San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Metaphor]

I understand why it is important to be seen and acknowledged for who you are if you’ve spent most of.your life being forced to hide important parts of yourself.

So, because of the feelings of your favoured group, you believe it is justified to force others, under power of State violence, to utter things they do not believe.

 

[Toni]

I understand why it is important to be seen and acknowledged for who you are if you’ve spent most of.your life being forced to hide important parts of yourself.

So, because of the feelings of your favoured group, you believe it is justified to force others, under power of State violence, to utter things they do not believe.

Huge leap off a tall cliff there.

Maybe try developing a little empathy

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe try developing a little empathy

Start with the woman in the mirror, Toni.

 

[Derec]

That is a funny way of admitting your error and moving on by shoveling even more bullshit irony.

Errors and bullshit are on your side. Just admit you misread, grinning hound, and move on.

Discrimination in gov't benefits is okay - ever hear of WIC? That doesn't mean every form of distinguishing eligible recipients is okay.

How does WIC (for all its problems) justify giving guaranteed income to trans people?

To answer your 2nd question, it would depend on the circumstances and purposes.

In other words, you think some racial and sex discrimination is ok, as long as groups the Left likes (like blacks or trans) get special treatment. Again, how is that different than what Jim Crow was doing?

You are too late on that one. WIC is still a program and clearly distinguishes eligibility based on sex and age.

If there is illegitimate discrimination in WIC it should be reformed. How does that justify giving guaranteed income to trans people?

But according to you, that discriminates against the able-bodied. Apparently you agree that it is okay to distinguish between potential recipients as long as you approve of the criteria.

You are playing semantic games here. When we talk about discrimination, what is usually meant is discrimination using illegitimate criteria. There are legitimate criteria, and illegitimate criteria. It is illegitimate to discriminate by things like race or sexual orientation. Especially if you are trying to use illegitimate criteria as a crude proxy for legitimate ones. Like saying trans people are more likely to be homeless, so give them money - never mind that most trans people are not homeless and that most homeless people are not trans. Same with my hypothetical analogy about Italian-Americans (randomly chosen group for the analogy) and disability. Disability payments are ok, giving payments based on ethnicity would be not.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. There is nothing in the program that says it will be given to any transgender person. You have no idea whether the resulting recipients actually need help or not.

What about people who need help who are not trans? Why not just help people who need help instead of playing identity politics?

 

[Derec]

Sounds like it's means tested to me.

Thanks. Still does not justify giving it to only trans people though.

 

[Derec]

I don't know if you really believe that everybody who lives in San Francisco is all woke and rainbow wearing antiracist liberal feminists but that clearly is not so.

They pride themselves on being woke. Do you have any evidence SF employers or apartment complexes for example discriminate against trans people? And if they do, maybe the city should crack down on that instead of discriminating on the basis on gender identity themselves.

Here's a study about discrimination against trans individuals in the San Francisco area:

As you said, SF Bay Area. Which is much bigger than the City and County of San Francisco. That is one problem with that study as it relates to your point. The other, more serious, problem is that it entirely relies on self-reporting. The numbers do not really add up.

Third problem is that it seems like a left-wing woke "study". The lead author uses words like "intersectional stigma" in her bio. The intro also uses two cases of murdered trans women but neither case is a hate crime - one was a robbery gone wrong and the other seems to be a domestic with drugs like crack involved. Also neither case is anywhere near SF. If hate crimes against trans people were as widespread as this study claims, why were they not able to come with better examples, or some within the area of the study? '

A high proportion of trans women experienced a transphobic hate crime,

Or at least said they have. And even if most of them experienced being the victim of a crime, how do they know the motive of the perp? Without that, you cannot establish that it is a hate crime.

Interventions that address structural factors, especially among trans women of color, can yield violence prevention benefits.

What does that even mean?

You (and I) do not actually know whether or not the UBI grants are means tested but I am certain that there are trans individuals who are high achieving.

Apparently they are (thanks Bomb!). Still does not justify a city like SF discriminating by gender identity.

 

[laughing dog]

That is a funny way of admitting your error and moving on by shoveling even more bullshit irony.

Errors and bullshit are on your side. Just admit you misread, grinning hound, and move on.

More bullshit irony.

Discrimination in gov't benefits is okay - ever hear of WIC? That doesn't mean every form of distinguishing eligible recipients is okay.

How does WIC (for all its problems) justify giving guaranteed income to trans people?

In other words, you think some racial and sex discrimination is ok, as long as groups the Left likes (like blacks or trans) get special treatment.

It really takes an effort to come up with such a straw man.

Again, how is that different than what Jim Crow was doing?

Already answered that. While I understand why a white nationalist would persist in asking that question after it had been answered, I don’t understand why you would.

You are playing semantic games here. When we talk about discrimination, what is usually meant is discrimination using illegitimate criteria. There are legitimate criteria, and illegitimate criteria….

I agree. We disagree that this specific criteria is necessarily illegitimate.

What about people who need help who are not trans? Why not just help people who need help instead of playing identity politics?

This is a very limited program that cannot help everyone. You’d have to ask SF gov’t about why. Your complaint about identity politics is more bullshit irony.