San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Metaphor]

You don't have a right to say "you're not Christian", even when someone has a right to say it of themselves.

Wow, you don't? So when non-Catholic Christians say Catholics are not Christians, they are breaking the law in America?

Fascinating.

 

[laughing dog]

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

It is true you have made your risible affirmation. But it is difficult for me to accept such an irrational viewpoint from such a rational poster as a serious one.

When detransitioners come out in larger numbers, whose bodies have been irreversibly disfigured, medically and surgically, by the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When the number of women getting raped by men in prison predictably rises due to the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When people are forced by the government to affirm the narcissistic demands of the gender specials or face State punishment, (as they already do in many jurisdictions), you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When women predictably lose sports prizes and athletic scholarships, and women's health care is compromised, due to the incoherent and nonsensical substitution of gender for sex from the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

None of which are the result or tied to this program.

I have told you more than once, gender ideology caused this program.

That is hand-waving. Providing income maintenance to the transgendered need not have been prompted by gender ideology of which you disapprove.

It is the result of gender ideology. The program would be impossible, in fact, without the framework imposed by gender ideologists.

More irrational hand-waving. Identification of a disadvantaged group and providing some relief does not require a special ideology. Are you under the delusion that there would be no transgendered people in the San Francisco area without promotion of your unapproved gender ideology?

But you appear to contradict yourself, because certainly you as a gender ideologist do not approve of such a program. And before you deny the obvious, you are clearly promoting your version of the appropriate gender ideology.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

Ludicrous. Of course it is discrimination: a different criterion is used for males than is used for females.

It is, in fact, the same reason that forbidding same-sex unions discriminated by sex. Males were allowed a different choice of partners to females, based entirely on their sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination -- at least according to the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. That was the law of the land until 1967, when Earl Warren and a unanimous court recognized it as sophistry and reversed it. You are trying to resurrect that form of argument, exactly as Sam Alito tried to in Bostock. His dissent got no takers except Clarence Thomas.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

Ludicrous. Of course it is discrimination: a different criterion is used for males than is used for females.

What different criterion do you think is used?

 

[laughing dog]

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination -- at least according to the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. That was the law of the land until 1967, when Earl Warren and a unanimous court recognized it as sophistry and reversed it. You are trying to resurrect that form of argument, exactly as Sam Alito tried to in Bostock. His dissent got no takers except Clarence Thomas.

Until you can show your analogy is valid (that the reasoning is similar) this is just more sophistry.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there is a majority of SCOTUS justices who seem particularly vulnerable to Alito's sophistry.

 

[Metaphor]

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

It is true you have made your risible affirmation. But it is difficult for me to accept such an irrational viewpoint from such a rational poster as a serious one.

When detransitioners come out in larger numbers, whose bodies have been irreversibly disfigured, medically and surgically, by the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When the number of women getting raped by men in prison predictably rises due to the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When people are forced by the government to affirm the narcissistic demands of the gender specials or face State punishment, (as they already do in many jurisdictions), you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When women predictably lose sports prizes and athletic scholarships, and women's health care is compromised, due to the incoherent and nonsensical substitution of gender for sex from the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

None of which are the result or tied to this program.

I have told you more than once, gender ideology caused this program.

That is hand-waving. Providing income maintenance to the transgendered need not have been prompted by gender ideology of which you disapprove.

It is the result of gender ideology. The program would be impossible, in fact, without the framework imposed by gender ideologists.

More irrational hand-waving. Identification of a disadvantaged group and providing some relief does not require a special ideology.

The very conception of the program would be impossible. To be eligible, you have to have some sort of thought in your head that in some (mostly unexplained) way conflicts with the sex that was observed and recorded for you at birth.

Are you under the delusion that there would be no transgendered people in the San Francisco area without promotion of your unapproved gender ideology?

There would be some people with body dysphoria who are a subset of the people included under the trans 'umbrella' now. There would be other people - who have no body dysphoria at all who would not be included.

This program -- for which eligibility is partly based on the thoughts in your head about your personality-- could not have been dreamt up without the gender ideology framework.

But you appear to contradict yourself, because certainly you as a gender ideologist do not approve of such a program. And before you deny the obvious, you are clearly promoting your version of the appropriate gender ideology.

I suppose asking others not to force their religion on me is an ideology.

 

[blastula]

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

Ludicrous. Of course it is discrimination: a different criterion is used for males than is used for females.

What different criterion do you think is used?

Metaphor's confused there, but it is discrimination based on gender, since cisgenders are not allowed.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

Ludicrous. Of course it is discrimination: a different criterion is used for males than is used for females.

What different criterion do you think is used?

I just explained it to you. I literally just explained it to you.

Males: You are eligible for this program if you have thought "not M" in your head.

Females: You are eligible for this program if you have thought "not F" in your head.

 

[laughing dog]

I've explained the probl

Are you under the delusion that there would be no transgendered people in the San Francisco area without promotion of your unapproved gender ideology?

There would be some people with body dysphoria who are a subset of the people included under the trans 'umbrella' now. There would be other people - who have no body dysphoria at all who would not be included.

This program -- for which eligibility is partly based on the thoughts in your head about your personality-- could not have been dreamt up without the gender ideology framework.

You are showing a complete lack of that famous imagination of yours. The program might have been developed without your disapproved gender ideology but it probably would not have been as extensive.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

Ludicrous. Of course it is discrimination: a different criterion is used for males than is used for females.

What different criterion do you think is used?

I just explained it to you. I literally just explained it to you.

Males: You are eligible for this program if you have thought "not M" in your head.

Females: You are eligible for this program if you have thought "not F" in your head.

Fascinating. In the first part of your response, you show no imagination, but here it is spectacular.

But you appear to contradict yourself, because certainly you as a gender ideologist do not approve of such a program. And before you deny the obvious, you are clearly promoting your version of the appropriate gender ideology.

I suppose asking others not to force their religion on me is an ideology.

You suppose wrong. You are asserting a gender ideology. You want others to adopt it.

 

[Metaphor]

You are showing a complete lack of that famous imagination of yours. The program might have been developed without your disapproved gender ideology but it probably would not have been as extensive.

It would not be the same program. It certainly could not target its preferred clients without the framework of gender ideology.

Fascinating. In the first part of your response, you show no imagination, but here it is spectacular.

How kind.

You suppose wrong. You are asserting a gender ideology. You want others to adopt it.

Evidently you do not understand how words work in English. Let's say I have a gender ideology and I declare it and I want others to adopt it. I attempt to persuade them of my alleged ideology by talking to people about it. In what universe is that forcing it on them?

Yet, the gender ideologists not only want to force people, they have the power of the State and use it to enforce their ideology.

They also have significant non-State power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If you don't care about somebody's gender why is it of any relevance what they call themselves?

 

[Bomb#20]

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination -- at least according to the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. That was the law of the land until 1967, when Earl Warren and a unanimous court recognized it as sophistry and reversed it. You are trying to resurrect that form of argument, exactly as Sam Alito tried to in Bostock. His dissent got no takers except Clarence Thomas.

Until you can show your analogy is valid (that the reasoning is similar) this is just more sophistry.

Are you seriously unable to see the similarity of the reasoning in

"Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination."

and

"Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination."?

Pattern-matching is the brain capability underlying all of thought.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there is a majority of SCOTUS justices who seem particularly vulnerable to Alito's sophistry.

Depressing, isn't it? So why are you vulnerable to the same sophistry?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

If you don't care about somebody's gender why is it of any relevance what they call themselves?

What on earth makes you imagine this dispute is about what any people call themselves?

If Jews want to call themselves "God's Chosen People", that's no skin off Metaphor's nose. But if a bunch of self-anointed "Jews' Allies" ordered Metaphor to start calling Jews "God's Chosen People", that would probably rile him up a bit, make him feel his free speech rights were being infringed on, get his back up, and make him even less likely to call them that than he was before. Wouldn't that get your back up too?

 

[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.

If you don't care about somebody's gender why is it of any relevance what they call themselves?

It isn't. I have never asked somebody's 'gender', including the 'gender' of the men whose dicks I've sucked.

I don't care what narcissism you engage in about yourself. But don't force me to participate. Don't force your gender pronoun prayers from my lips. Note that you, Loren, have expressed support for State violence against those who refuse to utter the gender pronoun prayers.

You also approve of putting males in female single-sex spaces, single-sex spaces from which women cannot leave (prison), based on the 'gender' of the male who has been placed there.

That you have the hide to tell me I'm worried about what people call themselves. I cannot even.

 

[Toni]

The fact is that transgender individuals experience homelessness at very high rates, (17 times as much) compared with the general population and transgender individuals experience harassment at far greater than average rates when they stay in shelters.

They are twice as likely to be unemployed and poor.

I can see why this group might be a good place to start

 

[laughing dog]

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination -- at least according to the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. That was the law of the land until 1967, when Earl Warren and a unanimous court recognized it as sophistry and reversed it. You are trying to resurrect that form of argument, exactly as Sam Alito tried to in Bostock. His dissent got no takers except Clarence Thomas.

Until you can show your analogy is valid (that the reasoning is similar) this is just more sophistry.

Are you seriously unable to see the similarity of the reasoning in

"Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination."

and

"Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination."?

Your argument fails because in Loving, it is discrimination to keep a white person from marrying a black person. There is nothing analoguous in the income maintenance argument.

Pattern-matching is the brain capability underlying all of thought.

Nope - the patterns are not the same (see above).

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there is a majority of SCOTUS justices who seem particularly vulnerable to Alito's sophistry.

Depressing, isn't it? So why are you vulnerable to the same sophistry?

It is depressing given the number of terrible SCOTUS decisions. But since my argument is not that same as Alito's sophistry, you are mistaken about my vulnerability.

 

[laughing dog]

You are showing a complete lack of that famous imagination of yours. The program might have been developed without your disapproved gender ideology but it probably would not have been as extensive.

It would not be the same program. It certainly could not target its preferred clients without the framework of gender ideology.

I am impressed with your strength because all of your hand-waving makes my arms tired.

You suppose wrong. You are asserting a gender ideology. You want others to adopt it.

Evidently you do not understand how words work in English. Let's say I have a gender ideology and I declare it and I want others to adopt it. I attempt to persuade them of my alleged ideology by talking to people about it. In what universe is that forcing it on them?

I do understand English which is why I know that ideology does not require forcing anyone to believe it. So why are you babbling about forcing or not forcing ideology on others in this discussion? I am not forcing you to believe or say anything. I am simply pointing out that
1) you are over-reacting, and
2) you are trying to re-institute your gender ideology.

Yet, the gender ideologists not only want to force people, they have the power of the State and use it to enforce their ideology.

They also have significant non-State power.

Up until recently, your sect of gender ideologists had exclusive power of the state and used it to enforce your ideology. Now your sect doesn't. They also had (and still have ) significant non-State power.

 

[Metaphor]

You are showing a complete lack of that famous imagination of yours. The program might have been developed without your disapproved gender ideology but it probably would not have been as extensive.

It would not be the same program. It certainly could not target its preferred clients without the framework of gender ideology.

I am impressed with your strength because all of your hand-waving makes my arms tired.

The program is not possible except under the framework of gender ideology. That is not handwaving; it is fact.

I do understand English which is why I know that ideology does not require forcing anyone to believe it.

The gender ideologists are forcing people to behave in a certain way signalling belief in their ideology.

Of course the gender ideologists cannot force me to believe, any more than a Christian can force me to believe in her god. But a gender ideologist who has the reigns of power - both State and non-State - can certainly force their gender ideology on me by requiring certain behaviours from me. And they already do. This isn't a hypothetical. This is already happening.

So why are you babbling about forcing or not forcing ideology on others in this discussion? I am not forcing you to believe or say anything. I am simply pointing out that
1) you are over-reacting, and
2) you are trying to re-institute your gender ideology.

My gender ideology is 'don't force me to participate in your religion, thanks'.

Up until recently, your sect of gender ideologists had exclusive power of the state and used it to enforce your ideology. Now your sect doesn't. They also had (and still have ) significant non-State power.

Oh yes, what did my 'sect' do to enforce their gender ideology? Be specific. Be specific about the State power of the sect I am part of, and what they forced people to do.

 

[Rhea]

If you don't care about somebody's gender why is it of any relevance what they call themselves?

What on earth makes you imagine this dispute is about what any people call themselves?

If Jews want to call themselves "God's Chosen People", that's no skin off Metaphor's nose. But if a bunch of self-anointed "Jews' Allies" ordered Metaphor to start calling Jews "God's Chosen People", that would probably rile him up a bit, make him feel his free speech rights were being infringed on, get his back up, and make him even less likely to call them that than he was before. Wouldn't that get your back up too?

This analogy is inapt.

The choice “God’s Chosen People” is not in any way analogous to “she/her”.
The reason all of us would object to being required to call some one or some group “God’s Chosen People” is because it imputes hierarchy and rank. It expects reverence and deference. It is reasonable to object to that.

Obviously being he/him or she/her does not impute any of those things.

I recall when a bunch of men (meaning, several millions of them, back in the 70s) were incensed at having to call women “Ms.” instead of Miss or Mrs. It was no skin off their noses, they were just being dicks trying to claim that they had a right to define women instead of the women defining themselves. This sounds a lot like that, to me.