconception...all that lacks now is that you assert that it's just due to repressed homosexuality and you have completed the quartet of anti-TS prejudice.

Yes, that is readily apparent in your post. Curb it.

So being compared to a drug addict is not an insult now?
If i compare you to a drug addict because you like Sci-Fi, is that not an insult?
Because that comparisons makes just as much sense as comparing me to a drug addict.

Oh, and you still owe me a discussion with WILGA.

[Who is like God arbour]

Serafina, show a little patience.

Not all have the time to sit 24/7 in front of their computer to participate in a debate about a topic that is totally irrelevant for their life.

[Who is like God arbour]

For those who are interested in knowing how transsexuals are really treated in Germany, I recommend to read the human rights report 2010 from the Campaign Transsexuality and Human Rights.

Many of the things Serafina claims about Germany are simply not true.

While you may not believe me, you can believe that report.

You can find it here and here.

(It is not possible to copy and paste text out of the first version. That's why I have used OCR on it and saved it as the second version. But if you use copy and paste, you should control that the text is right. The recognition was not perfect. And the second version is only avaiable for a limited time. You should save it on your computer if you are really interessted in it.)

[Who is like God arbour]

I only wanted to say, that my position can hardly be called an extreme position. I’m merely differentiating between sex and gender and think that, when addressing someone, the sex is deciding for the choosing of the grammar gender.

It can be considered to be an absolutist position. It's not especially practical, in my opinion, and is more than a little callous. Functionally speaking, it is practical to refer to someone with the best-fit pronoun based on how they appear to yourself (when it is a direct conversation) or to the people that you are talking to (if you are speaking in the third person). To do anything else leads to confusion.

I agree insofar that not the appearance is deciding as long as you don't know it better.

You meet someone and do not know what sex/gender this person has. From the person's appearance you try to conclude what the sex/gender is. But the question is, if you try to conclude from the appearance the sex or the gender.

Someone who is familiar with the phenomenon gender may indeed try to conclude the gender - although I doubt that the only late in life learned factual knowledge of gender really affects the thinking. You may know that there is a gender as you may know that the capital of China is Peking. But that is only factual knowledge that does not affect your thinking and perception.

But most people are not really familiar with the existence of genders anyway. They would try to conclude the sex with which they are familiar from the beginning. They conclude that someone who wears women-clothes is a woman and was born as a women (with a vagina, ovaries and uterus). They probably do not think that it could be possible that the person was born as a male with a feminine gender (who has undergone a gender reassignment).

But if you do know it better, you do not have to guess the sex.

If someone you know as a boy dresses suddenly like a girl, you will still regard that someone as a boy. If that boy wants to be addressed as if he were a girl, you can be polite and do it. But it won't change the fact that you still think of him as a boy. Insofar your using a feminine grammar gender may be polite but is nothing more than a farce, especially if that boy knows that you know that he is a boy and therefore knows that you are using the feminine gender only to be polite but not because you really see him as a girl.

And it is confusing. You think of him as a boy and your natural impulse would be to use the masculine gender. But to be polite, you have always to remember to use the feminine gender. That means you have always to censor your own speech. You can't say what you think. If that is not confusing, I do not know what is.

As I noted in referring to Mark Twain's comedic essay on the German language, it seems remarkably odd that coming from a language background where a bitch (female dog) may be referred to as "he," a tom (male cat) as "she," and a young girl as "it," that you would be firmly wedded to the principle of grammatical gender reflecting internal essence at all.

But ultimately, when choosing pronouns with which to address someone, we're really simply choosing an appropriate grammatical gender. In common English usage, it makes total sense to say of a transsexual "And so she is a he," referring both to social gender and biological sex. Pronouns ultimately serve as substitutes for nouns; that's all they are, no more, no less, in English and in German. The grammatical gender of the chosen pronoun is simply one more little piece of information that helps us discern what noun - or name - we're substituting for. Some nouns are feminine; some are masculine; some are neither; some could be either; English is a little less formal in that regard than German, but the theory is the same.

Now, let me speak for a minute on sex and gender. Whether or not there is any distinction at all between the terms in English depends on who you are talking to. Yes, German language does not support a distinction very well. In more old-fashioned or euphemistic English usage, "manhood" is actually a synonym for "penis," and "unmanned" refers to being physically or metaphorically castrated; in that particular tradition of the language, maleness is identified solely by the presence or absence of a penis. The language can vary, has varied in the past, and continues to vary; the standard of what makes a man or a woman is not fixed in stone.

Yes, in the German language it is not so easy. That's why I have said we have to learn such things by heart. But that's the reason why it is not possible to change these things per decree. We have learned and used our whole life certain grammar genders that we aren't contemplating them anymore when using them. We do not question why the animal (das Tier) is neuter but the dog (der Hund) is masculine, the cat (die Katze) is feminine and the horse (das Pferd) is neuter or the tree (der Baum) is masculine but the maple (der Ahorn) is masculine and the oak (die Eiche) is feminine. That's how we have learned it from the beginning and why it is recommended to learn German nouns always with an article. It is the only way to know which grammar gender to use if you are not speaking of individuals.

The thing is that I'm aware that the grammar genders in Germany are not plausible and sometimes even could be considered to be rude (e.g. when the girl (das Mädchen) or the wife (das Weib) is treated with a neuter grammar gender). But that is how I have learned it. You could say that the language was indoctrinated into me. I know that a girl and a wife are female. But using the German language I can't use a feminine grammar gender. That would be totally wrong and awkward. On the other side, a girl or a wife is not insulted if the neuter grammar gender is used because they know that this is language and says nothing about their sex.

But these grammar genders are only so arbitrary as long as one is only speaking of categories and not of individuals.

For example: I have two cats; one is male, the other is female. In the German language, the species cat is female (die Katze). If I speak of my cats as cats (species), I'll use the feminine grammar gender. I can do that even speaking only about one cat - even if that happens to be the tom-cat. That usually happens if I speak with someone who does not know my cats as individuals or does not treat them as individuals. For example: The vet, even if he knows that my tom-cat is a tom-cat, would simply speak of him as a cat, using a feminine grammar gender because he does not individualize my cat. For the vet my tom-cat is only a cat like any other cat too.

But if I or someone else speaks of one of my cat as an individual, the grammar gender fitting to the sex is used. That happens especially if the name of the cat is used. Then we do not psychoanalyze the cat and try to determine their gender. We are looking only for the sex.

It is similar with persons. In the German language, the person (die Person) is feminine but the human-being (der Mensch) is masculine. If I speak about Serafina as a person, I would use a feminine grammar gender and a masculine grammar gender if I speak about Serafina as a human-being. It is the same with each man and each woman.

But if I speak of Serafina as an individual, I use the grammar gender fitting to Serafina's sex as I'm doing it with my cats. And as I do not contemplate the (social) gender of my cats, I do not contemplate the (social) gender of Serafina. The sex (or what I think is the sex) is deciding for the choice of the grammar gender.

That's how it works at least in the German language and that can't be changed per decree because it is language and the way people are thinking. Most people aren't even aware that there is such a thing like gender as opposed to sex. Insofar it simply is not possible that they contemplate the gender of someone. What they are doing is to conclude from the appearance to the sex. If someone wears clothes like a woman, one assumes that this someone is a woman and addresses him accordingly.

I asked several colleagues and although some admitted to have seen documentation about transsexuals, they have said that this is not what they are thinking about the whole time. They factual knowledge they have gained by seeing that documentation is there; it is not forgotten, but it is not active and has not affected their way to think. When they meet a person, they do not wonder if that person is a transgender. They do not contemplate the gender. They only try to guess that person's sex to decide which grammar gender to use. And usually that is not even a conscious process.

And of course language evolves. But usually only if something or the understanding of something that is described with language has changed. When they found out that not the penis or its absence - although as a first clue not unimportant - is deciding which sex a person has, they changed the definition of man and woman.

Today it is a biological definition I have already provided: Woman is an adult human female and man is an adult human male. Female is of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes and male is of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

I do not know a sociological definition for these terms or it there is such a definition at all. To define man and woman with gender in mind could be insofar difficult as there is, as far as I know, no exact definitions for masculine and feminine gender. Nobody really can say what characteristics exactly a masculine gender has or what characteristics exactly a feminine gender has. These thinks are very nebulous and blurred.

But of course that can change again. I have advocated earlier letting language evolve as it always has done. Maybe in some time, the definition of man and woman will change again and not biology but sociology is deciding what a woman and what a man are.

But it still has not changed.

People still think it is necessary to differentiate between "real" women and men who have a feminine gender. That's why there are terms like transwoman and ciswoman. This differentiation shows that there is a difference between transwoman and ciswoman and it is not discrimination but only accurateness.

Now let us look at Serafina’s opinion: Serafina thinks that sex is totally unimportant and only the gender is important and that a transwoman should be treated as a real woman and a transman should be treated as a real man with no exceptions.

Also an absolutist position.

Is it only an absolutist position or even an extreme position?

Although I should note that Serafina offered an exception for prison at one point.

Where?

I think it's a much more practical position. I feel she has done an absolutely terrible job arguing on behalf of it, but I will explain the modern intellectual tradition that this comes from.

Almost everything that you or I do is in one or another way gendered. This is most apparent when you're up on a stage pretending to be someone of the opposite gender. There is a masculine style of walking and a feminine style of walking. There are masculine and feminine ways of sitting, of throwing, even of talking - a lot of the differences are about who interrupts whom and how, not merely pitch and choice of vocabulary.

Dressing. Eating. Sleeping. Dancing. Making friends. Losing friends. Almost every social behaviour from the wearing of clothes out to how you stand next to someone is gendered. If a woman doesn't walk in the feminine style, isn't wearing a feminine haircut, and happens to be wearing gender-neutral clothes, she will get mistaken for male at a distance or from behind. It is for most people a simple matter of performance to get taken for a given gender - regardless of what their biological sex is - by most observers. (Yes, skilled observers can very often spot the subtle physical cues; yes, modern plastic surgery can do almost anything; neither really has much to do with the everyday social environment.)

The conclusion is that that gender isn't really something intrinsic. If a boy walks all girly, he's going to get called "girly." If a girl gets down rough and tumble, she's "one of the boys." Social gender, then, is simply performance. You then perform male or perform female as surely as you perform Shakespeare or perform Aristophanes.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. But I also think that there is a difference between feminine and masculine behavior and a feminine and masculine gender.

For example a girl whose mom died giving birth to her is raised by her dad. Her dad wanted a boy and didn't know how to raise a girl and never even attempted to raise her as a girl. She never had a female role model and always played with the boys in her neighborhood. All she observed and imitated her whole life was masculine behavior. Now that is the way the girl behaves too. But nevertheless she is a girl and is aware of the little difference between her and her playmates. Until reaching puberty it simply was not important. But now she discovers that, although she still behaves like a boy, there are more differences than presumed. The girl is now discovering her feminine gender and sexual preferences. E.g. while the boys find that they are attracted to woman, she finds that she is attracted to man. She might even fall in love with one of her (male) playmates. That still does not mean that she has to change her behavior. But she is more aware than earlier that she is a woman and she does not want to be a man. This girl is not a transman and if she is satisfied with her life will not see a reason to change her behavior. And because, for whatever reason, for a girl to be masculine is more accepted in society than for a boy to be feminine, it makes it easier for the girl to decide that there is no reason to change the own behavior respective to act as if she were a stereotypical girl although she has a feminine gender and she sees herself as a girl/woman who simple does not like to act all girly.

Most transsexuals usually have a slightly different problem: For one, there is a pathological condition that compels them somehow. We still do not really know what the cause of that condition is or what exactly that condition is. There are theories that a genetic deficiency causes a misguided development of the brain that than causes transsexualism [O]. A few symptoms were found, e.g. that Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in their Limbic Nucleus [O]. Insofar is transsexualism not only a sociological phenomenon but also a biological or medicinal phenomenon. But we do not really understand what exactly causes transsexualism. What we know is that transsexualism somehow compels the with it afflicted to a degree that they can't really make a free decision (if such thing is possible at all - I tend to be a determinist who thinks that a free will or a consciousness does not really exist). For whatever reason they want to be what they are not. The girl from above does not has such a pathological condition.

I have quoted several dictionaries, according to which a woman or a man is not defined by their gender but by their sex. Serafina has ridiculed that as semantics, has claimed it to be untrue but has not shown that it is the other way. The only thing Serafina had to do was to show that indeed most people, when choosing a grammar gender, are contemplating the gender and not the sex of a person and that this is the usual modus operandi.

I have argued that people are always choosing the grammar gender accordingly to the from the appearance assumed sex.

How exactly are people choosing the grammar gender for an individual? Are they usually contemplating the sex or the gender? What is the usual modus operandi?

Usually, very casually on the basis of only a handful of cues - clothing, posture, haircut, and voice probably account for most of the snap judgements.

It's usually not an entirely conscious process, and it's very difficult for us to know which underlying idea is being used. People do make mistakes, as well, but if you think you see one thing and were meant to see another, you will not often at fault.

There are people who feel both ways. Ad populum is not a conclusive criteria to appeal to, in this event. What is true - in my experience - is that a great many people in the population will adjust their pronoun usage according to the context and nature of the discussion.

That does not answer if these cues are used to determine the gender or sex. Who is not even aware that there is such thing like gender, can use these cues only to determine the sex. As you are saying, it is not even a conscious process. That means, even if someone has heard of gender it does not mean that it is contemplated when trying to determine how one should be addressed.

My opinion and experience is that most people do not know that there is a gender beside the sex and are only trying to determine the sex. I have shown that (social) gender is a Terminus technicus used especially in social sciences. Most people have not studied these.

To change my opinion, you should show that most people are aware that there is gender and are really contemplating it when trying to decide which grammar gender to use.

And it is not a true ad populum argument. We are talking about language and language is a mean of communication. But communication works only if sender and receiver are using the same code. In terms of language that means that both have the same understanding of the meaning of a word or grammar structure. For me that means that I will use a term or a grammar gender with the commonly accepted meaning. And we are trying here to find out what people are meaning and understanding if the terms man or woman, male or female or the masculine or feminine grammar gender are used.

I'm convinced that they are thinking of sex and not gender.

I do not argue that, because most people are not aware that gender exists, it does not exist. That would be indeed a fallacy.

My argument is that, because most people do not know that gender exists, the concept has not found its way into common language. If I use the term woman now, most people are thinking of someone with a female sex (someone who was born with a vagina, ovaries and womb) - who can behave like a stereotypical woman but also like a man. Most people would not think that I referred to a man with a feminine gender. The simple thing is that I have to use the language as it is. If I want to describe something I have to use the accordingly terms and grammar structure.

The gender is not always the same as it appears because the person who is to be addressed could be a transvestite, a masculine woman, a feminine man or a transsexual who hasn’t come out (yet). The from the appearance assumed sex and their gender would differ in such cases. Insofar to conclude only from the appearance to the gender and address someone accordingly is not always right. A transvestite does not have to have a feminine gender only because he wears feminine clothes or a masculine gender only because she wears masculine clothes. They could claim to be insulted too when their sex is ignored in favour of what is wrongly assumed as their gender only because they are wearing clothes that are usually worn by members of the opposite sex.

I would think that most transvestites would not take too much offence to being addressed as female while dressed in drag. They may offer a correction if they feel otherwise.

And what is if someone ignores their wish? Imagine being a transvestite (male sex, masculine gender but feminine appearance) and being called a girl although you have informed your opponent that you are a man and wish to be addressed as such. If only the appearance is deciding, the transvestite wouldn't have the right to be addressed accordingly to their sex.

A tomboy does not have to have a masculine gender and could claim to be insulted as well if she gets addressed like a boy.

The difference between a tomboy and a woman in drag as a man is actually usually quite striking. Sometimes it isn't. You address people based on best guesses regardless. Choosing to take the best guess of what they're trying to act as is the path least likely to offend.

Yes, but what is it that I guess? Do I try to guess the gender or do I try to guess the sex?
When I have made up my mind, when I started to think of that someone a certain way, do I change my thinking when I learn that this someone wishes to be addressed different from what I thought? Or is it only a farce to address that someone accordingly to their wish?

A nancy-boy (sorry, but I couldn’t find a better term that describes the opposite of a tomboy) does not have to have a feminine gender and could claim to be insulted as well when he gets addressed like a girl. A transgender who hasn’t come out (yet) and wants to stay inconspicuous does not want to be addressed accordingly to their gender but accordingly to their sex. To ignore that and address such a transgender accordingly to their gender could even get that transgender in trouble he wanted to avoid by staying inconspicuous.

Possibly. But it's really best to simply pick whatever pronoun or address is most successful at communicating to everybody around you who you are talking to or who you are talking about.

Correct. And if everyone connects the grammar gender with sex but I am the only one who connects it with the gender, misunderstandings happen. Insofar the gender is not the most successful at communicating.

That means, if really the gender shall be deciding, one would have to ask each and every person what their gender is, while the sex usually is obviously.

This is not so different from what we already do. We examine the clothing of someone, and their appearance, and ask ourselves how to address someone.

If we're not sure, we do the same thing that we do when we're talking about someone whose name we have so rudely forgotten: Work around it without actually using the uncertain words.

Not really. We look at that someone and try to find out the sex. How to address that someone is then out of question because the sex is deciding for the grammar gender.

And there is a big difference between a forgotten name and the not yet determined sex. If I have forgotten the name, I can still use pronouns; I can talk of he and him or she and her. But the sex determines the grammar gender and in the German language that influences not only the pronoun but also the articles and the suffixes of each noun. You simply have to decide for a grammar gender. There is no other way - unless you want to talk about an individual as a person or as a human-being. But that is really rude.

Serafina then claimed that transgenders are suffering when they are addressed accordingly to their sex instead of their gender.

I wondered if the most important reason Transgenders do want to be addressed accordingly to their gender is that they have experienced discrimination as transgenders or are afraid to experience discrimination if the fact that they are transgenders is disclosed. I contemplated that it could be possible that they simply do not want that everybody knows that they are transgenders and that they want to deceive everybody in believing that they have a sex as it appears because then they do not have to suffer the prejudices of those who are bigoted. And because to be addressed accordingly to their sex would disclose the fact that someone is a transgender, they would have to suffer bigotry where it occurs.

Serafina’s reply was to ask, how that is wrong. Insofar Serafina has not proven the claim that transgenders are suffering because they are addressed accordingly to their sex. Quite contrary, Serafina has, as I understand it, acknowledged that not the addressing is the real problem but the discrimination that is enabled when the fact that someone is a transgender is disclosed through the addressing accordingly to the sex. That’s what Serafina has said here too: Not the differentiation is discrimination but it enables discrimination.

Well, then, let me explain one reason why it hurts to be "sirred" while trying to pass in a casual social context, for anybody, and then we can go onto the more specific case of male-to-female transsexuals. (The reasons why a female-to-male transsexual may be hurt by "ma'am" are some the same and some different, but this post will be long enough, and we've been talking about the former case rather than the latter in any event; my apologies to the feminists in the audience.)

Now, you recall what I said about gender being a performance, above? Being addressed as male while you're playing female is a little like being told your performance of gender sucks. Since one "feminine" trait, as it's seen in the here and now, is being sexy, you could also take it as being called ugly. So when a woman gets sirred, she is likely to take that as a bad review.

Now, a trans woman will take being "sirred" badly in a casual social context for just about the same reasons as a cis woman. However, a trans woman may be referred to as male in less casual social contexts, contexts in which her full status is known, and there the reason for being hurt is a little different.

In those cases, it hurts because a trans woman no longer identifies herself as a man. This is a painful part of her past that she's trying to put behind her, and here you are, reminding her that she used to be considered everywhere a man. She believes she can become something new from something old; you don't believe that she's managed that. When you call her a man, you're saying that all that effort that she's put into changing her identity is meaningless.

That's a slap to the face. It's a little like having gone to school for many years and worked hard to get a degree in law, and then being told you're uneducated and a fake.

To be honest: That's their problem. I have outright said that my decision to use the grammar gender accordingly to the sex is not a critic of their performance.

Quite the contrary: Only a transwoman who tries to deceive people into believing that he is a real woman can regard the usage of the masculine grammar gender as a performance critic. He was not convincing enough. Now he could be insulted or he could try to improve his performance. It is not the fault of those who were not deceived by that performance that the performance was not good enough.

On the other side, if always the grammar gender is used accordingly to the sex, an honest transwoman cannot regard the usage of a masculine grammar gender as a performance critic because it is always done that way.

Serafina has given a nice example: » As an example, a friend of mine (a transman) is regulary giving speeches about transsexuality at schools, homosexual political meetings and other places. He generally does not say that he is a transman right away - and when he does so at the end of the lesson, he drives an important point home: Transsexual people are no different from other people. It works. It would NOT work if he did so at the beginning of his speech, people would look for differences then.« I have not quoted that because I want to debate that the point she is trying to drive home is wrong. The fact is that transsexual people are different from not-transsexual people and that they are trying to hide that difference, to make it go away and that they are trying to deceive people into not noticing that difference. (Another question is if that difference is a good reason for an unequal treatment. As long as it is not a good reason, an unequal treatment is discrimination.)

But what I wanted to say is that this woman has convinced her audience. Now imagine that after the show, the students are talking. You may hear sentences like » Wow, have you seen that woman. She has really fooled me. I really thought that she is a man. « You see, the feminine grammar gender is used but it is not used to criticize the performance. It is used because now the students know that what they thought to be a man is a woman and they automatically use the grammar gender accordingly. They neither want to criticize the performance nor do they want to insult that woman. It is simply the way they are thinking and speaking.

And if a transsexual (intentionally) misunderstands that, the solution cannot be that the whole nation changes the way to think and speak but that the transsexual pulls their self together and take what was said as it was said and not how they want to understand it.

But if we now have reached the conclusion that not the differentiation and not the addressing according to one’s sex is discriminating but only enabling discrimination because it disclose the fact that someone is a transgender, the question now would have to be if it is right to keep that fact a secret to protect the transgender or if the discrimination that happens if the fact that someone is a transgender, ought to be fought.

Serafina’s opinion is that it is okay for transgenders to live their whole life with a secret.

I think that this should not be necessary and that the discrimination should be fought. In the long run, that will result in a more tolerant society where no one has to keep the fact that one is a transgender a secret.

Serafina’s answer was that transgenders do not want to be seen as transgenders and do want to live their whole life with a secret.

Serafina does not speak for all transgendered individuals. Some are quite comfortable with broadcasting their identity and making a point. I would, however, suggest that in this matter she does probably speak for the majority of transgendered folk, who simply want to pass and live an everyday life.

Visible activists are usually a minority out of any minority. They are necessary to force change in the larger public. However, it is far better that they are volunteers than conscripts, and holding the information to be private rather than public is a good thing.

A change in names is going to be visible in public records. Older documents will show the prior name and gender assignment; any measures taken to support the complete erasure of all conflicting older identifying information could easily be abused to hide criminal history or to confound investigation of crimes. I can't see a practical legal means of enforcing true secrecy; but neither do I see a practical need for forcing the information to be broadcast upon casual request, and the sort of law that would be needed to enforce honesty would have to be fairly intrusive. Privacy is quite reasonable.

Existing law, I should think, already covers the cases of penalties for fraudulent behaviour; in the rare case that it matters that someone is transsexual, and they lie about it then, they would already be held responsible for any damages caused, or for criminal charges of perjury, or whatever else.

I do not think that transgenders should be conscripted. It was Serafina who played the moral-card. And if we go that route, we have to question what would happen if all transgenders are deciding to behave the way Serafina does. Is it morally from an individual to behave a certain way if, if all behave that way, the consequence would be detrimental for all in the long run? Is it morally to say that others can solve the problems? I do not think so. If society has to change and be aware that there are transgenders, all transgenders have to do their part. And that begins with telling the truth and not deceiving others.