All about Serafina (Split)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Pichler wrote a book.
Here is a summary of what it argues:

"In his book Pichler looks at transsexualism as a behavioral addiction, much like a sex addiction, Internet addiction or gambling addiction, which is caused by a faulty reward system in the human brain. Pichler further reports that the medications that effectively treat behavioral addictions show good results in treating transsexualism. Pichler further shows that if the medical community were to treat transsexualism in the context of a behavioral addiction in lieu of a gender identity disorder, that transsexualism as it is known today would be virtually eradicated within one generation."

[Jedi Master Spock]

-mentally ill

A search on "mentally ill" shows a recent post from Kor, part of the series for which his most recent warning was issued, and then the next most immediate record of such is Kor taking you to task for using "mental illness slurs" such as "retarded" during your cross-site debate.

You may be thinking of his posts on ASVS, which I am not responsible for and not even interested in reading.

-just want "seductive feminime power"

I will note two things; that Mr. Oragahn has since retracted this claim, and also, that Mr. Oragahn earned a one-day temporary ban that would not have occurred had he not been warned for crossing the line in, coincidentally, that very post (in which he had some very choice things to say, some of which did cross the line, unlike that particular assertion - which, again, he has since retracted as incorrect).

I will, in fact, quote him on the topic of retracting that opinion:

She did correct me, and it was an uneducated made up opinion from what I saw and knew (and the trans I did see in my life, for real, never tried to dress casually, that's the point), and was openly presented as such. There was certainly nothing fundie about it since it largely stemmed from ignorance and my total lack of time spent on reading any article or paper about what makes a trans.
And Serafina's point, which was actually made, was totally acknowledged from there by me, and I immediately revised my opinion in the post following that.

-an addict

The claim made was that transsexuality is similar to addictive behavior. This is a claim advanced with some form of evidence. It's an argument, and you have been debating it materially.

I'm not going to shut people up just because they disagree with you. If they want to make the case that the Green Party is in league with the Gnomes_of_Zürich, they're welcome to try.

-literary an "it"=member of a third gender

Can anyone provide me an actual link to such an occurrence here on SFJ, or has all discussion of third genders by Serafina's opponents remained hypothetical thus far? This claim has usually been a straw man, and I've been tired of reviewing the same posts over and over again only to find that Serafina is putting words in her opponents' mouths again.

-lying

On that note, I have caught you strawmanning arguments numerous times, and that would indeed qualify your posts as dishonest.

-called me a freak

Which was in violation of this forums' rules, and for which warnings were issued.

-slandered about me on another forum

Which is none of my responsibility.

-general censorship in the form of a closed thread

You can't have it both ways. The thread was closed in order to stem the flood of insults and give tempers time to cool. Nor is this precisely censorship. More on this later.

-a ban of a single day for one of them

I don't know if you have noticed, but both Mr. Oragahn and Kor_Dahar_Master have served temporary bans since your arrival. You cannot keep your facts straight.

-absolutely no enforcement of politeness rules

Very clearly false.

-free reign for bigoted statements

Which you define as anything you disagree with. If I defined "bigoted" so broadly and enforced its absence as thoroughly as you seem to want, I would not have any substantive debate on my forum.

On SDN, there are harsh rules

Let's cut the sentence there. On SDN, there are harsh rules, which are inconsistently enforced. The result is an environment where very little substantive debate happens. Homophobic slurs are commonplace, as I pointed out. Mental illness slurs are commonplace, as Kor pointed out.

Actual censorship - moving threads to areas that are not publicly visible - is commonplace. Even after having earned temporary bans here, your posts on SFJ are still publicly visible, and every single word you have posted here thus can be read by anyone anywhere on the internet. In all probability, the thread you posted earlier as an example of what happens on SDN will end up permanently hidden from public view in the HoS.

[Mr. Oragahn]

For everybody's information: TS and Mental Illness.

PS: and I thought I got a ban because of my reply to youngla. So it actually was about something I said here? What was that?

[Jedi Master Spock]

For everybody's information: TS and Mental Illness.

PS: and I thought I got a ban because of my reply to youngla. So it actually was about something I said here? What was that?

Actually, for your final warning level, you were both clearly rude to Youngla, but had also been recently provocative in this thread, clearly stirring up trouble - either one would have been sufficient to issue the ban.

However, I do see my memory was incorrect, and it was not specifically about the phantasm post, but some posts made around a similar time. You were warned in this thread earlier here. There might actually have been a more recent caution that I missed which I had in mind at the time. I can look to see if you like. I probably should have given you the direct links to the three prior warnings I had in mind in the thread while it was fresh in my memory.

Since generally we have three warnings preceding a banning, that warning could be considered a necessary part of the record leading to your temporary ban. My count was that you had a warning here in this topic, then two warnings about Youngla, spaced out a bit with some iffy spots in the middle (hence not earning you clemency under the policy of rolling back a warning per solid week of good behaviour), and then one last series of posts in which you were both clearly insulting to Youngla and egging on Kor and Serafina here in their little flame war.

So really, your ban involved both Serafina and Youngla.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Well, let's talk about mental illness for a little bit, shall we?

Currently, transsexuality is indeed classed as a mental illness in most major psychiatric manuals. This is a fact. The DSM, which is the American manual, was mentioned earlier. The ICM is another. We may note that Wikipedia makes the following claim:

France has been the only country in the world to remove transexualism from its list of mental illnesses.[citation needed]

(A citation of the French government's relatively recent change in position.)

While it is true that transsexuality is officially classed as a mental disorder in the UK, US, and Germany, so far as I am aware, it is also true that these psychiatric manuals also used to list homosexuality as a disorder, and do no longer. The change is not that we have decided that homosexuality is biological in nature rather than psychological, or anything of that sort; it is simply that we have decided that homosexuality is socially acceptable. A similar situation surrounds transsexuality. For a man to act as a woman, or a woman to act as a man, has traditionally been socially unacceptable.

This is changing in some parts of the world. We've seen the rise of the dad, with the creation of paternity leaves and shifts in child custody assignment in the event of divorce. We've seen the rise of the professional woman, with more education and more pay. The so-called "metrosexual." Even the fact that it's now more or less acceptable in the Western world to be homosexual has helped break down the sexual dichotomy.

There's no longer as large of a gap between the gender roles, and I think that in time, it'll be considered meaningless enough that someone acting as female or acting as male won't cause the slightest stir regardless of their birth sex. And in that case, why would it be a disorder?

What complicates the matter in the immediate tactical sense for LGBT advocates is that classification as a disorder means that the NHS will cover SRS. The Iranian government will foot a significant fraction of the bill as well. Much of this is made possible because transsexuality is classed as an illness; if it were not, well, eight thousand pounds is an awful lot of money to come up with. Well, actually, not eight thousand pounds now, that was the average cost of SRS eleven years ago.

So there's a little bit of tactical worry that fighting too hard to get transsexuality to be considered not a disorder might backfire. I expect it would backfire in Iran. It might not backfire in Germany. In the UK? A little iffy given the current political situation surrounding the NHS, in my humble opinion.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well the health system in France is special. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that removing the illness status was just another stone off the wall of public health care spending. No more reimbursements because it would be seen as an illness. European countries are cutting corners in every public sector. It's probably one of the odd cases where TS people have lost an advantage on the true practical front.

[Mr. Oragahn]

For everybody's information: TS and Mental Illness.

PS: and I thought I got a ban because of my reply to youngla. So it actually was about something I said here? What was that?

Actually, for your final warning level, you were both clearly rude to Youngla, but had also been recently provocative in this thread, clearly stirring up trouble - either one would have been sufficient to issue the ban.

However, I do see my memory was incorrect, and it was not specifically about the phantasm post, but some posts made around a similar time. You were warned in this thread earlier here. There might actually have been a more recent caution that I missed which I had in mind at the time. I can look to see if you like. I probably should have given you the direct links to the three prior warnings I had in mind in the thread while it was fresh in my memory.

Since generally we have three warnings preceding a banning, that warning could be considered a necessary part of the record leading to your temporary ban. My count was that you had a warning here in this topic, then two warnings about Youngla, spaced out a bit with some iffy spots in the middle (hence not earning you clemency under the policy of rolling back a warning per solid week of good behaviour), and then one last series of posts in which you were both clearly insulting to Youngla and egging on Kor and Serafina here in their little flame war.

So really, your ban involved both Serafina and Youngla.

Insulting to youngla? Ah com'on. That's quite a stretch, really.
I would rather call that... playing polite games... with someone who was clearly trolling.
His replies during this little exchange of civilities - which are not available anymore - just were the proof.
That, or he's not very bright at all, which for someone who managed to edit stuff to a wikia, really remains doubtful. Because if he's not trolling, then it takes a certain thickness in order not to understand the basic rules of any forum and how people use the ability to post and create threads, and that after being banned elsewhere for the same behaviour.
His spamming and thread necromancy with junk posts was getting tiring. But as I said, now I'll probably pour my rage over that little report icon for the times to come. :)

[User1420]

At Jedi Master Spock:

I'm sorry to reply so late. I read through your last post several times and contemplated for nearly a week what you are saying, what you are trying to argue and how I should respond.

The problem is that your post - although I believe that I understand it - does not really explain why I should ignore sex and focus solely on gender instead of considering both, each when appropriate.

Sometimes I even wondered what you are trying to argue. I understood - at least I think I understood - what you wrote. But I can't see the point in it. I couldn't see the relevance. Sometimes I even got the feeling that you are arguing my point.

For example, in the first part of your reply you refer to » our Sri Lankan friend « who is not familiar with snow. He may know that phenomenon from books, but it does not have any relevance for him because he had never seen any snow living in Sri Lanka.

I thought that is exactly what I tried to explain. Even people who have factual knowledge about gender beside their experienced knowledge about the existence of sex usually can't see any relevance in it because they are not really accustomed to it. For them it is like a seldom peculiar sickness from which they know that it exists but has no relevance for them.

It is similar with your example with the growing child. That a child grows up is normal. Every child grows up (unless it dies before). That development is expected. A change of sex (if there is such thing at all because gender ≠ sex) is not expected.

You may be right that female and male are heuristically derived categories. But intersexuals are nevertheless outliers and, even if we do not know it, there is a reason for their abnormal development. It is the same with transsexuals. They are outliers and there is a reason for their abnormal development. It is the same with species because all species are always in motion. But nevertheless the species is defined by the characteristics of the majority even if criteria of a minority does not fit under such a definition.

And that a girl that behaves like a boy would be still addressed like a girl as long as it is known that the girl is a girl, was already said by Mr. Oragahn.

And yes, it is right that a girl without a "pathological condition" may desire to be taken as male in some social contexts. But that girl is not a transsexual and does not have a masculine gender.

Serafina claims that he is a she because he is a transsexual. My argument is that he has a male sex and a feminine gender and that this does not make him a she. (Note that now I have used he and she together too)

And I have no problem that someone - regardless if that someone is a transsexual or not - wishes to cross over social gender lines. I hope that I have made that more than clear. But gender ≠ sex.

Or when you said that it is quite likely, in your opinion, that if I were to come upon a herd of young students after the performance of the friend of Serafina I would hear a wide range of pronouns and pronouncements, some of them male, some of them female, some of them mixed and confused. That is possible. But who is right? And why should those, who are using the female grammar gender for that transman be forced to use a male grammar gender. They haven't chosen it to insult someone. They have chosen it because that was natural for them. They saw someone who looked like a man. In that moment they would have used a male grammar gender when speaking with or about that person. But then they learned that this person is a woman who looks like a man. And their natural reaction was to choose a female grammar gender. That hasn't happened out of disrespect because they do not disrespect woman. To use a feminine grammar gender is not derogatory. But if Serafina could decide, these students would be punished.

But in the end, I do not see the relevance in your points. Maybe you should show what follows out of your arguments.

My opinion still is that there is gender and that there is sex. Both are important in certain circumstances. A person's gender is a part of their personality and dignity. To deny a person their inherent gender means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality. But a person's sex is a part of their personality and dignity too and to deny a person their inherent sex means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality too.

And the main question is still not really answered. Does the average citizen know about the meaning of gender when it is not used to denote the condition of being male or female? Because, if gender has no relevance to the average citizen, how can it be part of their thoughts and language?

I think it would be better if you does not quote me but state your opinion and explain it. It would be the first time after all that you describe it en detail.

[User1420]

Concerning the German grammar: look here and here.

Unlike English, which has lost almost all forms of declension of nouns and adjectives, German still inflects nouns, adjectives and pronouns into four grammatical cases. The cases are the nominative (Nominativ/Werfall), genitive (Genitiv/Wessenfall), dative (Dativ/Wemfall), and accusative (Akkusativ/Wenfall). The case of a particular noun depends on the grammatical function of the noun in the sentence.

The grammar gender is important when constructing a word in its case because the suffix changes with grammar gender and case.

singular:

• masculine:
  • nominative:
    • der Mann
    genitive:
    • des Mannes
    dative:
    • dem Mann(e)
    accusative:
    • den Mann
  feminine:
  • nominative:
    • die Frau
    genitive:
    • der Frau
    dative:
    • der Frau
    accusative:
    • die Frau
  neuter:
  • nominative:
    • das Kind
    genitive:
    • des Kindes
    dative:
    • dem Kind(e)
    accusative:
    • das Kind

plural:

• masculine:
  • nominative:
    • die Männer
    genitive:
    • der Männer
    dative:
    • den Männern
    accusative:
    • die Männer
  feminine:
  • nominative:
    • die Frauen
    genitive:
    • der Frauen
    dative:
    • den Frauen
    accusative:
    • die Frauen
  neuter:
  • nominative:
    • die Kinder
    genitive:
    • der Kinder
    dative:
    • den Kindern
    accusative:
    • die Kinder

That is supposed to show how complex the German language is compared with the English language. And it does not stop at the nouns and articles. It is the same with the German pronouns. There is no way to speak German without deciding for a grammar gender.

[User1420]

And because Serafina has argued several times with his human rights, I decided to post that:

It is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights from 1998:

• • • • • Summary:
          Whether respondent State has a positive obligation to recognise for legal purposes new sexual identities of applicants, both male to female post-operative transsexuals. The first applicant, Miss Kristina Sheffield. At birth the applicant was registered as being of the male sex. Prior to her gender reassignment treatment she was married. In 1986 the first applicant began treatment at a gender identity clinic in London and, on a date unspecified, successfully underwent sex reassignment surgery and treatment. She changed her name by deed poll to her present name. The change of name was recorded on her passport and driving licence. Miss Sheffield refers to the difficulties which she has encountered as a result of her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery and her subsequent change of sex. She states that she was informed by her consultant psychiatrist and her surgeon that she was required to obtain a divorce as a precondition to surgery being carried out. Following the divorce, the applicant's former spouse applied to the court to have her contact with her daughter terminated. The applicant states that the judge granted the application on the basis that contact with a transsexual would not be in the child's interests. The applicant has not seen her daughter since then, a period of some twelve years. Since she continues under United Kingdom law to be regarded as male she was obliged to give her sex as male. The applicant maintains that her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery has resulted in her being subjected to discrimination at work or in relation to obtaining work. She is a pilot by profession. She states that she was dismissed by her employers in 1986 as a direct consequence of her gender reassignment and has found it impossible to obtain employment in the respondent State in her chosen profession. She attributes this in large part to the legal position of transsexuals in that State.
          
          The second applicant, Miss Rachel Horsham, is a British citizen born in 1946. She has been living in the Netherlands since 1974 and acquired Netherlands citizenship by naturalisation in September 1993. The second applicant was registered at birth as being of the male sex. She states that from an early age she began to experience difficulties in relating to herself as male and when she was twenty-one she fully understood that she was a transsexual. She left the United Kingdom in 1971 as she was concerned about the consequences of being identified as a transsexual. Thereafter she led her life abroad as a female. On 24 August 1992 Miss Horsham obtained an order from the Amsterdam Regional Court that she be issued a birth certificate by the Registrar of Births in The Hague recording her new name and the fact that she was of the female sex. The birth certificate was issued on 12 November 1992. In the meantime, on 11 September 1992 and on production of the court order, the British consulate issued a new passport to the applicant recording her new name and her sex as female. On 15 November 1992 the second applicant requested that her original birth certificate in the United Kingdom be amended to record her sex as female. By letter dated 20 November 1992, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) replied that there was no provision under United Kingdom law for any new information to be inscribed on her original birth certificate. Miss Horsham states that she is forced to live in exile because of the legal situation in the United Kingdom. She has a male partner whom she plans to marry. She states that they would like to lead their married life in the United Kingdom but has been informed by the OPCS by letter dated 4 November 1993 that as a matter of English law, if she were to be held to be domiciled in the United Kingdom, she would be precluded from contracting a valid marriage whether that marriage "took place in the Netherlands or elsewhere".
          
          The European Court of Human Rights observes that it is common ground that the applicants' complaints fall to be considered from the standpoint of whether or not the respondent State has failed to comply with a positive obligation to ensure respect for their rights to respect for their private lives. The Court reiterates that the notion of "respect" is not clear-cut, especially as far as the positive obligations inherent in that concept are concerned: having regard to the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion's requirements will vary considerably from case to case. It is to be noted that in applying the above principle in both the Rees and Cossey cases, the Court concluded that the same respondent State was under no positive obligation to modify its system of birth registration in order to allow those applicants the right to have the register of births updated or annotated to record their new sexual identities or to provide them with a copy birth certificate or a short-form certificate excluding any reference to sex at all or sex at the time of birth. The Court notes that in its Cossey judgment it considered that there had been no noteworthy scientific developments in the area of transsexualism in the period since the date of adoption of its Rees judgment which would compel it to depart from the decision reached in the latter case. As to legal developments occurring since the date of the Cossey judgment, the Court in the B. case stated that there was, as yet, no sufficiently broad consensus among the member States on how to deal with a range of complex legal matters resulting from a change of sex. In the view of the Court, the applicants have not shown that since the date of adoption of its Cossey judgment in 1990 there have been any findings in the area of medical science which settle conclusively the doubts concerning the causes of the condition of transsexualism.
          
          The Court would add that, as at the time of adoption of the Cossey judgment, it still remains established that gender reassignment surgery does not result in the acquisition of all the biological characteristics of the other sex despite the increased scientific advances in the handling of gender reassignment procedures. As to legal developments in this area, the Court has examined the comparative study which has been submitted by Liberty. However, the Court is not fully satisfied that the legislative trends outlined by amicus suffice to establish the existence of any common European approach to the problems created by the recognition in law of post-operative gender status. The Court is accordingly not persuaded that it should depart from its Rees and Cossey decisions and conclude that on the basis of scientific and legal developments alone the respondent State can no longer rely on a margin of appreciation to defend its continuing refusal to recognise in law a transsexual's post-operative gender. For the Court, it continues to be the case that transsexualism raises complex scientific, legal, moral and social issues, in respect of which there is no generally shared approach among the Contracting States. It cannot be denied that the incidents alluded to by Miss Sheffield were a source of embarrassment and distress to her and that Miss Horsham, if she were to return to the United Kingdom, would equally run the risk of having on occasion to identify herself in her pre-operative gender. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that an individual may with justification be required on occasion to provide proof of gender as well as medical history. This is certainly the case of life assurance contracts which are uberrimae fidei. It may possibly be true of motor insurance where the insurer may need to have regard to the sex of the driver in order to make an actuarial assessment of the risk.
          
          The Court observes also that the respondent State has endeavoured to some extent to minimise intrusive enquiries as to their gender status by allowing transsexuals to be issued with driving licences, passports and other types of official documents in their new name and gender, and that the use of birth certificates as a means of identification is officially discouraged. Having reached those conclusions, the Court cannot but note that despite its statements in the Rees and Cossey cases on the importance of keeping the need for appropriate legal measures in this area under review having regard in particular to scientific and societal developments, it would appear that the respondent State has not taken any steps to do so. The fact that a transsexual is able to record his or her new sexual identity on a driving licence or passport or to change a first name are not innovative facilities. They obtained even at the time of the Rees case. Even if there have been no significant scientific developments since the date of the Cossey judgment which make it possible to reach a firm conclusion on the aetiology of transsexualism, it is nevertheless the case that there is an increased social acceptance of transsexualism and an increased recognition of the problems which post-operative transsexuals encounter. Even if it finds no breach of Article 8 in this case, the Court reiterates that this area needs to be kept under review by Contracting States.
          
          For the above reasons, the Court considers that the applicants have not established that the respondent State has a positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to recognise in law their post-operative gender. Accordingly, there is no breach of that provision in the instant case. The Court recalls that the right to marry guaranteed by Article 12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex. This appears also from the wording of the Article which makes it clear that Article 12 is mainly concerned to protect marriage as the basis of the family. Furthermore, Article 12 lays down that the exercise of this right shall be subject to the national laws of the Contracting States. The limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. However, the legal impediment in the United Kingdom on the marriage of persons who are not of the opposite biological sex cannot be said to have an effect of this kind.
          
          The Court recalls further that in its Cossey judgment it found that the attachment to the traditional concept of marriage which underpins Article 12 ECHR provides sufficient reason for the continued adoption by the respondent State of biological criteria for determining a person's sex for the purposes of marriage, this being a matter encompassed within the power of the Contracting States to regulate by national law the exercise of the right to marry. In light of the above considerations, the Court finds that the inability of either applicant to contract a valid marriage under the domestic law of the respondent State having regard to the conditions imposed by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 cannot be said to constitute a violation of Article 12 ECHR. The Court is not persuaded that Miss Horsham's complaint raises an issue under Article 12 which engages the responsibility of the respondent State since it relates to the recognition by that State of a post-operative transsexual's foreign marriage rather than the law governing the right to marry of individuals within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it cannot be said with certainty what the outcome would be were the validity of her marriage to be tested in the English courts. The Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 12.
          
          The Court reiterates that Article 14 affords protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention. However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of this Article. Instead, it must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment, and that there is no reasonable or objective justification for this distinction. Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law. The Court notes that it has already concluded that the respondent State has not overstepped its margin of appreciation in not according legal recognition to a transsexual's post-operative gender. In reaching that conclusion, it was satisfied that a fair balance continues to be struck between the need to safeguard the interests of transsexuals such as the applicants and the interests of the community in general and that the situations in which the applicants may be required to disclose their pre-operative gender do not occur with a degree of frequency which could be said to impinge to a disproportionate extent on their right to respect for their private lives. Those considerations, which are equally encompassed in the notion of "reasonable and objective justification" for the purposes of Article 14 ECHR, must also be seen as justifying the difference in treatment which the applicants experience irrespective of the reference group relied on. The Court concludes therefore that no violation has been established under this head of complaint.

According to that decision, the human rights code did not require legal recognition of new sexual identity and that any inconvenience did not amount to a denial of rights.

It may be that since 1998 the court has changed its opinion. But I do not know such thing - what may have something to do with the fact that I didn't look for it. I found that decision per accident and thought that it is interesting.

[Serafina]

The problem is that your post - although I believe that I understand it - does not really explain why I should ignore sex and focus solely on gender instead of considering both, each when appropriate.

WILGA, you still do not give any reason why we should ignore gender, either.
And you WOULD ignore gender, don't try to deny that. Someones biology is not important when you interact them on a normal base, it only matters in a very limited set of circumstances, such as medicine or perhaps when it directly affects other people (when you have an infectious disease, when you want a partner with whom you can have a child etc.)
Unless you are telling me that you value someones biology more than their personality when you interact with them, your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Given that German and European law disagrees with you (that, when i doubt, gender is more important), you are arguing uphill. YOU have to show that it is morally right to ignore a persons wishes and gender identity and to focus solely on their sex.

Your entire argument is based on semantics - literary.
As i said before, it goes "i can not change my mind about someone. I assume that this applies to everyone else without evidence. I claim that my language has no concept of gender and that that justifies my inability to change my mind.
Therefore, Serafina is a man for me".
Sorry, that's no coherent argument. I would not even call it an argument at all.
Your assertion that other people are unable to change their mind is wrong - generally everyone i know below the age of ~30 changed his or her mind about me, with exceptions on either side.
Your assertion that the german language has no concept of gender is ALSO wrong - insubstantial things such as behavior can be labeled "männlich" oder "weiblich" as well, and what is that label if not one of gender?
Your assertion that i am male is also wrong - it disagrees with german law, psychology and common sense (you do not look at someones genome unless you are a doctor).
And in all three cases, i AM treated as female - i got mail from the Amtsgericht München that was adressed for "Frau XXX YYY", the reports my psychologists writes address me solely as female (albeit with an Aktennotiz for my current legal status) and pretty much everyone i interact with treats me as female as well.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. You do not have any aside from appealing to biology and semantics - neither is proof for anything but itself (you can prove that part of me is biologically male, but not that i am completely male).

Oh, and in case you are appealing to "your current legal status is still male":
First of all, that is still rude. This forum is intended to be polite.
Second of all, that will change completely within at most the next seven months - afer that, not only my first name but also my birth certificate will be changed.


Now some tidbits i just want tp rip apart.

I thought that is exactly what I tried to explain. Even people who have factual knowledge about gender beside their experienced knowledge about the existence of sex usually can't see any relevance in it because they are not really accustomed to it. For them it is like a seldom peculiar sickness from which they know that it exists but has no relevance for them.

Au contraire - everyone has experience with gender. We constantly label behavior as male or female, and most people have experience with their own gender identity. They might now know about the concept, but they already have experience with it (you do not need theoretical knowledge to have practical experience).
Once you explain the concept of gender, most people get it. Those who don't are generally bigots who do not WANT to get it.
And such an explanation is rather easy - mostly like:
"There is male and female behavior. In your case, gender and sex just happen to be the same. But don't you agree that ones sex does not determine ones gender? And that we should force no one to do so? And behavior defines who we are. But if you constantly treat a man like a woman or vice versa, isn't that harmful? Would you want that?
Since behavior defines identity, i AM female. And treating me otherwise is simply rude".
MOST people get that. Those who don't tend to be
-sexists
-Ultra-conservative or Nazis
-Ultra-Feminists
-Very old people
-deeply religious, mostly catholic

It is similar with your example with the growing child. That a child grows up is normal. Every child grows up (unless it dies before). That development is expected. A change of sex (if there is such thing at all because gender ≠ sex) is not expected.

And your child being gay is mostly not expected either.
Therefore, if you despise your child for being gay, it's not your fault but his or hers.

And that a girl that behaves like a boy would be still addressed like a girl as long as it is known that the girl is a girl, was already said by Mr. Oragahn.

Not if he doesn't want to be treated as a girl. Simply asking is, well, simple - and never a bad idea.
At least by me and decent people.

And yes, it is right that a girl without a "pathological condition" may desire to be taken as male in some social contexts. But that girl is not a transsexual and does not have a masculine gender.

Oh, really?
Most women just don't want to be discriminated against. Nearly none want to enter the "male world" completely. Unless you can present evidence that there is a significant number of them - and if it is a small number, how do you know that they are not actually mildly transsexual?

And I have no problem that someone - regardless if that someone is a transsexual or not - wishes to cross over social gender lines. I hope that I have made that more than clear. But gender ≠ sex.

And tolerance=/=acceptance. And not actually tolerance, either.
Because you do NOT tolerate my wishes. My wish is to be treated according to my gender. You are ignoring it.
If your approach was the law, i could NOT live as a woman. Oh, sure, perhaps in my free time - but not in daily life. Or do you think i would be allowed to work as a woman without support by the law? Or that i would get into woman-only locations after my SRS if my ID-card said male? Or should they check my genitalia?
The current system works. For everyone except bigots. Your system wouldn't - it would create a lot of problems that are not there right now and would not solve many that are currently solved.

Or when you said that it is quite likely, in your opinion, that if I were to come upon a herd of young students after the performance of the friend of Serafina I would hear a wide range of pronouns and pronouncements, some of them male, some of them female, some of them mixed and confused. That is possible. But who is right? And why should those, who are using the female grammar gender for that transman be forced to use a male grammar gender. They haven't chosen it to insult someone. They have chosen it because that was natural for them. They saw someone who looked like a man. In that moment they would have used a male grammar gender when speaking with or about that person. But then they learned that this person is a woman who looks like a man. And their natural reaction was to choose a female grammar gender. That hasn't happened out of disrespect because they do not disrespect woman. To use a feminine grammar gender is not derogatory. But if Serafina could decide, these students would be punished.

But it IS disrespectful. And if they are not aware of it, the lecture would be sloppy. Oh, why do you call it an "performance" anyway - do you think it's some kind of dance-show? My guess is that that was a freudian slip.
Either way - it IS disrespectful since they both ignore his wishes AND identity. You do not do that if you respect a person. Are you sure that you know the meaning of that word?

My opinion still is that there is gender and that there is sex. Both are important in certain circumstances. A person's gender is a part of their personality and dignity. To deny a person their inherent gender means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality. But a person's sex is a part of their personality and dignity too and to deny a person their inherent sex means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality too.

Really? Your genetics are a major part of your identity and dignity?
Get out! That's NOT the case - most people do not even KNOW their genetic code.
And given that the whole rest of the biology IS female (unless you appeal to naturality) - yes, it can be part of a transwomans identity without problems.
You are reducing a transsexual person to her genetics. That is disgusting and degrading.

And the main question is still not really answered. Does the average citizen know about the meaning of gender when it is not used to denote the condition of being male or female? Because, if gender has no relevance to the average citizen, how can it be part of their thoughts and language?

You don't have much imagination, do you?
The "average citizen" does not have to know. When he sees me, he sees a woman.
He sees a female appearance and female behavior.
How the heck should he know my genetic code? Unless someone like you forces me to carry a document that states it, that is.
The average citizen can know nothing about gender and he will still treat me as female - because that's all he sees.

I think it would be better if you does not quote me but state your opinion and explain it. It would be the first time after all that you describe it en detail.

Yes. Please post a detailed description of how you would treat transsexual people legally.
Because you have not done that yet.

[Serafina]

Concerning the German grammar: look here and here.

You are doing it wrong.
The question is not "is there a rigorous rule for gender pronouns".
The question is "is there a concept of gender in the german language".

Well - there IS.
If a language has a concept of gender, it can label things as "male" or "female" even if those things have no physical gender (or are just insubstantial concepts).
The german language does that all the time. You even demonstratethat yourself. Gender concepts are applied to concepts or objects all the time - and we label behavior according to gender all the time? How should that be possible if our language had no concept of gender?
You are basically conveniently forgetting that the german word "Geschlecht" can mean both sex AND gender. You only use the first definition and ignore the latter.

Your own source states:

The grammatical gender of a German noun is not necessarily the actual gender of the corresponding real-life object.

Of course, if we follow that logic, i can call you female as well. But this applies only to OBJECTS or concepts.
I am neither.
Therefore:

Nouns denoting a person, such as die Frau ("woman") or der Mann ("man"), generally agree with the natural gender of what is described.

You simply have no basis to declare that the german language is incapable or addressing someone according to his gender or that it has no concept of gender.

Given that nearly your whole argument was "german language can not address you according to your gender, since it has no concept of gender", it simply fails - because the german language HAS such a concept, and an intelligent, educated native speaker should know that. The german language is perfectly capable of addressing someone according to her or his gender - people are doing it all the time in real life.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Concerning the German grammar: look here and here.

Unlike English, which has lost almost all forms of declension of nouns and adjectives, German still inflects nouns, adjectives and pronouns into four grammatical cases. The cases are the nominative (Nominativ/Werfall), genitive (Genitiv/Wessenfall), dative (Dativ/Wemfall), and accusative (Akkusativ/Wenfall). The case of a particular noun depends on the grammatical function of the noun in the sentence.

The grammar gender is important when constructing a word in its case because the suffix changes with grammar gender and case.

singular:

• masculine:
  • nominative:
    • der Mann
    genitive:
    • des Mannes
    dative:
    • dem Mann(e)
    accusative:
    • den Mann
  feminine:
  • nominative:
    • die Frau
    genitive:
    • der Frau
    dative:
    • der Frau
    accusative:
    • die Frau
  neuter:
  • nominative:
    • das Kind
    genitive:
    • des Kindes
    dative:
    • dem Kind(e)
    accusative:
    • das Kind

plural:

• masculine:
  • nominative:
    • die Männer
    genitive:
    • der Männer
    dative:
    • den Männern
    accusative:
    • die Männer
  feminine:
  • nominative:
    • die Frauen
    genitive:
    • der Frauen
    dative:
    • den Frauen
    accusative:
    • die Frauen
  neuter:
  • nominative:
    • die Kinder
    genitive:
    • der Kinder
    dative:
    • den Kindern
    accusative:
    • die Kinder

That is supposed to show how complex the German language is compared with the English language. And it does not stop at the nouns and articles. It is the same with the German pronouns. There is no way to speak German without deciding for a grammar gender.

There's no way to cut. The only time I think this is easy stuff is when I remember my latin classes.

[Serafina]

And because Serafina has argued several times with his human rights, I decided to post that:

It is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights from 1998:

First of all, you should not that that decision is using the correct address.
In other words, it contradicts you. Again, you completely ignore that.


You will also note one major reason for the decision:

For the Court, it continues to be the case that transsexualism raises complex scientific, legal, moral and social issues, in respect of which there is no generally shared approach among the Contracting States

Yes, part of the reason for that decision is that there is no "shared approach" within the EU.
The court also states that something should be done in that matter, but that there is simply not enough evidence to decide yet.

Even if there have been no significant scientific developments since the date of the Cossey judgment which make it possible to reach a firm conclusion on the aetiology of transsexualism, it is nevertheless the case that there is an increased social acceptance of transsexualism and an increased recognition of the problems which post-operative transsexuals encounter. Even if it finds no breach of Article 8 in this case, the Court reiterates that this area needs to be kept under review by Contracting States.

You will also note that the court decides based on the ECHR (European charcter of human rights), and that the wording of the decision also establishes that there is not human right for gay marriage:

For the above reasons, the Court considers that the applicants have not established that the respondent State has a positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to recognise in law their post-operative gender. Accordingly, there is no breach of that provision in the instant case. The Court recalls that the right to marry guaranteed by Article 12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex. This appears also from the wording of the Article which makes it clear that Article 12 is mainly concerned to protect marriage as the basis of the family. Furthermore, Article 12 lays down that the exercise of this right shall be subject to the national laws of the Contracting States. The limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. However, the legal impediment in the United Kingdom on the marriage of persons who are not of the opposite biological sex cannot be said to have an effect of this kind.

For anyone who is interested, here are articles 8 and 12:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Is it really that much of a wonder that the current situation is not basis to declare a human rights violation? Especially one for the whole of europe?

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

And again - is it a surprise that this was not sufficient?


The core of the decision is that this is, right now, a matter for the member states to decide:

The Court recalls further that in its Cossey judgment it found that the attachment to the traditional concept of marriage which underpins Article 12 ECHR provides sufficient reason for the continued adoption by the respondent State of biological criteria for determining a person's sex for the purposes of marriage, this being a matter encompassed within the power of the Contracting States to regulate by national law the exercise of the right to marry.

In other words, german law trumps european law in this case.
And german law grants me fully female rights, which other states have to recognize.


AT NO POINT THIS DECISION AGREES WITH YOU.
In fact, it DISAGREES with you, since it is treating both transwomen as fully female.
Again, you ignore the contents of your own evidence.

[Who is like God arbour]

Wow, Serafina needed only 49 minutes and 22 seconds to reply to my post.

And already the first sentence of him shows that there really is no sense in debating with him:

• • • The problem is that your post - although I believe that I understand it - does not really explain why I should ignore sex and focus solely on gender instead of considering both, each when appropriate.
      

      • • • • • • • [list][list][list][...]

My opinion still is that there is gender and that there is sex. Both are important in certain circumstances. A person's gender is a part of their personality and dignity. To deny a person their inherent gender means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality. But a person's sex is a part of their personality and dignity too and to deny a person their inherent sex means depriving them of their dignity and calling into question their personality too.[/quote]
WILGA, you still do not give any reason why we should ignore gender, either.[/quote][/list][/list][/list]

Beware! That strawman is so dry that it could easily catch fire.









Between my second post and Serafina's reply passed only 31 minutes and 28 seconds.

And nothing of relevance was written.

There is nothing that wasn't already addressed, especially concerning the difference between the grammar gender of things and categories and the grammar gender of individuals.

A proof that in the German language or any other language a grammar gender is chosen that correspondents with people's gender and not with their sex was again and as usual not provided.









And between my third post and Serafina's reply passed only 42 minutes and 12 seconds.

And again, nothing of relevance was written.

Serafina claimed several times that my opinion violates European Law.

I provided a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which showed that the human rights code of the European Convention on Human Rights did not require legal recognition of new sexual identity and that any inconvenience did not amount to a denial of rights.

The European Convention provides the highest degree of individual protection of all international human rights agreement.

The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive "interpretation" by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.

And yet, the European Court of Human Rights couldn't determine that transsexuals have a right for legal recognition of their new sexual identity. Yes, states can recognise such things. But it is not the European Convention on Human Rights that forces them. It is voluntary. And to not recognise them does not amount to a denial of any human rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights.

And what is Serafina's conclusion: The decision contradicts me, does at no point agrees with me and treats transwoman as fully female.




It's downright preposterous.