San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[pood]

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Forced affirmartion? Do tell. Who is forcing you to affirm transgenderism, whatever that would even mean, and how are they forcing you? You are just talking bullshit, of course.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've never told somebody what their gender is, or asked somebody what their gender is. I could not care less.

But of course you deeply care, as exposed by your posts on this subject and the links you provide.

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

You are being forced into what religion, and exactly how are you being forced?

If you actually care to know, I can count and list the ways.

First, my own government punishes people for 'misgendering'. Being forced to participate in your pronoun prayers is forcing me to participate in your religion.

That doesn't make it a religion.

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Yet you don't seem to have with the gay ideology affirmed by law.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never told somebody what their gender is, or asked somebody what their gender is. I could not care less.

But of course you deeply care, as exposed by your posts on this subject and the links you provide.

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

And there it is, the science denial.

Ah yes. The alleged "science denial".

In what universe is saying "I don't care about your gender or what you have to say about it", "science denial"?

Is that really all you do?

If people kept their self-appraisal of their personalities to themselves, I would have nothing to say about their self-appraisal.

If people did not demand (via force) I use pronouns that correspond to their self-appraisal of their personality, I would have nothing to say about the use of pronouns.

If people did not demand access to single-sex spaces for which they do not and cannot ever qualify for, I would have nothing to say about their 'gender'.

If adults had not decided that a psychological disorder causing somebody to feel alienated from their healthy body parts should be treated by cutting off that body part instead of fixing their intrusive thoughts, I'd have nothing to say.

If people had not decided to attempt to erase the reality of same-sex attraction by replacing it with 'same-gender' attraction, I would have nothing to say about their delusion.

Hell, I would even let the gender ideologists redefine the words 'man' and 'woman' to refer to gender, if they had any shame at all about interfering in the sex preferences of others, and the exclusivity of some spaces by sex (sports, prisons, sex on premises venues). Yet the gender ideologists objected like hell when a gay man wanted a 'male only' campground that was not open to trans men.

So, as long as the gender ideologists insist on interfering with me, I will defend myself.

 

[Metaphor]

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Forced affirmartion? Do tell. Who is forcing you to affirm transgenderism, whatever that would even mean, and how are they forcing you? You are just talking bullshit, of course.

When I am required by law (as I am in Australia) to use the pronouns somebody imagines explains their personality, I am forced to affirm them.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never told somebody what their gender is, or asked somebody what their gender is. I could not care less.

But of course you deeply care, as exposed by your posts on this subject and the links you provide.

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

You are being forced into what religion, and exactly how are you being forced?

If you actually care to know, I can count and list the ways.

First, my own government punishes people for 'misgendering'. Being forced to participate in your pronoun prayers is forcing me to participate in your religion.

That doesn't make it a religion.

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Yet you don't seem to have with the gay ideology affirmed by law.

What gay ideology affirmed by law?

 

[Metaphor]

I've never told somebody what their gender is, or asked somebody what their gender is. I could not care less.

But of course you deeply care, as exposed by your posts on this subject and the links you provide.

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

You are being forced into what religion, and exactly how are you being forced?

If you actually care to know, I can count and list the ways.

First, my own government punishes people for 'misgendering'. Being forced to participate in your pronoun prayers is forcing me to participate in your religion.

Really? The government punishes you for misgendering? How is that? Which government?

My own government, in the ACT, in Australia.

What kind of punishment? Jail? Hard labor? Death?

No, but they can demand a public apology (more forced affirmation) and fines.

Australia does not have hard labour or death as penalties to any crime.

What are ”pronoun prayers”?

Pronoun prayers arise from the belief that pronouns for humans rightly refer to 'gender', and not sex. This is at odds with the history of the English language and at odds with most other languages as well, as far as I can tell. But, unlike the English-speaking left-wing language imperialists who want to impose their gender ideology on, for example, Spanish-speaking cultures, I'm not going to tell speakers of other languages what they should do when speaking that language.

I am not interested in your self-assessed personality, or in affirming it by being forced to utter pronouns you choose for yourself. You don't get to choose your own pronouns. Pronouns are for others to refer to you. You are the accusative-case object in the sentence. You don't get to tell the subject what to do.

Can you recite one for me? You think transgenderism is a religion? Can you point out their chruches or tremples?

I could tell you what happens to detransitioners when they try to leave the church. But don't let me tell you. Listen to the experience of detransitioners.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's certainly true I have a sex-role (or gender) if that is defined by forces external to myself. There is no doubt that I am male and males have certain expected roles in society based on their sex as male.

But an 'internal sense of my gender'? I still don't know what that means.

So, if you don't know what it means, how can you deny or confirm that you have it? Just asking questions.

Perhaps somebody could explain what it means to have an 'internal sense of gender', and I can tell you whether I have it.

I did explain it. It's an ideal you form in your head and attempt to emulate in your life.

Do you have such an ideal which you wish to align in your head?

I already explained this in the post you mostly didn't read.

 

[Metaphor]

It's certainly true I have a sex-role (or gender) if that is defined by forces external to myself. There is no doubt that I am male and males have certain expected roles in society based on their sex as male.

But an 'internal sense of my gender'? I still don't know what that means.

So, if you don't know what it means, how can you deny or confirm that you have it? Just asking questions.

Perhaps somebody could explain what it means to have an 'internal sense of gender', and I can tell you whether I have it.

I did explain it. It's an ideal you form in your head and attempt to emulate in your life.

Do you have such an ideal which you wish to align in your head?

I already explained this in the post you mostly didn't read.

My question was asked of laughing dog, not to you. Your conception of 'internal sense of gender' is not necessarily the same as laughing dog's conception.

As for your conception: what makes an 'ideal you form in your head' a 'gender identity'? What does calling it a gender identity add?

Here's an ideal: I strive to believe as many true things as possible, and to not believe things that are not true. (Of course, I have lots of other ideals too). What is my gender? Is this in conflict with my sex that was observed and recorded at birth? Would it be in conflict with my sex if I were female? What could it even mean for my 'gender' and sex to not align (and therefore be trans?)

If that's what you think gender is, and you demand other people affirm your beliefs, then gender ideology is even more clearly a religion that has no place in the secular business of State.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’m curious about Metaphor’s fixation with transgendered people, and his linking to a right-wing rag such as the one in the OP.

Actually, I’m not curioius enough to ask him directly. It’s more in the way of a rhetorical question.

It is the latest thing. It was gay marriage, then gays in general, inter-racial marriage, blacks in public schools with white kids, the Jews, eugenics, slavery....

Transgender is just the latest thing that is becoming acceptable that is pissing off conservatives because their vision of the world... only has enough room for certain types of people.

 

[Jarhyn]

what makes an 'ideal you form in your head' a 'gender identity'?

You and I both recognize that enforcing sex essentialism is wrong (you have loudly accused me of being sex essentialist, in a context which implies it is in some way bad).

This would be "placing expectations on others", or some such, as LD considered gender (in the post I was replying to, in fact to disagree with LD).

I might note that reducing it to the genitals would be an essentialization again of whatever it is gender is expected to be. Yet again this is sex essentialism!

This corners gender to an image not enforced by others or essential to some proxy (gonads) but something formed from within, where behavior happens. Gonads don't create behavior, they at best allow hormones to place weight on the thing that does: the brain.

When observing how people treat matters of gender, they say that the pronouns are theirs; that they are the users of the pronouns, not that the pronouns are the pronouns for "all people like them".

Where would such a thing, such a model for being come from but from within, if we are to reject essentialism, this idea that one thing (behavior) is essentially linked to some other thing (gonads or w/e)?

When I say "gender" that is what I have always meant by it, and the way people use words is what gives them meaning. Using "gender" that way is enough to give it that meaning.

It is a common enough usage that at least three other posters liked what I had to say on the matter.

What does calling it a gender identity add?

In some ways it's what calling it a "gender identity" subtracts. It subtracts a lot of more complicated words and compresses them into a two word term for "subset of self-image ideals with regards to posturing with regards to sexual and sex-adjacent behaviors".

It lets me say "an identity" (a self-image ideal) with regards to "gender" (the subject of posturing with regards to sexual and sex-adjacent behaviors). There may be ways to say that with less than that many words but certainly no better way to say it than to say "gender identity" or simply just "gender".

It comes down to whether the person who holds the ideal declares this ideal that they pursue "he/him", "she/her", "they/them" or something that is perhaps unreasonable at this point in time owing to the glacial rate at which culture changes.

 

[Metaphor]

what makes an 'ideal you form in your head' a 'gender identity'?

You and I both recognize that enforcing sex essentialism is wrong (you have loudly accused me of being sex essentialist, in a context which implies it is in some way bad).

This would be "placing expectations on others", or some such, as LD considered gender (in the post I was replying to, in fact to disagree with LD).

All the more reason I should ask what people mean when they say 'gender identity'.

I might note that reducing it to the genitals would be an essentialization again of whatever it is gender is expected to be. Yet again this is sex essentialism!

I have never 'reduced' sex to genitals, much less 'gender identity', which is a thought in your head.

This corners gender to an image not enforced by others or essential to some proxy (gonads) but something formed from within, where behavior happens. Gonads don't create behavior, they at best allow hormones to place weight on the thing that does: the brain.

When observing how people treat matters of gender, they say that the pronouns are theirs; that they are the users of the pronouns, not that the pronouns are the pronouns for "all people like them".

Pronouns are not theirs. You do not determine what pronouns other people use for you (well, thugs do, because they use force to get people to comply). Your pronouns are 'he' if your body was organised around producing small motile gametes and 'she' if it was not.

Where would such a thing, such a model for being come from but from within, if we are to reject essentialism, this idea that one thing (behavior) is essentially linked to some other thing (gonads or w/e)?

When I say "gender" that is what I have always meant by it, and the way people use words is what gives them meaning. Using "gender" that way is enough to give it that meaning.

It is a common enough usage that at least three other posters liked what I had to say on the matter.

Appeal to popularity is usually an informal fallacy but ironically enough, language is in fact determined by popular use. But the coterie of like-minded believers who 'liked' your post is no indication of wider usage or acceptance.

What does calling it a gender identity add?

In some ways it's what calling it a "gender identity" subtracts. It subtracts a lot of more complicated words and compresses them into a two word term for "subset of self-image ideals with regards to posturing with regards to sexual and sex-adjacent behaviors".

So now you've made it more specific. The ideals are 'sex adjacent'?

So, what is my gender identity, then? You seem sure that I have one. And, whatever you come up with, if I disagree, will you respect my disagreement, or will you in fact decide for yourself what my gender identity is?

It lets me say "an identity" (a self-image ideal) with regards to "gender" (the subject of posturing with regards to sexual and sex-adjacent behaviors). There may be ways to say that with less than that many words but certainly no better way to say it than to say "gender identity" or simply just "gender".

It comes down to whether the person who holds the ideal declares this ideal that they pursue "he/him", "she/her", "they/them" or something that is perhaps unreasonable at this point in time owing to the glacial rate at which culture changes.

I wouldn't volunteer your heresy to the fae/fers in your life, Jarhyn.

 

[Derec]

It's pretty easy to say that 'no one is forced to live inside the city limits where prices are high' if you don't take into consideration exactly what it means to live at a distance from where you work---which may be the only employment you are able to find or only employment that pays sufficiently for you to meet your financial obligations.

Plenty of people commute to work - many drive 15, 20 miles and some drive even more.
Why are trans people so special that taxpayer should subsidize their ability to live inside city limits?

If one lives at a distance from where one works, one must a) have transportation to/from work b) be able to afford transportation to/from work c) take a significant hit to one's available time

Again, many people do that every day. Why are trans people so special that it is somehow unfathomable for them to live in Larkspur and work in SF?

 

[Derec]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

 

[Metaphor]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Indeed, that would be a significantly better experiment, since a defining feature of a universal basic income is that it is universal, and not dependent on having some characteristic that qualifies you.

But then, that's the problem. Toni has mischaracterised what this program is. It's not an experiment. Nobody is making hypotheses or adjusting their familywise error rate or testing anything about a universal basic income. It's a discriminatory, taxpayer-funded circle jerk virtue-signalling vanity project for progressives. And it's the best kind of vanity project: one that's funded by other people's money.

 

[Toni]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Why would it not be transferable to the population at large?

 

[Toni]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Selecting ANY group is discriminatory.

 

[laughing dog]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Your response assumes that a pilot would be used to gather data for a possible general expansion to the entire population. That need not be the case.

As to the rest of your response, gov’t policies usually discriminate on some basis - income, age, and legal status are but a few examples that come to mind. Why should this particular basis be forbidden?

 

[Toni]

It's pretty easy to say that 'no one is forced to live inside the city limits where prices are high' if you don't take into consideration exactly what it means to live at a distance from where you work---which may be the only employment you are able to find or only employment that pays sufficiently for you to meet your financial obligations.

Plenty of people commute to work - many drive 15, 20 miles and some drive even more.
Why are trans people so special that taxpayer should subsidize their ability to live inside city limits?

If one lives at a distance from where one works, one must a) have transportation to/from work b) be able to afford transportation to/from work c) take a significant hit to one's available time

Again, many people do that every day. Why are trans people so special that it is somehow unfathomable for them to live in Larkspur and work in SF?

I retired from a job with a round trip of 100 miles/day. I've taken public transportation to/from work that took me over an hour one way, when I lived in a metropolitan area. I know how expensive it is (when I took public transportation to/from work, it used up my money for lunch. I was pregnant at the time. Not great.) I am very well aware of the issues surrounding getting to/from work over distance, by private vehicle, carpooling, public transportation.

Why not choose trans people? It's a group that is known to face significant issues with regards to employment and income.

 

[Jarhyn]

'gender identity'... is [merely] a thought in your head

Sexuality is only just, as well. So why ought people give credence to it?

Mayhap it be that a thought in one's head, the origin of it, has more bearing on who they are deserves some respect and countenance moreso than the gross and unthinking flesh they did not?

The thoughts in people's heads matter more than the flesh attached to their bodies.

Such is the same disgusting weapon wielded against gay people.

 

[Gospel]

Transgenerism is a mental illness caused by a delusional disorder. this being gender dysphoria, or the delusion that someone is of the opposite gender.

If that's the case, you ought to be happy that California is spending more money to help those with mental illness.