San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[laughing dog]

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?

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

 

[pood]

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

Here, allow me to piss on your boots a bit more, and I won’t even tell you it’s raining.

I’m just going to address the first two bits for now; I’ll get to the others later.

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.

Yeah, so I read the linked material, and this is great stuff. It’s exactly in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the U.S., which outlawed the exact same sort of discrimination against black people. It is entirely to be applauded. Note the key point, stated right up front:

… in an area of public life …

I bolded the key point, for emphasis.

In an area of public life. In the public square, and not in your private circle (jerk). In your private circle (jerk) you are free to be as disgusting a bigot as you want. Don’t want to associate personally with transgendered people? Tell them to fuck right off if you want, and don’t even bother to use their preferred pronouns. In that case, the government of Australia, or its provinces or subsections, won’t do jack shit to you, and you know it. So your claim that you are being forced to affirm something that you don’t wish to affirm is false. You are, otoh, being required by law not to discriminate against a targeted class of persons, in an area of public life.

In the last example in the linked material, the specific one you highlighted, it’s unclear who Meredith’s colleagues are. I would assume this is referring to a job environment. If if is — and I can’t figure out any other context for “colleagues” here — then it is further unclear whether these colleagues are the ones who would be subject to some sort of government fine or other sanction. Most likely it’s the business itself that would have run afoul of the law, and be subject to sanction.

In any case, anyone who has worked any kind of job knows that you don’t have free speech while on the job. This is true regardless of whether the government is in a position to step in. If someone has a black colleague and hates blacks, and while on the job calls that person “boy” or even the N-word, that person is going to lose his job. This is true regardless of the law. If he does not lose his job, or at least is not sanctioned in some way, then the target of the verbal abuse would at least have a civil claim if not a criminal one against both the abuser and the company in question.

Finally, it strikes me as odd why any decent person would not address another person as that person wishes to be addressed, even if you think transgenderism and gender identity is bullshit. What, exactly, is the problem with being polite and respectful to another person, even if you think that person is deluded? What skin is it off your nose?

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

 

[Politesse]

The idea that gender ideology is a religion strikes me as a very weird rhetorical strategy, considering the Constitution protects religious rights just as fervently as it protects against sex discrimination. If anything, the special status of religion has achieved ever more primacy at the Supreme Court essentially very session since Amy Coney-Barrett was appointed to it.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are many examples from all over the world, not just in my own jurisdiction. For example, in Canada:
https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
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".

All over the world including the U.S. New York City has an ordinance requiring use of preferred pronouns.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

 

[Bomb#20]

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

And there it is, the science denial.

Ah yes. The alleged "science denial".

In what universe is saying "I don't care about your gender or what you have to say about it", "science denial"?

I think it's the universe the people live in who keep taking for granted that disagreeing with the professional conclusions of sociologists is the same thing as disagreeing with the professional conclusions of chemists.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Unlike some apparently, I'm familiar with the concept of a word's meaning varying with context. The fact that you and I are perfectly capable of using "gender" in some linguistic or sociological sense when talking to each other does not bind the courts to make believe that labeling something "gender discrimination" instead of "sex discrimination" makes it legally a different thing.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

 

[ZiprHead]

I care about being forced to participate in somebody else's religion, yes.

And there it is, the science denial.

Ah yes. The alleged "science denial".

In what universe is saying "I don't care about your gender or what you have to say about it", "science denial"?

I think it's the universe the people live in who keep taking for granted that disagreeing with the professional conclusions of sociologists is the same thing as disagreeing with the professional conclusions of chemists.

And neurobiologists?

 

[Bomb#20]

The idea that gender ideology is a religion strikes me as a very weird rhetorical strategy, considering the Constitution protects religious rights just as fervently as it protects against sex discrimination. If anything, the special status of religion has achieved ever more primacy at the Supreme Court essentially very session since Amy Coney-Barrett was appointed to it.

What's weird about it? There's no reason gender ideology shouldn't get the same protection as any other religion. The Constitution protects your right to say there's no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet. It also protects Metaphor's right not to say it. It also protects your right to say transwomen are women. It also protects Metaphor's right not to say it. Same rights for every religion, for every believer, and for every unbeliever.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Unlike some apparently, I'm familiar with the concept of a word's meaning varying with context. The fact that you and I are perfectly capable of using "gender" in some linguistic or sociological sense when talking to each other does not bind the courts to make believe that labeling something "gender discrimination" instead of "sex discrimination" makes it legally a different thing.

It doesn't mean they don't or won't either.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

ETA - I do apologize. Don't show your work because I am uninterested in bombastic ideological sophistry.

 

[Bomb#20]

And there it is, the science denial.

Ah yes. The alleged "science denial".

In what universe is saying "I don't care about your gender or what you have to say about it", "science denial"?

I think it's the universe the people live in who keep taking for granted that disagreeing with the professional conclusions of sociologists is the same thing as disagreeing with the professional conclusions of chemists.

And neurobiologists?

Who, them? Oh, those are definitely more in the chemist category than the sociologist category. Why do you ask? Did somebody in the thread dispute the professional conclusions of neurobiologists?

 

[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.

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

I have told you more than once, gender ideology caused this program.

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

I am not a prophet. I am observing outcomes already in motion.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it kind of ridiculous that someone would declare folks living towards their ideal of self as "the problem".

Do whatever you want. Don't force me to participate in your religion.

 

[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 have told you more than once, gender ideology caused this program.

That is hand-waving. Providing income maintenance to the transgendered need not have been prompted by gender ideology of which you disapprove.

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

I am not a prophet. I am observing outcomes already in motion.

Then stop posting like one.

 

[Metaphor]

I bolded the key point, for emphasis.

In an area of public life. In the public square, and not in your private circle (jerk). In your private circle (jerk) you are free to be as disgusting a bigot as you want. Don’t want to associate personally with transgendered people? Tell them to fuck right off if you want, and don’t even bother to use their preferred pronouns. In that case, the government of Australia, or its provinces or subsections, won’t do jack shit to you, and you know it.

Of course they will. Did you read the linked article? Something I do on my Facebook page counts as 'the public'. An article I write counts as 'in public'. If I misgender somebody 'in public', the government can and will punish me for it. Indeed, it is not clear what the limits are on the domain 'in public'.

So your claim that you are being forced to affirm something that you don’t wish to affirm is false. You are, otoh, being required by law not to discriminate against a targeted class of persons, in an area of public life.

Of course I am being forced. If someone at work decides they don't like the way I acknowledge their sex through the ordinary consequences of how pronouns are used in English, even when they are not talking to me and are instead eavesdropping on private conversations, I can be punished.

In the last example in the linked material, the specific one you highlighted, it’s unclear who Meredith’s colleagues are. I would assume this is referring to a job environment. If if is — and I can’t figure out any other context for “colleagues” here — then it is further unclear whether these colleagues are the ones who would be subject to some sort of government fine or other sanction. Most likely it’s the business itself that would have run afoul of the law, and be subject to sanction.

Whichever it is (probably both), the colleagues face sanction for their private talk. Either the business, under government edict, will fire them or force them to affirm, or the government will force the colleagues to do it directly.

In any case, anyone who has worked any kind of job knows that you don’t have free speech while on the job. This is true regardless of whether the government is in a position to step in. If someone has a black colleague and hates blacks, and while on the job calls that person “boy” or even the N-word, that person is going to lose his job. This is true regardless of the law. If he does not lose his job, or at least is not sanctioned in some way, then the target of the verbal abuse would at least have a civil claim if not a criminal one against both the abuser and the company in question.

It strikes me as odd that you think using the pronoun that is correct for the sex of your target is equivalent to using a slur that is deliberately wielded as a weapon.

Finally, it strikes me as odd why any decent person would not address another person as that person wishes to be addressed, even if you think transgenderism and gender identity is bullshit. What, exactly, is the problem with being polite and respectful to another person, even if you think that person is deluded? What skin is it off your nose?

It is disrespectful to be told I must affirm somebody else's narcissism. I have said before I might--might--use wrong sex pronouns out of politeness and if it is not forced from me by government edict. I will never use neopronouns under any circumstances.

 

[Jarhyn]

The idea that gender ideology is a religion strikes me as a very weird rhetorical strategy, considering the Constitution protects religious rights just as fervently as it protects against sex discrimination. If anything, the special status of religion has achieved ever more primacy at the Supreme Court essentially very session since Amy Coney-Barrett was appointed to it.

What's weird about it? There's no reason gender ideology shouldn't get the same protection as any other religion. The Constitution protects your right to say there's no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet. It also protects Metaphor's right not to say it. It also protects your right to say transwomen are women. It also protects Metaphor's right not to say it. Same rights for every religion, for every believer, and for every unbeliever.

And yet I can't help but think there is cause for action to point someone out in a staunchly religious community using the press to proclaim that they are an atheist, not to proclaim that they are a Muslim, nor to proclaim that they are any other religion.

We have a right to privacy of such things.

We have a right to privacy of what is in our pants too. It's rightfully illegal to share pictures of people's genitals in many places, for instance.

You have a right to say "I'm not Christian".

You have a right to not say "I'm not Christian".

You don't have a right to say "you're not Christian", even when someone has a right to say it of themselves.

You don't have a right to say "you are Christian" even when someone has a right to say it of themselves.

Your religion is your business.
The religion of others is not your business, not to talk about except in the way they accept and consent to, so long as they do not aspire to dominion over others.

I would pose that the minimal amount of reasonable expectation we can have with respect to others is to, when unsure of how someone declares, to use language that does not declare for them and to not declare against them.

This is of course a nuanced metaphor; a gift, as metaphors with nuance are often lacking in these parts.

 

[blastula]

There is no discrimination based on sex in this program. It is based on gender.

The SCOTUS and the appellate courts don't have much of a history of reading laws and precedents as if they were written in Progressivese rather than in English, so I doubt if the distinction you're drawing would carry any legal weight with them. For most purposes, normal fluent English speakers treat "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. Be that as it may, regardless of whatever idiosyncratic thing you and/or the SF government mean by "gender", if a person whose sex is male identifies as female, the above person is eligible for the program. If a person whose sex is female identifies as female, the above person is ineligible for the program. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, any ideological redefinition of grammatical terminology notwithstanding.

You need to move in the 21st century because the differentiation between gender and sex is well-known. It is the distinction that even Metaphor recognizes.

Unlike some apparently, I'm familiar with the concept of a word's meaning varying with context. The fact that you and I are perfectly capable of using "gender" in some linguistic or sociological sense when talking to each other does not bind the courts to make believe that labeling something "gender discrimination" instead of "sex discrimination" makes it legally a different thing.

It doesn't mean they don't or won't either.

Eligibility is open to anyone whose sex is female and who identifies as something other than female, and anyone whose sex is male and who identifies as something different. so there is no sex discrimination.

That type of legal sophistry was shot and killed in Loving v. Virginia, and buried with a stake through its heart in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Show your work.

He's right, you're using the same argument that homophobes used against gay marriage -- that opposite-sex-marriage only is not discrimination since gay people can get married too (as long as they marry somebody from the opposite sex).

And the courts have defined sex to include gender in non-discrimination laws.

It is a weird law, to base it on gender and need rather than just need. I don't know if it's unconstitutional, but it probably wouldn't be a question if they simply made the law based on need alone, while also putting some money on outreach toward the trans community.

 

[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.

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

I have told you more than once, gender ideology caused this program.

That is hand-waving. Providing income maintenance to the transgendered need not have been prompted by gender ideology of which you disapprove.

It is the result of gender ideology. The program would be impossible, in fact, without the framework imposed by gender ideologists.