San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Toni]

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

The United States of America is NOT a Christian nation.

Please see the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[pood]

Maybe you need a new arbiter.

Your desire to control the perceptions of others has already been noted.

I wasn’t trying to control your perceptions. Just making a suggestion that you find an outside party to control them, since you aren’t doing a very good job of it yourself.

Note, too, of course, that you are seeking to control the perceptions of trans people by denying the validity of their own self-perceptions. At least your diet isn’t irony-deficient.

 

[thebeave]

Now try answering the question asked.

I did.
The answer to the question "What does trans ideology mean?" is "If someone identifies as trans they are entitled to stuff the rest of us aren't. Including victim status.".

Post #203.
It's right there.
Tom

Yup. Family Guy gets it:

 

[Metaphor]

I wasn’t trying to control your perceptions. Just making a suggestion that you find an outside party to control them, since you aren’t doing a very good job of it yourself.

I disagree, and I will not be taking your unsolicited advice.

Note, too, of course, that you are seeking to control the perceptions of trans people by denying the validity of their own self-perceptions.

There is no positive moral obligation on me to affirm somebody else's self-perception, and I'm sorry that you think there is.

EDIT: Also, if your self-perception as faegender is 'controlled' because I used pronouns that refer to your sex, then your self-perception is extraordinarily fragile as well as being incoherent.

 

[TomC]

Jan? That’s mainly a woman’s name. Why are you misgendering me?

He was imitating @ZiprHead .

Sure, Jan.

Metaphor has a clearly labeled gender. You don't.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor has a clearly labeled gender. You don't.
Tom

I do not, unless my view on the website is different from other people's views. There should be nothing in my profile about 'gender'.

 

[TomC]

Metaphor has a clearly labeled gender. You don't.
Tom

I do not, unless my view on the website is different from other people's views. There should be nothing in my profile about 'gender'.

Oops.
There used to be.
Not that I paid much attention. Your gender isn't a question to me.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Oops.
There used to be.

My entry caused a problem with the powers that be, so it's gone.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jan? That’s mainly a woman’s name. Why are you misgendering me?

He was imitating @ZiprHead .

Sure, Jan.

Metaphor has a clearly labeled gender. You don't.
Tom

I was imitating Metaphor.

 

[TomC]

I was imitating Metaphor.

Why, you two could almost be twins!
Bless your hearts...

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I was imitating Metaphor.

Why, you two could almost be twins!
Bless your hearts...

Tom

I don't need to imitate a metaphor.

I'm the real deal.

 

[Jarhyn]

But I do not believe there to be any such case

History is littered enough to cover the ground we all walk on with the corpses of with folks murdered over what religion they were and what religion they were not.

Accusations that people were not Jewish, accusations that people were not Christian, accusations that people were not Muslim,
Accusations that people were not atheist.

Your desire to be pedantic makes you miss the metaphor. Ironically. So very ironically.

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

"All the time" is not good enough. Perhaps try "every time" or even "every third time"?

@RayJ is great but he's not a god...

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.

Yes, it is.

For a long time society didn't see myriad of things as problematic until society did see it.

And it wasn't the entire world without thought.

And yes, it is outing people if you know and being presumptuous and insulting when you don't.

I don't think many people denied gays existed.

Are you shitting me? Yes they denied homosexual attraction, "being gay", existed. Generally they thought it was just a pernicious habit, a way people irrationally rebelled against God and if they just opened the Bible they would see they weren't actually gay.

For many, it was thought of as just one of any number of sins people could randomly get addicted to without God. That was how I was brought up, what I was taught!

There was an entire industry about "pray away the gay", denying the existence of homosexuality.

There's even hilarious song about it in "The Book of Mormon".

As to the rest of your night soil...

The fact is that people today treat gender differently than the people of yesteryear.

In the past people only generally acknowledged only the "position". They had little experience of people who would journey across, and zero experience of any way to even try. Most people were already at A "destination", even if it is not where they would have preferred to have gone.

Today, we have more freedom to travel as it were. We can realize more than position. We can realize a path, and a journey, and even chart a course before any journey for good or ill is even embarked.

So instead, we treat people as they ask to be treated, with the pronouns they requested rather than something to be foisted upon them.

You are not required to feel attracted to people who lack what you consider important "masculine" traits, but you have no right to call them women for it.

I get it, you want to be able to talk about people's bodies instead of their minds or choices in fashion or their art or their ideal of self. It's your life, hold opinions as droll as you see fit, but you won't make many friends and you won't get along very well if you refuse to acknowledge that people have right to determine for themselves things such as the ideal self strive to become.

I would hazard that those who are old and alone find themselves that way because rather than seeing who someone strives to be, seeing them for their ideal self, they choose to only see a body first young but one which will later be old and decayed.

 

[Metaphor]

History is littered enough to cover the ground we all walk on with the corpses of with folks murdered over what religion they were and what religion they were not.

I did not ask for your amateur history of religious persecution.

I asked where and when it was illegal in America for somebody to say 'Catholics are not Christians'.

"All the time" is not good enough. Perhaps try "every time" or even "every third time"?

It may surprise you to learn you're not the boss of me.

And yes, it is outing people if you know and being presumptuous and insulting when you don't.

"Outing people" if I know....know what, Jarhyn?

Using sexed pronouns without consulting the subject of the pronouns is a sign you know the sex of the subject, that's true. Because people do know other people's sex. On sight, or from brief interaction. And when they don't know the sex, a sex-neutral pronoun is generally used ("Somebody left their laptop in the meeting room").

If you are insulted that I can identify your sex, and that, as per the development of the English language, I use pronouns consistent with your sex, I'm sorry you feel insulted but there's nothing I can do about my magickal sex-identifying abilities and you should revise what you feel insulted by. I do not feel insulted when people correctly identify that I am extremely tall.

Are you shitting me?

No I'm not into that.

Yes they denied homosexual attraction, "being gay", existed. Generally they thought it was just a pernicious habit, a way people irrationally rebelled against God and if they just opened the Bible they would see they weren't actually gay.

For many, it was thought of as just one of any number of sins people could randomly get addicted to without God. That was how I was brought up, what I was taught!

How sad for you.

There was an entire industry about "pray away the gay", denying the existence of homosexuality.

Your reasoning is incoherent. You cannot pray away something you think doesn't exist.

<incoherent waffle about journeys>

So instead, we treat people as they ask to be treated, with the pronouns they requested rather than something to be foisted upon them.

You can do that, if you wish. I have no positive moral obligation to indulge other people's self-perception of their personality.

You are not required to feel attracted to people who lack what you consider important "masculine" traits, but you have no right to call them women for it.

I have every right, and increasingly the moral duty, to call adult human females, women.

How any human acts has never, and could never, ever influence what sex they are. No woman, no matter how masculine she is, can ever be a man. If your body was organised around the sex that produces large sessile gametes (something that happens in utero and is a fixed historical event that cannot be changed) then you are female. If your body was not organised so, you are male.

I get it,

You don't.

you want to be able to talk about people's bodies instead of their minds or choices in fashion or their art or their ideal of self. It's your life, hold opinions as droll as you see fit, but you won't make many friends and you won't get along very well if you refuse to acknowledge that people have right to determine for themselves things such as the ideal self strive to become.

I'm all for people becoming their ideal selves. But I have no positive moral obligation to deny reality to affirm your self-perception.

I would hazard that those who are old and alone find themselves that way because rather than seeing who someone strives to be, seeing them for their ideal self, they choose to only see a body first young but one which will later be old and decayed.

Well, yes, your telomeres have been shortening since conception. But you're still either male or female, and mammals cannot change their sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology. They have science on their side.

Intoning the word "science" is not what it takes to have science on your side.

 

[Metaphor]

The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology. They have science on their side.

Intoning the word "science" is not what it takes to have science on your side.

It's such a bizarre notion.

In what universe does 'science' tell us which property of an object determines correct pronoun usage for that object?

In what universe does 'science' tell us that sports should be segregated by 'gender identity'?

In what universe does 'science' tell us what the State should compel people to say?

 

[Derec]

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

It's like if you were running a poll for mayor of SF and only polled trans people. Do you think that would be transferable to population at large, or would you be better advised to run a random sample of some kind?

 

[Derec]

Selecting ANY group is discriminatory.

So don't select a group.

 

[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?

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.

I've said it before, and I keep saying it over and over again. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I did not assume anything. I was directly replying to Toni who called in an "experiment" and a "study". I added the emphasis.
In her response, she was also incredulous as to why such a non-random sample would not be transferable to the population at large.

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?

So I guess you saw no problem with Jim Crow laws either, since "gov’t policies usually discriminate on some basis".
If discriminating against trans people is wrong, then so is discriminating against cis people.

 

[Derec]

I retired from a job with a round trip of 100 miles/day.

That is far more than most. I wasn't talking about anything close to that.
SF is roughly a square seven miles to a side. That limited area is not only a major reason for real estate crunch (similar to Manhattan, which is an island) but also the relatively small size means that any commute >10 or so miles into the city will be from outside the city limits.

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

I do not think it is legitimate for government to discriminate by race or sex/gender identity.
This is the same conceptual problem undergirding racial preferences. Just because blacks may be more likely to be disadvantaged, does not mean all of them are, or that whites and Asians are advantaged. Race is a poor proxy for lack of advantage, as racial preferences help the kid of a black doctor, lawyer or corporates executive get into college over the child of a poor Appalachian white coal miner or of an Asian restaurant worker.
Same thing here. Trans people might be, on average, more likely to be disadvantaged, by why use such a crude proxy, except for ideological reasons? You are then liable to give free money to a trans person making $100k while passing over a cis one making a third that.

And all that because contemporary progressivism (so-called!) is obsessed with the idea of identity politics - even to the point of overriding individual circumstances.

 

[Toni]

Selecting ANY group is discriminatory.

So don't select a group.

Sure, but that's not really how studies are designed.

By selecting limiting parameters for a group (and then another and another...) one can start to tease out whether specific characteristics of the group affected the outcomes and which. Essentially, this is a small study and this is the group they decided to study first.

If random people all over had been chosen, it would be much more difficult to determine if the money benefited the recipients: helped them secure stable housing, for instance, or made them less food insecure.

I understand you don't like that particular group of people but I understand why they chose that group: it has a very high rate of unemployment and homelessness and also a high rate of victimization by violent crime.