San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Toni]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Your response assumes that a pilot would be used to gather data for a possible general expansion to the entire population. That need not be the case.

I've said it before, and I keep saying it over and over again. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I did not assume anything. I was directly replying to Toni who called in an "experiment" and a "study". I added the emphasis.
In her response, she was also incredulous as to why such a non-random sample would not be transferable to the population at large.

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?

So I guess you saw no problem with Jim Crow laws either, since "gov’t policies usually discriminate on some basis".
If discriminating against trans people is wrong, then so is discriminating against cis people.

My incredulity is at YOUR apparent lack of understanding or unwillingness to understand even if you disagree. In fact, I don't think it is lack of understanding on your part: you simply disagree and are unwilling to consider that there might be a valid method.

Also: everyone makes assumptions, yourself included. You did in your response to me and certainly in your response to LD.

 

[Toni]

I retired from a job with a round trip of 100 miles/day.

That is far more than most. I wasn't talking about anything close to that.
SF is roughly a square seven miles to a side. That limited area is not only a major reason for real estate crunch (similar to Manhattan, which is an island) but also the relatively small size means that any commute >10 or so miles into the city will be from outside the city limits.

Why not choose trans people? It's a group that is known to face significant issues with regards to employment and income.

I do not think it is legitimate for government to discriminate by race or sex/gender identity.
This is the same conceptual problem undergirding racial preferences. Just because blacks may be more likely to be disadvantaged, does not mean all of them are, or that whites and Asians are advantaged. Race is a poor proxy for lack of advantage, as racial preferences help the kid of a black doctor, lawyer or corporates executive get into college over the child of a poor Appalachian white coal miner or of an Asian restaurant worker.
Same thing here. Trans people might be, on average, more likely to be disadvantaged, by why use such a crude proxy, except for ideological reasons? You are then liable to give free money to a trans person making $100k while passing over a cis one making a third that.

And all that because contemporary progressivism (so-called!) is obsessed with the idea of identity politics - even to the point of overriding individual circumstances.

I don't know for certain, but my assumption is that the UBI grants are means tested.

Again, I see this as a pilot program. My assumption may be wrong, but my assumption is that they chose a group that generally is facing strong discrimination in terms of employment, housing, and access to various societal services. This particular group is quite small, actually, meaning that it's a lot less money to use in the pilot than say, if they decided to provide UBI to single mothers under age 25, or black or Hispanic or Indian peoples or...pick something: it makes the most sense to target groups who actually need the funds. Completely random would not allow them to follow the effects as well as I suspect they want to do. I admit I'm making assumptions here and that I could be wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

At this point, our society (in the US) is starting to experiment with the idea of UBI. If one is starting a study, it seems logical to start it in a distinct population. In this case, transgendered individuals. Why not?

Because it is discriminatory. And if you restrict it to a "distinct population" then the pilot project is worthless as a study as whatever is gleaned from the data is not transferable to the population at large. Instead of playing favorites by race and gender identity, Breed and her minions should have made it a lottery, so you have a random sample of individuals within the city. Everybody with the same chance. No discrimination, and you get usable data. Why is that so bad?

Your response assumes that a pilot would be used to gather data for a possible general expansion to the entire population. That need not be the case.

I've said it before, and I keep saying it over and over again. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

That bullshit is truly ironic.

I did not assume anything. I was directly replying to Toni who called in an "experiment" and a "study". I added the emphasis.

Your emphasis required an assumption. Duh.

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?

So I guess you saw no problem with Jim Crow laws either, since "gov’t policies usually discriminate on some basis".

You guessed wrong. Jim Crow laws took rights away. There was a good basis to forbid them.

If discriminating against trans people is wrong, then so is discriminating against cis people.

This is a program designed to ameliorate the effects of discrimination against a particular group. No one has the right to income maintenance from the gov't.

Using your reasoning, disability payments through social security discriminates against the ablebodied.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your reasoning is incoherent. You cannot pray away something you think doesn't exist.

Clueless as ever, you don't understand what is being discussed, in that case.

The doctrine has ever been "there are no such thing as as gay people, just people who sin; you're not really attracted to men, you are attracted to SIN and this is just the first sin you happened to find!"

It would be like saying "lots of people who wear blue shirts exist, but people who like wearing blue shirts don't really exist, they're all just lying or wrong."

Of course its incredibly dismissive to say such things, but it is the belief of many Christians nonetheless.

"It's not who they are, it's merely a thought in their heads!"

 

[Metaphor]

Your reasoning is incoherent. You cannot pray away something you think doesn't exist.

Clueless as ever, you don't understand what is being discussed, in that case.

The doctrine has ever been "there are no such thing as as gay people, just people who sin; you're not really attracted to men, you are attracted to SIN and this is just the first sin you happened to find!"

It would be like saying "lots of people who wear blue shirts exist, but people who like wearing blue shirts don't really exist, they're all just lying or wrong."

Of course its incredibly dismissive to say such things, but it is the belief of many Christians nonetheless.

"It's not who they are, it's merely a thought in their heads!"

Having a bad understanding of the etiology and...uh...remission rate of homosexuality does not mean you think gay people don't exist.

But let's say it does mean that. What was the solution for gay people? Of course, it is "leave me alone, and don't make what I do in private with consenting adults illegal". Gay people did not demand you look at them and see them as heterosexual, and to change your language under threat of State violence to imply something you know to be false, or demand access to spaces they do not qualify for because they are the wrong sex.

I have, no doubt, been assumed to be heterosexual dozens of times. I do not ask other people put their sexual orientation in their email signature. I don't care what your gender identity is. Why the neverending push to make sure I care and pay attention? I don't care what your star sign is either. I did not ask and don't want to talk about it.

 

[Ford]

One is led to conclude that in quoting Politesse, Metaphor bolded “right to life” but not “trans people exist” for a reason.

Yes, the reason is that I believe trans-identified people exist.

Interesting distinction.

You seem to be saying that you believe people who think they are trans exist, but only their self identification is real. A person who is born as a woman, identifies as male, transitions to female, and identifies as female is in fact still a man.

 

[Metaphor]

One is led to conclude that in quoting Politesse, Metaphor bolded “right to life” but not “trans people exist” for a reason.

Yes, the reason is that I believe trans-identified people exist.

Interesting distinction.

You seem to be saying that you believe people who think they are trans exist, but only their self identification is real. A person who is born as a woman,

More correctly, a female infant

identifies as male, transitions to female,

You cannot transition to female, but I think above you meant "transitions to male". A person who was female at birth (in utero, in fact) remains female all her life. Her female sex arose from a fixed historical event (her body was not organised around producing small motile gametes). Humans cannot change sex, nor can any mammal.

and identifies as female is in fact still a man.

I think you got mixed up again, but, somebody who is female can never be a man. A man is an adult human male.

An infant whose body was organised around producing small motile gametes is a male infant, and when he grows up he will be an adult male: a man.

Humans are not clownfish.

 

[Ford]

One is led to conclude that in quoting Politesse, Metaphor bolded “right to life” but not “trans people exist” for a reason.

Yes, the reason is that I believe trans-identified people exist.

Interesting distinction.

You seem to be saying that you believe people who think they are trans exist, but only their self identification is real. A person who is born as a woman,

So you think that a person who was born female, but identifies as male, transitioned to male via medical procedures, and lives as a male is - in fact - a female.

Conversely, a person who was born male, but identifies as female, transitioned to female via medical procedures, and lives as a female is - in fact - a man.

So in this photo, the person on the left is...?

 

[Politesse]

The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology. They have science on their side.

Intoning the word "science" is not what it takes to have science on your side.

And yet it is all you have offered...

Curious, that!

 

[Metaphor]

So you think that a person who was born female, but identifies as male, transitioned to male via medical procedures,

Humans whose bodies were not organised around producing small motile gametes cannot transition to male. It is a biological and ontological impossibility. Mammals cannot change sex. Time travel into the past does not exist. Putting exogenous wrong-sex hormones into your body does not change your sex. Harvesting skin from your arm or thigh and rolling it up and attaching it to your clitoris does not mean you are male. A woman does not become not a woman just because she has had her breasts and ovaries and uterus removed.

and lives as a male is - in fact - a female.

Yes, she is, in fact, a female.

Conversely, a person who was born male, but identifies as female, transitioned to female via medical procedures, and lives as a female is - in fact - a man.

Correct.

So in this photo, the person on the left is...?

I have made my feelings clear before about not participating in 'guess the sex and win a prize' gotchas. Somebody's sex does not change depending on my perception of their sex. Indeed, it does not change depending on their own perception of their sex.

However, I will give you some of the reasons why I do not find your attempted 'gotcha' a helpful approach.

First, trans activists do not demand that trans people successfully pass to be treated as the sex they are not. In fact, trans activists would say a transwoman is no less a woman for not having had any surgeries or hormones at all, or even a particular social presentation of any kind. If a male claims he is female, you must treat him as female, including unlimited participation in all the things we've reserved as single-sex. And, in fact, if you think a transwoman needs to look remotely feminine, you are transphobic. This is what trans activists advocate for.

Second, the person on the left, if he is in fact a transwoman, is almost certain to have male genitals (because he would be male, and most transwomen do not have bottom surgery). He would still have the equipment to impregnate a woman, as surely as any man does. We segregated some spaces by sex for a reason. And I do not blame him for keeping his junk, if in fact he has kept it. "Bottom surgery" is a litany of unspeakable horrors and permanent complications.

Third, being mistaken about somebody's sex does not mean I think they have become the sex they are not.

 

[Ford]

So you think that a person who was born female, but identifies as male, transitioned to male via medical procedures,

Humans whose bodies were not organised around producing small motile gametes cannot transition to male. It is a biological and ontological impossibility. Mammals cannot change sex. Time travel into the past does not exist. Putting exogenous wrong-sex hormones into your body does not change your sex. Harvesting skin from your arm or thigh and rolling it up and attaching it to your clitoris does not mean you are male. A woman does not become not a woman just because she has had her breasts and ovaries and uterus removed.

and lives as a male is - in fact - a female.

Yes, she is, in fact, a female.

Conversely, a person who was born male, but identifies as female, transitioned to female via medical procedures, and lives as a female is - in fact - a man.

Correct.

So in this photo, the person on the left is...?

I have made my feelings clear before about not participating in 'guess the sex and win a prize' gotchas. Somebody's sex does not change depending on my perception of their sex. Indeed, it does not change depending on their own perception of their sex.

However, I will give you some of the reasons why I do not find your attempted 'gotcha' a helpful approach.

First, trans activists do not demand that trans people successfully pass to be treated as the sex they are not. In fact, trans activists would say a transwoman is no less a woman for not having had any surgeries or hormones at all, or even a particular social presentation of any kind. If a male claims he is female, you must treat him as female, including unlimited participation in all the things we've reserved as single-sex. And, in fact, if you think a transwoman needs to look remotely feminine, you are transphobic. This is what trans activists advocate for.

Second, the person on the left, if he is in fact a transwoman, is almost certain to have male genitals (because he would be male, and most transwomen do not have bottom surgery). He would still have the equipment to impregnate a woman, as surely as any man does. We segregated some spaces by sex for a reason. And I do not blame him for keeping his junk, if in fact he has kept it. "Bottom surgery" is a litany of unspeakable horrors and permanent complications.

Third, being mistaken about somebody's sex does not mean I think they have become the sex they are not.

Do you apply the same "reasoning" to sexual orientation?

The position you are espousing is pretty much exactly what the anti-gay folks say. You aren't born homosexual. Nature says you should have sex with the other gender, and any deviation from that path is...well...deviant. You are biologically wired to procreate with the opposite sex, and having sexual relations with the same sex is an affront to (fill in deity here or "nature.")

You were - according to the right wing - born straight. The fact that you lay down with same sex partners is unnatural and wrong....no?

 

[ZiprHead]

"It's not who they are, it's merely a thought in their heads!"

Where have I heard that before???

 

[Metaphor]

Do you apply the same "reasoning" to sexual orientation?

I listed a series of facts. Naming facts is not 'reasoning', but I don't think that's why you put 'reasoning' in quotes. It seems you object to the facts. Which facts do you object to and why?

The position you are espousing is pretty much exactly what the anti-gay folks say. You aren't born homosexual.

I agree I wasn't born homosexual, because no baby has a sexual orientation of any kind.

Nature says you should have sex with the other gender,

Let's get our language straight, as it were. First, nature doesn't 'say' anything. Second, my body is organised around the production of small, motile gametes, and sexual reproduction success for bodies so organised is to copulate with bodies organised around the production of large, sessile gametes. That's correct. Third, I do not know the gender identities of the men I've had sex with, because I have never asked. The desire to ask or know never entered my head. I am not attracted to any 'gender'. I am attracted to the same sex.

and any deviation from that path is...well...deviant. You are biologically wired to procreate with the opposite sex, and having sexual relations with the same sex is an affront to (fill in deity here or "nature.")

An affront? If nature or god finds it 'an affront', she can email me and explain why.

But here's a hint: god doesn't exist and personifying nature is a poetic device. Nature cannot be offended, nor indeed does she have any emotions or value systems at all. Men cannot be women not because nature finds it an 'affront', but because mammals cannot change sex.

You were - according to the right wing - born straight. The fact that you lay down with same sex partners is unnatural and wrong....no?

I have no idea whatever what you are trying to say here, or what you think the parallel is.

When I lay down with a same-sex partner, what am I claiming that is biologically impossible? I would really like to know, because the 'gay analogy' keeps getting brought up but NOBODY will explain why its relevant or how it is supposed to refute my arguments. Am I making demands that you use pronouns that conflict with my sex? Am I asking for access to single-sex spaces for which I do not qualify? Am I asking you to pretend I am heterosexual?

 

[Ford]

When I lay down with a same-sex partner, what am I claiming that is biologically impossible? I would really like to know, because the 'gay analogy' keeps getting brought up but NOBODY will explain why its relevant or how it is supposed to refute my arguments. Am I making demands that you use pronouns that conflict with my sex? Am I asking for access to single-sex spaces for which I do not qualify? Am I asking you to pretend I am heterosexual?

You're saying "rules for thee, but not for me."

You're saying "it's okay for me to be L or G or B, but fuck those 'T' people."

You want a special class carved out for you, but want a cutoff for those just off what you consider kosher.

Thing is, the right wingers you've (metaphorically) laid down with see no distinction between you and the 'T' folks. You're all evil to Rhonda Santis, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Space Lasers.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you think they're on your side. Or perhaps even what bothers you so much about trans people. Do you buy into the notion that they're all just hiding in elementary school bathrooms waiting to "groom" kids into the "trans" lifestyle? Can you point to the part on the doll where the trans person hurt you? Because you clearly have a beef.

 

[Metaphor]

You're saying "rules for thee, but not for me."

What rules.

You're saying "it's okay for me to be L or G or B, but fuck those 'T' people."

In what universe have I said 'fuck those 'T' people'?

Are you suggesting that I have to deny biological reality and I should agree to being forced to use pronouns that disagree with somebody's sex, and I should be obligated to pretend it makes sense to segregate sports based on thoughts in people's heads instead of their sexed bodies, else I am saying 'fuck those T people'?

You want a special class carved out for you, but want a cutoff for those just off what you consider kosher.

What special class? What am I asking you to do? Please be specific.

Thing is, the right wingers you've (metaphorically) laid down with see no distinction between you and the 'T' folks.

That sounds like a them problem.

You're all evil to Rhonda Santis, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Space Lasers.

The (lack of) approval of people I've never heard of does not bother me.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you think they're on your side.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what on earth you are talking about.

What am I demanding of you? Am I demanding you change your language usage to pronouns I prefer? Am I demanding you see me as heterosexual? Am I demanding access to single-sex spaces I don't qualify for?

What do you think I am demanding that makes me a 'special class'? Please be specific.

Or perhaps even what bothers you so much about trans people.

If they did not make demands of me, including using the power of the State to enforce those demands, I would probably have nothing to say about trans-identified people at all.

Do you buy into the notion that they're all just hiding in elementary school bathrooms waiting to "groom" kids into the "trans" lifestyle? Can you point to the part on the doll where the trans person hurt you? Because you clearly have a beef.

I have a beef with trans activists and their fellow gender ideologists who demand I recognise their gender deity, that I change my language to utter things I do not believe, that I affirm somebody's self-perception of their personality or suffer the consequences, that I lie to myself and others that humans can change sex, that I reinforce sex-role stereotypes by imagining that boys and girls who do not like the sex-roles society has put on them are actually the other sex.

 

[Ford]

I have a beef with trans activists and their fellow gender ideologists who demand I recognise their gender deity, that I change my language to utter things I do not believe, that I affirm somebody's self-perception of their personality or suffer the consequences, that I lie to myself and others that humans can change sex, that I reinforce sex-role stereotypes by imagining that boys and girls who do not like the sex-roles society has put on them are actually the other sex.

You've been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson, haven't you?

 

[Metaphor]

I have a beef with trans activists and their fellow gender ideologists who demand I recognise their gender deity, that I change my language to utter things I do not believe, that I affirm somebody's self-perception of their personality or suffer the consequences, that I lie to myself and others that humans can change sex, that I reinforce sex-role stereotypes by imagining that boys and girls who do not like the sex-roles society has put on them are actually the other sex.

You've been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson, haven't you?

Is this the quality of your response?

I addressed all your questions. I did it politely and thoroughly. You ignored all of it, accused me of wanting to be a 'special case' without any evidence or facts or reasoning, JAQing off with your childish 'show where on the doll the trans person hurt you' nonsense, and now you think by mentioning the name of a person you cannot stand and imagining I've listened to 'a lot' of him, that gives you some kind of victory.

I think the left's unalloyed hysteria of somebody as milquetoast as Jordan Peterson would be amusing if it wasn't so deranged. But if you cannot address any of my points, stop pretending they're not mine. I made them and I will defend them.

 

[Derec]

Sure, but that's not really how studies are designed.

Of course they are. The big question when selecting study subjects is always whether they are a representative sample.

By selecting limiting parameters for a group (and then another and another...) one can start to tease out whether specific characteristics of the group affected the outcomes and which. Essentially, this is a small study and this is the group they decided to study first.

They are not "studying" this group first. They gave this group a special government benefit for ideological reasons. Same as with the government benefit that only selects blacks and Pacific Islanders.

If random people all over had been chosen, it would be much more difficult to determine if the money benefited the recipients: helped them secure stable housing, for instance, or made them less food insecure.

Why would it be? Subjects can be queried just as easily in either case. What a random sample would have done is provide insight into likely effects of rolling the program city-wide. I.e. it would have been useful as a study. A biased sample is worthless for that purpose.

I understand you don't like that particular group of people

BS. I have no problem with "that particular group of people" per se, even if I am against much of the loony activism associated with it - like expecting everybody to share "their pronouns", demanding that biological males should compete in female sports, or insisting that merely declaring to be transsexual should be enough.

but I understand why they chose that group: it has a very high rate of unemployment and homelessness and also a high rate of victimization by violent crime.

Again. Gender identity is a crude proxy for these variables.

 

[Derec]

So in this photo, the person on the left is...?

View attachment 41221

Our left or their left? Sorry, I do not know who either of them are.
In any case, do you really think either one of them should get money from SF just because of his or her gender identity? Both seem to be doing quite well for themselves without such handouts. And that is what this thread is actually about.

 

[Bomb#20]

The “gender ideologists” that you rail against do not have an ideology. They have science on their side.

...
Intoning the word "science" is not what it takes to have science on your side.

And yet it is all you have offered...

Curious, that!

What the heck are you on about? Where the bejesus do you see me making an ideological claim and intoning "science" as if that settled the matter? I've been making legal arguments about discrimination and moral arguments about free speech, and pointing out errors in other posters' reasoning. What claim of mine do you feel was in need of scientific evidence?