San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Metaphor]

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.

Being forced to utter a pronoun that is not in accordance with somebody's sex but in accordance with their 'gender identity' is being forced to agree with that person's self-assessment of their personality.

A woman in the UK who was assaulted by a transwoman was denied victim compensation because the woman did not use the transwoman's preferred pronouns in court. That is the government forcing people to behave in a certain way. You will see this transwoman as a woman, and even if you don't, you will utter the pronouns that show that deference.

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.

You might have a point, Rhea, if women in the 1970s made the forced use of titles and honorifics the policy of the State.

Yet, apart from my year 6 teacher scolding me for calling her 'Mrs' instead of 'Ms', I don't recall being prosecuted for it.

So, if you think 'Ms' is the correct title for you, it is indeed no skin off my nose. Just don't force other people to use it. You are not entitled to their perceptions.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Is there some unscientific belief Metaphor has that trans people are required to pretend to agree with? Or does this business of requiring some people to give lip service to other people's unevidenced opinions go in only one direction? Because if that's how it works, that imputes hierarchy and rank. You don't get to have everyone equal and also enforce the progressive stack.

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.

You want to call Metaphor a dick, knock yourself out. You try to deprive him of his civil rights for calling you Miss or Mrs., you've put yourself in the wrong. See how free speech works?

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

Where do We Graces draw the line? "Your Grace," even if capitalized, does not dictate reverence or deference, right?

My Grace may as well show My Grace's own new pronouns now. Please address My Grace in the second-person as "Your Grace." When using the first-person plural for a group which includes My Grace please write "we graces" or "our graces." My Grace will call myself "My Grace."

"His Grace" is the proper 3rd-person pronoun for My Grace. "Her Grace" is also acceptable as sometimes My Grace thinks of myself as a lesbian trapped in a male body.

If 'Grace' is judged to be too reverential by the pronoun police, I'll substitute 'Grape.'

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

At the very least they are being shitty.

In some cases they MAY be commiting Libel or Slander.

So yes, depending on how or where it is religious persecution.

Were someone to say it in the town square of a place pursuant to a lynching it would be incitement of a mob.

Also, you should learn to go into text mode and delete extraneous quote markups...

Outing people is dangerous, and constitutes a social attack which is generally prelude to a physical attack.

In fact when people play the "No-True-Scotsman" game, generally the solution is to shout down whoever is committing the fallacy.

Worry about yourself, not others. Be better than the ones who denied gays existed. Don't become part of the same cycle that hurt you.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Facts provide disinterested evidence and reason. Your assertions are neither.

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.

Any sect that has power can do that. Certainly your sect of gender ideology has and continues to do so.

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'.

Yet here you are railing against an income maintenance program in a different country in a different hemisphere.

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.

My goodness - how about Laws against transgender athletes competing

 

[senor boogie woogie]

I have wondered for a long time, why does San Francisco have such weird people? If someone was weird, come to San Francisco. People with weird sexual habits, Satanists, Hare Krishnas, drug users, gurus, and weirdos. Jim Jones of the People's Temple was a Housing Commisioner there and had power before he ran off the Guyana with the kool aid drinkers. Why there? It is a beautiful city (or it was) but the really weird ruined the place. There is no other city like it. Actually the weirdness of the place was fun for a lot of years, but San Francisco used to have real police who prevented crime and BS. But the city is now ruled by weird people, who consider defication on the sidewalks, open heroin, crack and fentanyl markets and legal theft a legal right. The weird has gotten dangerous there. A shame.

 

[Patooka]

I have wondered for a long time, why does San Francisco have such weird people? If someone was weird, come to San Francisco. People with weird sexual habits, Satanists, Hare Krishnas, drug users, gurus, and weirdos. Jim Jones of the People's Temple was a Housing Commisioner there and had power before he ran off the Guyana with the kool aid drinkers. Why there? It is a beautiful city (or it was) but the really weird ruined the place. There is no other city like it. Actually the weirdness of the place was fun for a lot of years, but San Francisco used to have real police who prevented crime and BS. But the city is now ruled by weird people, who consider defication on the sidewalks, open heroin, crack and fentanyl markets and legal theft a legal right. The weird has gotten dangerous there. A shame.

You really do just live, eat and breathe on stereotypes, don't you?

 

[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.

At the very least they are being shitty.

No. Merely uttering your own beliefs about the world is not 'being shitty'.

In some cases they MAY be commiting Libel or Slander.

So yes, depending on how or where it is religious persecution.

Please show me a case. I would be fascinated to read the circumstances.

But I do not believe there to be any such case.

Were someone to say it in the town square of a place pursuant to a lynching it would be incitement of a mob.

Also, you should learn to go into text mode and delete extraneous quote markups...

I do it all the time. I have deleted hundreds of extraneous quote markups.

Outing people is dangerous, and constitutes a social attack which is generally prelude to a physical attack.

Using pronouns without consulting the object of the pronouns, as the entire world did millions of times a day without a second thought until 2015, is not an attack, social or physical. Neither is it outing people.

But, your repeated travels on this rhetorical road are telling: you are afraid that if people were to discover that a transman who was otherwise passing had a vagina, the illusion would be shattered. That some people would not think that person was a man any more. You are right, of course, and that's the point. Maleness and femaleness are about sexed bodies, in humans and the entire animal kingdom.

In fact when people play the "No-True-Scotsman" game, generally the solution is to shout down whoever is committing the fallacy.

Worry about yourself, not others. Be better than the ones who denied gays existed. Don't become part of the same cycle that hurt you.

I don't think many people denied gays existed. If they thought gays didn't exist, they wouldn't have had laws criminalising gay (male) behaviour.

 

[TomC]

I have wondered for a long time, why does San Francisco have such weird people?

Because San Francisco has a very Christian culture.

They're very big on stuff like "What you do for the Least you do for Me." "We're all God's Children!". That sort of thing. It's still a big city in the USA, so there's gonna be problems.
But whether poor folks from Central America or people with weird sexual/orientation issues, San Francisco has a reputation for being the most Christ-like culture in this Christian nation.

The problem I see is that modern American Christians have forgotten Jesus's Teachings and stick with the sort of teachings they get from people like Donald J Trump.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Facts provide disinterested evidence and reason. Your assertions are neither.

The selection of clients targeted by this program is possible only under the framework provided by gender ideology.

Any sect that has power can do that. Certainly your sect of gender ideology has and continues to do so.

Yes, the gender ideologists have power and are forcing their ideology on me. I am glad we agree.

You claim I am part of a 'sect' of gender ideology that 'has power'. What are the beliefs of my sect, and how have we forced other people to behave under threat of State violence? Be specific.

Yet here you are railing against an income maintenance program in a different country in a different hemisphere.

Of course I am. The program is a direct manifestation of the State power that the gender ideologists have.

Not only can they force you to utter things you disagree with, they can spend your money to benefit their favoured group, too!

My goodness - how about Laws against transgender athletes competing

No law has ever banned a transgender athlete from competing.

But, I'll give you this. If the belief that sports were segregated by sex for a reason is a 'gender ideology', then it's true I cannot escape your label.

I do believe, in fact, that sports were segregated by sex because there are physical differences between the sexes that would make it unfair for males to play with females.

 

[pood]

Yes, the gender ideologists have power and are forcing their ideology on me.

It is precisely the opposite. The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology. They have science on their side. You don’t. You have a gender ideology, and you are trying to force it on everyone else.

 

[Metaphor]

It is precisely the opposite. The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology.

Of course they do. One aspect of their ideology that individuals get to choose the pronouns that other people use for them, and if you do not comply, the State will punish you for it.

They have science on their side.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the science period where we were taught how English language pronouns operate not on the basis of sex of the subject, but on thoughts in the subject's head, and how this is important enough that the State should punish people for failing to do so.

You don’t. You have a gender ideology, and you are trying to force it on everyone else.

Oh yes: explain to me what my 'gender ideology' is forcing you to do, and how I am forcing you to do it.

 

[laughing dog]

Facts provide disinterested evidence and reason. Your assertions are neither.

The selection of clients targeted by this program is possible only under the framework provided by gender ideology.

That is true for any program. For example, the WIC program in the US.

Yet here you are railing against an income maintenance program in a different country in a different hemisphere.

Of course I am. The program is a direct manifestation of the State power that the gender ideologists have.

Not only can they force you to utter things you disagree with, they can spend your money to benefit their favoured group, too!

Really, how do you survive such a dismal landscape?

My goodness - how about Laws against transgender athletes competing

No law has ever banned a transgender athlete from competing.

Ah, back to pedantry to support your gender ideology. This is why it is hard to take your whinging seriously.

But, I'll give you this. If the belief that sports were segregated by sex for a reason is a 'gender ideology', then it's true I cannot escape your label.

I do believe, in fact, that sports were segregated by sex because there are physical differences between the sexes that would make it unfair for males to play with females.

You can preach your ideology to those who give care.

You still have yet to make a logical and compelling. argument for your ridicule of the San Francisco program. "Waaaahhh,to nasty gender ideologists who upset me caused this program" is neither a logical nor a compelling argument.

.

 

[Metaphor]

That is true for any program. For example, the WIC program in the US.

Of course that is false. WIC:

aims to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutrition risk

The program requires frameworks for sex, age, income levels and nutrition risk to target its clients. The program would operate just fine without any enquiry into the 'gender' of any of its clients.

Ah, back to pedantry to support your gender ideology. This is why it is hard to take your whinging seriously.

Pushing back on the lies and rhetorical sleights-of-mouth perpetrated by gender ideologists is not pedantry.

You can preach your ideology to those who give care.

Permission!

You still have yet to make a logical and compelling. argument for your ridicule of the San Francisco program. "Waaaahhh,to nasty gender ideologists who upset me caused this program" is neither a logical nor a compelling argument.

I don't think the State should discriminate by 'gender identity' when deciding to whom it gives welfare.

 

[ZiprHead]

(mostly unexplained)

 

[ZiprHead]

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

What is gender ideology and how was it used to create this program?

 

[TomC]

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

What is gender ideology and how was it used to create this program?

Anyone who says they're trans is a victim and has entitlement the rest of us do not.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

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

What is gender ideology and how was it used to create this program?

I've already explained many of the beliefs and values of gender ideologists. But I doubt your enquiry is good faith, especially given your post #195

 

[laughing dog]

That is true for any program. For example, the WIC program in the US.

Of course that is false. WIC:

aims to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutrition risk

The program requires frameworks for sex, age, income levels and nutrition risk to target its clients. The program would operate just fine without any enquiry into the 'gender' of any of its clients.

More pedantic hair-splitting.

Ah, back to pedantry to support your gender ideology. This is why it is hard to take your whinging seriously.

Pushing back on the lies and rhetorical sleights-of-mouth perpetrated by gender ideologists is not pedantry.

No one lied. Your pedantic hair-splitting is evidence of the paucity of your reasoning.

You still have yet to make a logical and compelling. argument for your ridicule of the San Francisco program. "Waaaahhh,to nasty gender ideologists who upset me caused this program" is neither a logical nor a compelling argument.

I don't think the State should discriminate by 'gender identity' when deciding to whom it gives welfare.

Certainly not a compelling argument at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

A woman in the UK who was assaulted by a transwoman was denied victim compensation because the woman did not use the transwoman's preferred pronouns in court.

The trans person who committed the assault was fined 430 pounds. It's not up to the criminal court to compensate the victim. That's done by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Your story is bullcrap.