San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Metaphor]

Politesse thinks the collective outcome of employers shows that people think trans people have no right to a life.

That trans people are very, very under-employed compared to their cisgendered counterparts is a fact, not an opinion.

I do not doubt that trans-identified people have both a higher unemployment rate and a higher non-participation rate than non-trans people of the same age range.

I don't think that's because employers have an opinion about whether trans people have a right to live. I think they just don't want to hire trans workers, for any number of reasons. Maybe they are personally offended. Maybe they worry their customers will be. Maybe they're afraid there will liability concerns, extra medical problems, ir that they will ask for more time off. None of it would be a problem if we had a guaramteed income for all citizens -- employers could employ whoever they liked for whatever reason. But we don't. It isn't and shouldn't be up to a business to decide whether it is more profitable to let someone live or let someone die, in the first place. That is the job of society in general, and if we collectively fail, the government has every right to step in with some solution. What solution? That can be discussed. But "let them die" is not an acceptable answer.

You are talking to somebody, Politesse, who wants to live in a post-scarcity society that has a universal basic income for every adult. We don't have that society. But your statement--that there are people who think trans people don't have a right to life--was either hysterical fear-mongering about attitudes to trans people, or a misleading comment that no group has a 'right to life', and that includes trans people.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see what the fuss is about. San Francisco institutes a pilot program of income maintenance (at a low level for up to 55 people) for a group that the city government believes needs help. Either the program is successful and provides useful information for either expansion or other income maintenance programs for those deemed in need.

No one is mandating this program be adopted nationally or internationally. No one is being forced to apply. Taxpayers voted this city government in, and either voters approve or they don't. If they don't, they will have their chances to voice their opposition in meetings, forums and ultimately at the ballot box.

Arguing with someone releasing their emotional bile about this program and making such delusional statements as "nobody was thought to be a gender at birth" or "I don't have a gender" is a waste of effort.

I do not have a gender identity.

I am not going to descend in another boring pedantic rabbit hole of yours.

Of course people have been thought to have a gender at birth. I know I thought each one of my children had a gender at birth.

You knew the sex of your children.

Please stop telling people what they know or knew: it is combination of condecension and stupidity.

I strongly suspect most parents did as well, along with most attending health care professionals. And of course people have genders. Most people's gender is the same as their sex.

Some people would like to be, or be perceived to be, a sex other than they are, and/or are more comfortable with the sex-role assigned to the other sex.

I don't think social sex-roles should be forced upon people, but that does not mean people can opt out of the sex they are, or have any right to be perceived as the sex they are not.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether people have a gender identity.

 

[Metaphor]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether people have a gender identity.

What do you think a gender identity is?

 

[laughing dog]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether people have a gender identity.

What do you think a gender identity is?

I've played this game before with you and it is pointless.

 

[Politesse]

You are talking to somebody, Politesse, who wants to live in a post-scarcity society that has a universal basic income for every adult. We don't have that society

Then how can you possibly justify inaction in the face of broad class of people who are systematically denied an income on the basis of ignorant religious prejudice?

 

[Metaphor]

Then how can you possibly justify inaction in the face of broad class of people who are systematically denied an income on the basis of ignorant religious prejudice?

I disagree with nearly every premise and implication in your question, but your spelling is excellent.

 

[southernhybrid]

If you all are going to discuss a topic like this, I wish the stupid claims that transgenderism isn't supported by the science would stop. It makes some of you look very ignorant. I will post one link to a study that explains one finding that supports that some people's brains don't match up with their physical body parts. I highly suggest that the deniers do their own DD, as there are numerous scientific articles available that show the evidence that supports that transgenderism isn't just a "feeling" or something made up. It's based on a mismatch between body parts and brain matter.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

The linked articles has several other links to more research.


I don't know enough about the situation in SF to have an opinion, but I do support programs that help certain minorities have decent lives. I'll sit back and let the rest of you argue about something that probably doesn't impact a single person on this thread.

 

[blastula]

The technical learning and development specialist who trained me for this job is a fantastic lesbian

Did she win a contest or something?

 

[thebeave]

If you all are going to discuss a topic like this, I wish the stupid claims that transgenderism isn't supported by the science would stop. It makes some of you look very ignorant. I will post one link to a study that explains one finding that supports that some people's brains don't match up with their physical body parts. I highly suggest that the deniers do their own DD, as there are numerous scientific articles available that show the evidence that supports that transgenderism isn't just a "feeling" or something made up. It's based on a mismatch between body parts and brain matter.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

The linked articles has several other links to more research.


I don't know enough about the situation in SF to have an opinion, but I do support programs that help certain minorities have decent lives. I'll sit back and let the rest of you argue about something that probably doesn't impact a single person on this thread.

Maybe I missed it, but who here said "transgenderism isn't supported by the science".

 

[Jarhyn]

If you all are going to discuss a topic like this, I wish the stupid claims that transgenderism isn't supported by the science would stop. It makes some of you look very ignorant. I will post one link to a study that explains one finding that supports that some people's brains don't match up with their physical body parts. I highly suggest that the deniers do their own DD, as there are numerous scientific articles available that show the evidence that supports that transgenderism isn't just a "feeling" or something made up. It's based on a mismatch between body parts and brain matter.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

The linked articles has several other links to more research.


I don't know enough about the situation in SF to have an opinion, but I do support programs that help certain minorities have decent lives. I'll sit back and let the rest of you argue about something that probably doesn't impact a single person on this thread.

Maybe I missed it, but who here said "transgenderism isn't supported by the science".

Literally everyone and anyone who calls the concept of gender "religious", "nonsense" or "made up".

 

[Jarhyn]

But instead of being angry at folks who would hire a meth head fresh off the farm following their third relapse over a guy with bad eyesight, some people want to be mad at trans people.

Oh no! Somebody is giving a chance to drug addicts and not Jarhyn's personal friend who is better than all of them! And somebody on the internet made a post about San Francisco's discriminatory welfare policy instead of being upset about this situation they did not know and has nothing to do with the OP!

Yes. You literally believe people who choose repeatedly to make bad decisions deserve more support and acknowledgement tha people who do good work and get discriminated against on dimensions irrelevant to the question of hiring.

The point is to recognize that there are unproductive biases against people in society which prevent from finding employment.

San Fransisco actually acknowledges that such populations are harmed by the prevalence of anti-trans discrimination, and if you don't like the fact that they need support because they cannot find work, then you can instead offer them real work so they don't need the guaranteed income.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. You literally believe people who choose repeatedly to make bad decisions deserve more support and acknowledgement tha people who do good work and get discriminated against on dimensions irrelevant to the question of hiring.

You have no idea what I believe, literally or otherwise, or you wouldn't repeatedly get it wrong.

The point is to recognize that there are unproductive biases against people in society which prevent from finding employment.

San Fransisco actually acknowledges that such populations are harmed by the prevalence of anti-trans discrimination, and if you don't like the fact that they need support because they cannot find work, then you can instead offer them real work so they don't need the guaranteed income.

The fact that you endorse the State discriminating by gender identity is not a surprise, but it is a new discovery to find out I have a positive obligation to employ trans people in San Francisco so that San Francisco stops discriminating by gender identity.

 

[thebeave]

If you all are going to discuss a topic like this, I wish the stupid claims that transgenderism isn't supported by the science would stop. It makes some of you look very ignorant. I will post one link to a study that explains one finding that supports that some people's brains don't match up with their physical body parts. I highly suggest that the deniers do their own DD, as there are numerous scientific articles available that show the evidence that supports that transgenderism isn't just a "feeling" or something made up. It's based on a mismatch between body parts and brain matter.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

The linked articles has several other links to more research.


I don't know enough about the situation in SF to have an opinion, but I do support programs that help certain minorities have decent lives. I'll sit back and let the rest of you argue about something that probably doesn't impact a single person on this thread.

Maybe I missed it, but who here said "transgenderism isn't supported by the science".

Literally everyone and anyone who calls the concept of gender "religious", "nonsense" or "made up".

Are any of the 97 different genders listed in the SF application "nonsense" or "made up" or are they all "supported by the science"?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Why on earth would you think gender dysphoria is a delusional disorder?

dys·pho·ri·a
noun PSYCHIATRY
a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.

A person being uneasy or generally dissatisfied with his or her gender doesn't imply anything one way or the other as to what gender the person thinks he or she actually is.

"The philosopher tries to prove that pain is an error and once recognized as such should disappear. However, this does not happen." - Nietzsche

 

[Bomb#20]

I would say if people don't want the government printing money and giving it to people, they should quit arbitrarily discriminating against said people, and instead of looking on the government stink-eyed for supporting all it's citizens, to look on the discriminators (who may be themselves) stink-eyed for discriminating, so as to make the support unnecessary.

That's an odd argument to make in support of a government policy that explicitly isn't supporting all its citizens. If a male identifies as female, eligible. If a female identifies as female, ineligible. That's straight up sex discrimination. It's illegal for the government to do that -- it's a 14th Amendment violation.

 

[Derec]

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.

This is less about any "fixation" but rather about blatant discrimination by the government of a major US cities. The article also mentions that SF discriminates on the basis of race in government programs.

I hope some SF residents sue the city.

 

[Derec]

the shitty Randian wasteland that is the San Francisco housing market.

Nobody is forced to live inside the city limits where prices are high. But being trans (or black, in another of Mayor Breed's discriminatory programs) should not entitle you to extra government benefits.

Republicans are the merchants of death.

There aren't that many Republicans in power anywhere in California. The state legislature is 3/4 Democratic for fuck's sake!
You really cannot blame bad things happening in California on those tricksy Republicanses.

Do I think this program is implemented in the best way? Not really. But if the only offered alternative is just "nothing for you", I will defend this legislation to the death. Because it is better than death.

They should be treated like everyone else. No more, no less.

 

[Derec]

I don't see what the fuss is about. San Francisco institutes a pilot program of income maintenance (at a low level for up to 55 people) for a group that the city government believes needs help.

The problem is that it is discriminatory.

 

[Derec]

Did she win a contest or something?

You mean: is she queen of the castle?

 

[Metaphor]

I wish we could have an actual conversation about this topic, as my thoughts on this legislation are complicated. But because we are instead having an argument with anti-trans bigots about whether trans people even exist or have a right to life, a nuanced discussion of whether this law or its execution were the best way to solve the problem its trying to address is impossible,

You are certainly correct that a meaningful discussion is impossible when you believe people believe this.

What the fuck do you think people's income is for? Denying people employment is denying them existence in the shitty Randian wasteland that is the San Francisco housing market.

Why did the Democrats who have run San Francisco for 55 years engineer this "Randian wasteland" of the San Francisco housing market? Or were they simply too incompetent to stop it?

I'm fascinated by your revision to your original post which highlights the multi-decade failures of the progressives who run San Francisco.

EDIT: And California's house and senate have been under continuous Democratic control (except for 1995-1996 for the house) for 52 years.

But San Francisco's problems are the fault of Republicans.