San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Jarhyn]

That's an odd argument to make in support of a government policy that explicitly isn't supporting all its citizens

Not really. When some of a population's citizens arbitrarily fail to support particular of it's citizens in systematic ways, the response is to provide that support through government.

If people feel it is arbitrary that the government support people who they arbitrarily discriminate against, then the only ones they have to blame is themselves. If they were not busy being arbitrarily shitty, the government would have no need to be "arbitrarily" supportive.

IOW all of this continues to be about the fact that arbitrary prejudiced discrimination is the root of this need.

Personally I would rather fewer trans people being forced to the street to turn tricks or whatever, since that is far more expensive as a whole to society than just shelling out a bit of money every month.

In the long run it's just a bandaid on the problem, though. What we really need is universal higher educational access.

 

[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".

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

"Lamarck was wrong about how primary biological evolution happens therefore evolution is wrong".

That's where you are at right now, metaphorically speaking.

Gender as a concept is supported by science, insofar as the fact that there are multiple brain regions involved.

The concept that people have a gender, a series of brain configurations that come together to produce their basic behavioral hardware and body perception, is fairly well understood.

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

I dare say there is probably something different going on in the brain of a person with testosterone who wants more testosterone and brain of a person with testosterone who seeks to become a eunuch (or who actually becomes one), vs the brain of a person with testosterone who wants to have the estrogen and progesterone levels of an average adult with ovaries.

And apparently according to the linked material in this thread, this is scientifically supported.

 

[southernhybrid]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

 

[Politesse]

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?

The Democrats are, and have always been, fiercely and viciously neoliberal and pro-capitalist. Republican voters may believe that the Pelosis of this world are socialists, but that is because Republican voters are fucking morons who apparently can't see the mansions in front of their nose. Money rules everything in American poitics, and the party system itself is more a game to distract from that reality than an ideological split taken seriously by most politicians, whose first and last obligation is always to their financial backers, not to us the people. In the case of the Democrats, their generally pro-business and pro-educational policies also tend to bring considerable wealth and prosperity to all the "blue" states, with all the evils that implies. San Francisco is one of the richest cities in the world, and its real estate industry is a goddamned Faustian nightmare. I would not prefer living in Republican-controlled territories, as it is no better to be poor and oppressed than rich and oppressed, but if you think I'm here to support every Democratic policy without reservation, that is not the case. I care far more about the lives and wellbeing of other people than I do about any political party.

 

[laughing dog]

Getting back to the alleged content of the thread, I see no problem with the program. It is a target program to help an identified group in need and it is limited in scope in terms of participants, time and dollars. If the application form had three options - Male, Female, and Other, I doubt this programs would have pinged the conservative and trans gender bigot radar.

 

[pood]

It’s OK to give huge tax cuts, tax breaks, tax shelters, and even huge subsidies of public funds in the form of bailouts to the obscenely wealthy but Zod forbid that a lone city provides a small stipend to people who live on the edges of society because they are systematically discriminated against and sometimes even beaten and killed. Right-wing rags like the Washington Free Beacon that Metaphor reads don’t like that one bit, nosiree!

 

[thebeave]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

 

[Politesse]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity" or "there is no such thing as gender, only sex", then you are educated on the scientific view of sex and gender only in your own mind. Much like a Creationist hollering about monkeys giving birth to pigs is educated on the biology of inheritance. If someone is unaware of any advances made in the biology of sex since 1927, their claim to scientific objectivity must be taken with a very large grain of salt. There have been some vague appeals to "genetics" in this thread, but we discovered intersexuality and the phenomenon of individuals whose social gender identity conflicted with the chromosomal pattern just twelve years after chromosomes themselves were discovered, in 1912.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's an odd argument to make in support of a government policy that explicitly isn't supporting all its citizens

Not really. When some of a population's citizens arbitrarily fail to support particular of it's citizens in systematic ways, the response is to provide that support through government.

I.e., it doesn't matter if the government acts lawlessly as long as it's in a good cause and the beneficiaries are your ingroup. Dude, you're the one who described a discriminatory program as "supporting all it's citizens". That's on you.

If people feel it is arbitrary that the government support people who they arbitrarily discriminate against, then the only ones they have to blame is themselves.
If they were not busy being arbitrarily [bad], the government would have no need to be "arbitrarily" supportive.

Oh for the love of god. How the heck do you get from the premise that a person objects to a discriminatory program to the conclusion that he himself arbitrarily discriminates in the opposite direction? If Martin Luther King objected to a whites-only drinking fountain would you infer that when kids asked Dr. King for a glass of water he turned away white kids? You are poisoning the well with a trumped-up ad hominem.

IOW all of this continues to be about the fact that arbitrary prejudiced discrimination is the root of this need.

And yet here you are, defending arbitrary prejudiced discrimination. Good grief, go back and read your own post! What if your friend "Barry" lived in SF? He'd be ineligible, even though you made it sound like his situation is worse than an awful lot of SF trans people's. Why the heck shouldn't "I'm experiencing arbitrary prejudiced discrimination because I'm a blind albino" be just as satisfactory justification for inclusion in a public aid program as "I'm experiencing arbitrary prejudiced discrimination* because I'm transsexual"?

(* Which, by the way, the public aid program quite explicitly doesn't even require! "I'm poor and I'm transsexual" is sufficient, even when that particular person's poverty and transsexuality are unrelated.)

Personally I would rather fewer trans people being forced to the street to turn tricks or whatever, since that is far more expensive as a whole to society than just shelling out a bit of money every month.

A lot of people who aren't trans are also being forced to the street to turn tricks or whatever. If the intent is to shell out a bit of money to alleviate the problem, why is the program asking about gender identity minutiae instead of asking if there's something in the person's life forcing him or her to the street to turn tricks or whatever?

 

[thebeave]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity" or "there is no such thing as gender, only sex", then you are educated on the scientific view of sex and gender only in your own mind. Much like a Creationist hollering about monkeys giving birth to pigs is educated on the biology of inheritance. If someone is unaware of any advances made in the biology of sex since 1927, their claim to scientific objectivity must be taken with a very large grain of salt. There have been some vague appeals to "genetics" in this thread, but we discovered intersexuality and the phenomenon of individuals whose social gender identity conflicted with the chromosomal pattern just twelve years after chromosomes themselves were discovered, in 1912.

Well, uh, OK. That doesn't seem to relate directly to anything I wrote, nor does it reflect my beliefs and thoughts about transgender.

 

[southernhybrid]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

I'm not going to name the couple of people who have made nasty comments about transgender folks in numerous threads, insinuating that they just think they are a certain gender based on their feelings, and not on the fact that their brain matter doesn't match their body parts, but there have been at least two that I remember. If they do support the science, then why do they make such negative comments about people who identify as transgender?

If you've read all or most of the threads that have mentioned transgender folks, it's pretty obvious that we have some posters who hold very negative feelings towards these people or who don't understand that this is natural for some individuals. Maybe they've become more aware of the truth lately, but I think I read a few posts in this thread that made me think that's not been the case. I don't want to go back and analyze this entire thread. I could be wrong, but my assumption was based on a few comments made early on in this thread.

There's actually one who referred to transgenderism as a mental illness. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Politesse]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity" or "there is no such thing as gender, only sex", then you are educated on the scientific view of sex and gender only in your own mind. Much like a Creationist hollering about monkeys giving birth to pigs is educated on the biology of inheritance. If someone is unaware of any advances made in the biology of sex since 1927, their claim to scientific objectivity must be taken with a very large grain of salt. There have been some vague appeals to "genetics" in this thread, but we discovered intersexuality and the phenomenon of individuals whose social gender identity conflicted with the chromosomal pattern just twelve years after chromosomes themselves were discovered, in 1912.

Well, uh, OK. That doesn't seem to relate directly to anything I wrote, nor does it reflect my beliefs and thoughts about transgender.

Then next time, read the thread you're commenting on before commenting in it, so we can save some time.

 

[Metaphor]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity"

What is a gender identity?

or "there is no such thing as gender, only sex",

Who claimed that?

 

[laughing dog]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it s

What is a gender identity?

If you don't know, how can you claim you don't have one? Just asking questions.

 

[Politesse]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity"

What is a gender identity?

Would be an excusable question, if you didn't ask it in thread after thread, and ignore the answers you receive.

Or for that matter, if it weren't common knowledge easily researched. Why should I do a wikipedia dive for you, when I I know you are more than able to do so?

In any case, if someone doesn't even know what gender is, they're obviously not up to date on the science thereof, and anything they say on the basis of "science" should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

 

[Metaphor]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it s

What is a gender identity?

If you don't know, how can you claim you don't have one? Just asking questions.

I do not have a gender identity, as far as my understanding of the term goes. But some definitions of it that I've seen are self-referential. And some people might have their particular definition. For example, I believe that nature exists and for the god-as-nature people, that means I'm a theist.

A: I don't believe in god.
B: What, you don't believe nature exists?

npr has this definition of gender identity https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq

Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.

So, it is circular, but let's see what they say about 'gender'

Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.

This is extremely poor--"often defined as"? But the definition seems completely inadequate to me. Gender would not just be any social construct of norms, behaviours and roles....it would be social construct of norms, behaviours and roles that are expected from people based on the sex of the person. Otherwise, the unwritten rules about eating at a restaurant are 'gender'.

Also, to the people making the extraordinary claim that 'I do not have a gender identity' is 'scientific ignorance', the same link says

Agender is an adjective that can describe a person who does not identify as any gender.

I put it to you that bald is not a hair colour.

 

[Metaphor]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it shouldn't matter where gender comes from or why.

It doesn't matter to me if it's made up or supported by science, but it does bother me when other people pretend that there isn't a scientific explanation as to why some people identify as a different gender from their body parts. The science has been there for decades, so why not accept it?

To me, it's easier to accept something as being natural, if it's based on science, despite my being able to be tolerant and accepting of others who identify in ways that I may not understand. People who identify as minority genders aren't hurting anyone, whether I understand how they feel or not, so I don't understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards them. We don't have to understand these things in order to be kind and accepting of those who identify as them.

At the same time, those who identify as minority genders sometimes overreact if someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun to identify them. I don't understand overreacting to a mistake by a well meaning person. Social change takes time. Think about how long it took former president Obama to accept gay marriage. That's what I'm talking about. Give people time to accept things that seem foreign to them.

Anyway, this thread is about transgenders, not any other minority gender ID, so I don't want to derail, as some have already tried to do.

Again, who here is doing that... on this thread OR others. I've read a lot of the transgender threads on this forum, and I don't recall anyone who doesn't think that there is a scientific basis for why some people have a disconnect between their brain and physical body regarding gender. * I could be missing someone though. Feel free to prove me wrong. And regarding minority gender ID, it is relevent to the thread, as its a significant part of the SF GIFT application (for some reason I'm not sure of), and Metaphor started this thread and has mentioned it in his OP. He can include it as part of the discussion if he wants to. I think you don't want to discuss that part of it because it tends to make the serious discussion of trans issues into a clown show.

ETA: * Actually, now that I think about it, there were one or two fundie Christian trolls (Half-Life and his sockpuppets) who may have been dismissive of the science, but they have been banned

If you believe that, for instance "I have no gender identity"

What is a gender identity?

Would be an excusable question, if you didn't ask it in thread after thread, and ignore the answers you receive.

Or for that matter, if it weren't common knowledge easily researched. Why should I do a wikipedia dive for you, when I I know you are more than able to do so?

In any case, if someone doesn't even know what gender is, they're obviously not up to date on the science thereof, and anything they say on the basis of "science" should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

Nobody in this thread said the word 'science' until southernhybrid made a post refuting something nobody had raised.

 

[laughing dog]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it s

What is a gender identity?

If you don't know, how can you claim you don't have one? Just asking questions.

I do not have a gender identity, as far as my understanding of the term goes. But some definitions of it that I've seen are self-referential. And some people might have their particular definition. For example, I believe that nature exists and for the god-as-nature people, that means I'm a theist.

A: I don't believe in god.
B: What, you don't believe nature exists?

npr has this definition of gender identity https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq

Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.

So, it is circular, but let's see what they say about 'gender'

Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.

This is extremely poor--"often defined as"? But the definition seems completely inadequate to me. Gender would not just be any social construct of norms, behaviours and roles....it would be social construct of norms, behaviours and roles that are expected from people based on the sex of the person. Otherwise, the unwritten rules about eating at a restaurant are 'gender'.

Also, to the people making the extraordinary claim that 'I do not have a gender identity' is 'scientific ignorance', the same link says

Agender is an adjective that can describe a person who does not identify as any gender.

I put it to you that bald is not a hair colour.

As I expected, a melange of pedantry. It seems to me, if gender is a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that are expected from people based on their sex, then clearly you have a gender identity.

 

[Metaphor]

At any rate, I'm of the camp that it s

What is a gender identity?

If you don't know, how can you claim you don't have one? Just asking questions.

I do not have a gender identity, as far as my understanding of the term goes. But some definitions of it that I've seen are self-referential. And some people might have their particular definition. For example, I believe that nature exists and for the god-as-nature people, that means I'm a theist.

A: I don't believe in god.
B: What, you don't believe nature exists?

npr has this definition of gender identity https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq

Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.

So, it is circular, but let's see what they say about 'gender'

Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.

This is extremely poor--"often defined as"? But the definition seems completely inadequate to me. Gender would not just be any social construct of norms, behaviours and roles....it would be social construct of norms, behaviours and roles that are expected from people based on the sex of the person. Otherwise, the unwritten rules about eating at a restaurant are 'gender'.

Also, to the people making the extraordinary claim that 'I do not have a gender identity' is 'scientific ignorance', the same link says

Agender is an adjective that can describe a person who does not identify as any gender.

I put it to you that bald is not a hair colour.

As I expected, a melange of pedantry. It seems to me, if gender is a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that are expected from people based on their sex, then clearly you have a gender identity.

laughing dog, a careful examination of terms is not 'pedantry', no matter how fond you are of the term.

It's certainly true I have a sex-role (or gender) if that is defined by forces external to myself. There is no doubt that I am male and males have certain expected roles in society based on their sex as male.

But an 'internal sense of my gender'? I still don't know what that means. I do not know what it means to have a 'male' gender identity or any other 'gender' identity. I don't know what any of the 97 genders in the checklist feel like. It seems to me that gender ideologists insist I feel it, in the same way theists insist that atheists really do have a sense of God in their hearts.

I am also at a loss for explaining exactly what norms, expectations, and behaviours society expects from any sex other than 'male' or 'female', which are the only two sexes. What does society expect from demigirls? From stargender? From faegender?

 

[Toni]

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.

It's pretty easy to say that 'no one is forced to live inside the city limits where prices are high' if you don't take into consideration exactly what it means to live at a distance from where you work---which may be the only employment you are able to find or only employment that pays sufficiently for you to meet your financial obligations.

If one lives at a distance from where one works, one must a) have transportation to/from work b) be able to afford transportation to/from work c) take a significant hit to one's available time to either have a second job or have a family life/care for family members such as children or d) give up a lot of sleep e) incur a lot of additional stress to do lack of time/increased stress/insufficient funds to make easier choices.

Choices cost, and mostly they cost money. It's expensive to move, it's difficult to come up with first and last month's rent when you are still living in an apartment you can no longer afford. It's difficult if you have a family and your circumstances have changed and now you have to decide who will stay at their city job and who will not and whether you can afford to live near decent schools and daycare and still get a chance to see the kids during the work week.