San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Politesse]

That is not what gender dysphoria means...

 

[pood]

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Forced affirmartion? Do tell. Who is forcing you to affirm transgenderism, whatever that would even mean, and how are they forcing you? You are just talking bullshit, of course.

When I am required by law (as I am in Australia) to use the pronouns somebody imagines explains their personality, I am forced to affirm them.

Really? Can you substantiate your claim that you are required by law in Australia to use certain pronouns?

 

[Metaphor]

'gender identity'... is [merely] a thought in your head

Sexuality is only just, as well. So why ought people give credence to it?

For the readers, I would like to point out that Jarhyn has heavily edited my response and inserted the word 'merely'.

"Give credence"? I'm not asking anybody to do anything. I ask only that the State does not discriminate by sex when it offers out the State-created benefits of marriage.

I am not asking for special benefits for same-sex attracted people.

I am not even asking the government to make sure that businesses don't discriminate! I would prefer to give my patronage to stores who are not forced to do it.

Mayhap it be that a thought in one's head, the origin of it, has more bearing on who they are deserves some respect and countenance moreso than the gross and unthinking flesh they did not?

The thoughts in people's heads matter more than the flesh attached to their bodies.

No. Actions matter more than thoughts.

 

[Metaphor]

It makes it forced affirmation to an ideology I do not believe in.

Forced affirmartion? Do tell. Who is forcing you to affirm transgenderism, whatever that would even mean, and how are they forcing you? You are just talking bullshit, of course.

When I am required by law (as I am in Australia) to use the pronouns somebody imagines explains their personality, I am forced to affirm them.

Really? Can you substantiate your claim that you are required by law in Australia to use certain pronouns?

Of course.

Gender Identity - ACT Human Rights Commission

In the ACT it is against the law for someone to discriminate against you because of a characteristic that you have, or that someone thinks you have, in an area of public life such as employment, education, accommodation, provision of goods and services, clubs. In the ACT it is against the law...

hrc.act.gov.au

The examples specifically illustrate 'misgendering' as forbidden

Meredith identifies as female. Her colleagues continually refer to her directly as ‘Sir’ and she repeatedly overhears comments from colleagues about herself using male pronouns such as ‘he’ and ‘him’. Meredith has asked people to address her appropriately but most make no effort to use suitable pronouns.

A newsreader was fined $10,000 for 'misgendering' and because of other people's activity on her Facebook page

'Once she was aware of the comments and did not remove them, she is responsible for them'

A dispute over a Facebook post by radio newsreader Beth Rep was meant to end with an apology to transgender activist Bridget Clinch. Instead, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the post and comments were "rude, offensive and unacceptable" and awarded Ms Clinch $10,000 in compensation.

www.abc.net.au

There are many examples from all over the world, not just in my own jurisdiction. For example, in Canada:

Misgendering Is a Human Rights Violation, Canadian Court Rules

A human rights tribunal ruled that pronouns are “a fundamental part of a person’s identity.”

www.them.us

Nelson’s attorney, Adrienne Smith, celebrated the decision after the ruling was handed down last week. They said the decision showed that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional.”

“They’re the minimum of courtesy and respect,” Smith said to Canadian news outlet CityNews. “It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace.”

Forced affirmation, pood.

It's one thing to say "it's good that you are forced to affirm". It's quite another to say "there is no such law compelling you to do anything".

Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.

 

[laughing dog]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

 

[Metaphor]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

 

[TomC]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

@Metaphor, LD has an important point here.
The trans thing is different from the city government pandering thing. You and I rather disagree about the trans issues. But it appears that we agree about the likelihood that that SF government is virtue signaling, addressing a problem that doesn't really exist because it's popular to do so. Everybody in SF has to deal with the Randian wasteland of SF housing markets, not just trans people. And if there's any city on earth less likely to make trans a barrier to employment than SF I can't imagine it. This isn't Topeka we're talking about.

What it looks like to me is the government trying to find something else to talk about, rather than the big problems they aren't too effective dealing with.
But you did mix these two issues together.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

@Metaphor, LD has an important point here.
The trans thing is different from the city government pandering thing. You and I rather disagree about the trans issues. But it appears that we agree about the likelihood that that SF government is virtue signaling, addressing a problem that doesn't really exist because it's popular to do so. Everybody in SF has to deal with the Randian wasteland of SF housing markets, not just trans people. And if there's any city on earth less likely to make trans a barrier to employment than SF I can't imagine it. This isn't Topeka we're talking about.

What it looks like to me is the government trying to find something else to talk about, rather than the big problems they aren't too effective dealing with.
But you did mix these two issues together.
Tom

No. I did not 'mix' the issues. A conversation developed from the OP. My responding to pood was a branch of that conversation. Anybody reading the thread could see how one reply led to another, but laughing dog probably knows that.

I will note in the future that laughing dog has signalled his preference that I start a separate thread for every incident and every aspect of gender ideology.

 

[Jarhyn]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

It rhymes with "Blobby Course."

 

[laughing dog]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. The OP is an excuse to express some bile and aver nonsense ("I have no gender identity). You have not made an attempt at a coherent argument as to why the program is a good or a bad idea.

 

[Metaphor]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. There is no rationale for the OP other than for you to express some bile because the action in San Francisco has no bearing on your life.

You do not get it. San Francisco's discriminatory program did not occur in a vacuum. It is one consequence arising from a gender ideology which is worldwide.

Also, you do not get to dictate what has a bearing on my life.

 

[laughing dog]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. There is no rationale for the OP other than for you to express some bile because the action in San Francisco has no bearing on your life.

You do not get it. San Francisco's discriminatory program did not occur in a vacuum. It is one consequence arising from a gender ideology which is worldwide.

You are seriously making a slippery slope argument?

Also, you do not get to dictate what has a bearing on my life.

No one dictated anything. I made an accurate observation about reality.

 

[Metaphor]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. There is no rationale for the OP other than for you to express some bile because the action in San Francisco has no bearing on your life.

You do not get it. San Francisco's discriminatory program did not occur in a vacuum. It is one consequence arising from a gender ideology which is worldwide.

You are seriously making a slippery slope argument?

No, I am not making a slippery slope argument of any kind, seriously or not.

A causes B is not a slippery slope. It's a statement of causation.

Also, you do not get to dictate what has a bearing on my life.

No one dictated anything. I made an accurate observation about reality.

No, you didn't. I decide what concerns me. You cannot make that decision.

 

[laughing dog]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. There is no rationale for the OP other than for you to express some bile because the action in San Francisco has no bearing on your life.

You do not get it. San Francisco's discriminatory program did not occur in a vacuum. It is one consequence arising from a gender ideology which is worldwide.

You are seriously making a slippery slope argument?

No, I am not making a slippery slope argument of any kind, seriously or not.

A causes B is not a slippery slope. It's a statement of causation.

So what is the problem?

Also, you do not get to dictate what has a bearing on my life.

No one dictated anything. I made an accurate observation about reality.

No, you didn't. I decide what concerns me. You cannot make that decision.
[/QUOTE] I made an accurate observation of reality.

 

[Metaphor]

Still wondering what an income maintenance program for transgender people in San Francisco has to do with forcing anyone to use language they don't wish to use anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

Evidently you cannot follow a conversation, so you may be wondering well into the future.

I get it. There is no rationale for the OP other than for you to express some bile because the action in San Francisco has no bearing on your life.

You do not get it. San Francisco's discriminatory program did not occur in a vacuum. It is one consequence arising from a gender ideology which is worldwide.

You are seriously making a slippery slope argument?

No, I am not making a slippery slope argument of any kind, seriously or not.

A causes B is not a slippery slope. It's a statement of causation.

So what is the problem?

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

 

[laughing dog]

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

It is true you have made your risible affirmation. But it is difficult for me to accept such an irrational viewpoint from such a rational poster as a serious one.

 

[Metaphor]

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

It is true you have made your risible affirmation. But it is difficult for me to accept such an irrational viewpoint from such a rational poster as a serious one.

When detransitioners come out in larger numbers, whose bodies have been irreversibly disfigured, medically and surgically, by the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When the number of women getting raped by men in prison predictably rises due to the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When people are forced by the government to affirm the narcissistic demands of the gender specials or face State punishment, (as they already do in many jurisdictions), you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When women predictably lose sports prizes and athletic scholarships, and women's health care is compromised, due to the incoherent and nonsensical substitution of gender for sex from the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

You ask that as though there isn't a hundred and fifty years of constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent wrestling with that exact question. The executive summary of the upshot of all that history is that if the government wants to discriminate on the basis of X, then the government needs a good reason -- unless X = religion, race, national origin, or sex, in which case the government needs a damn good reason. This particular X = sex. So does the government of SF have a damn good reason?

 

[laughing dog]

I've explained the problem to you a dozen times over many years, laughing dog.

The problem is gender ideology. Government programs that discriminate by gender are one manifestation of the problem. There are many more.

It is true you have made your risible affirmation. But it is difficult for me to accept such an irrational viewpoint from such a rational poster as a serious one.

When detransitioners come out in larger numbers, whose bodies have been irreversibly disfigured, medically and surgically, by the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When the number of women getting raped by men in prison predictably rises due to the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When people are forced by the government to affirm the narcissistic demands of the gender specials or face State punishment, (as they already do in many jurisdictions), you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

When women predictably lose sports prizes and athletic scholarships, and women's health care is compromised, due to the incoherent and nonsensical substitution of gender for sex from the proponents of gender ideology, you will not be able to claim ignorance. You were told.

None of which are the result or tied to this program.

I see. You are prophet who is upset that your gender ideology has been abandonned.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find it kind of ridiculous that someone would declare folks living towards their ideal of self as "the problem". It's a ringing endorsement of fascism if I've ever seen one.