San Francisco launches Guaranteed Income for Transgender Individuals

[Derec]

My incredulity is at YOUR apparent lack of understanding or unwillingness to understand even if you disagree.

It is you who is unwilling to understand something that is taught in any elementary stats class.
What is a Representative Sample and Why is it Important?

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.

It is not lack of understanding. I understand both the problems with what SF is doing and problems with your reasoning trying to excuse it by pretending it's a "study".

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

I was replying to what you wrote. LD made some errors in reading comprehension.

 

[Derec]

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

Not a safe assumption. All we know that they are gender identity 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.

Why would they face such discrimination in a city as woke as San Francisco?

or...pick something:

Randomly selected 1,000 or 10,000 residents fitting certain income criteria for example.

it makes the most sense to target groups who actually need the funds.

True. So limit it by income, not by what people think of their own genitalia.

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.

I do not see why random sampling would not allow one to follow effects.

 

[Derec]

That bullshit is truly ironic.

I.e. you not only have problems with reading comprehension, but also with comprehending irony, and, last but not least, also with bovine husbandry.

Your emphasis required an assumption. Duh.

No. It only required reading what Toni wrote and replying to her.
You made a mistake thinking I assumed it was a study, when it was really Toni who did so.
Instead of owning up to your mistake, apologizing and moving on, you dig in.
That's what makes discussing anything with you so frustrating.

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

So discrimination in government benefits is ok? Would restricting say welfare payments to whites only be acceptable to you?

This is a program designed to ameliorate the effects of discrimination against a particular group.

It has not been shown that this "particular group" suffers any significant discrimination in the hyperprogressive city of San Francisco.

No one has the right to income maintenance from the gov't.

That does not mean that if government decides to give "income maintenance" they should discriminate by things like race, sex, sexual preference or gender identity. One way or the other.

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

Disabled are actually disabled. The reasoning behind giving special benefit to trans people because they are more likely to be homeless (or some other negative outcome) is like saying that if Italian-Americans are more likely to be disabled, all Italian-Americans should be given disability benefits.
Why use such a crude proxy instead of helping people who actually need help?

 

[Toni]

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.

It very much depends on the kind of study performed. If you think that any governmental body gives away money (to anyone aside from BUSINESS, of course) without collecting data and analyzing it, you're mistaken. Of course they do.

I understand that you believe that it would yield better data or be 'more fair' to just randomly distribute funds. I don't agree.

 

[Toni]

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

Not a safe assumption. All we know that they are gender identity 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.

Why would they face such discrimination in a city as woke as San Francisco?

or...pick something:

Randomly selected 1,000 or 10,000 residents fitting certain income criteria for example.

it makes the most sense to target groups who actually need the funds.

True. So limit it by income, not by what people think of their own genitalia.

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.

I do not see why random sampling would not allow one to follow effects.

I don't know if you really believe that everybody who lives in San Francisco is all woke and rainbow wearing antiracist liberal feminists but that clearly is not so.

Here's a study about discrimination against trans individuals in the San Francisco area:

Experiences and factors associated with transphobic hate crimes among transgender women in the San Francisco Bay Area: comparisons across race - PubMed

A high proportion of trans women experienced a transphobic hate crime, with significant socio-structural risk factors and racial differences by crime type. However, crimes were underreported to the police. Interventions that address structural factors, especially among trans women of color, can...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A high proportion of trans women experienced a transphobic hate crime, with significant socio-structural risk factors and racial differences by crime type. However, crimes were underreported to the police. Interventions that address structural factors, especially among trans women of color, can yield violence prevention benefits.

You (and I) do not actually know whether or not the UBI grants are means tested but I am certain that there are trans individuals who are high achieving.

 

[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!

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?

So, your position does not have scientific support?

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you seriously unable to see the similarity of the reasoning in

"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."

and

"Marriage is a crime for anyone whose race is white and who marries someone other than white, and a crime for anyone whose race is black and who marries someone other than black. So there is no race discrimination."?

Your argument fails because in Loving, it is discrimination to keep a white person from marrying a black person. There is nothing analoguous in the income maintenance argument.

Pattern-matching is the brain capability underlying all of thought.

Nope - the patterns are not the same (see above).

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." - Voltaire

You already stipulated that it's discrimination in post #141. It's ridiculous for you to propose it's a different pattern merely because the discrimination isn't about keeping a white person from marrying a black person. You might as well claim "Dogs are mammals; cats are mammals; therefore dogs are cats." isn't the same fallacy as "Chickens are birds; robins are birds; therefore chickens are robins." merely because the first one doesn't say anything about birds.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

So, your position does not have scientific support?

Depends on which of my positions you're talking about. My positions on scientific questions have scientific support; my position that Bruckner was an artistic genius, maybe not. What "side" is it that you think intoning "science" on behalf of is curiously all I have offered?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Not a safe assumption. All we know that they are gender identity tested.

According to one of the links in the OP link,

"The Guaranteed Income for Trans People program, or GIFT, will provide low-income transgender San Franciscans with $1,200 each month for up to 18 months to help address financial insecurity within trans communities, Breed revealed Wednesday. "​

Sounds like it's means tested to me.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

So, your position does not have scientific support?

Did you ever meet a category error you didn't like?

 

[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?

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.

Your "defense" is about as strong as Peterson's. In fact it is nearly identical. You just don't like trans people because they make you feel icky, and you don't want to admit they might have a point. I get it. You hate trans people. You've made your bigotry abundantly clear. As usual with bigotry, none of it is based in reason or facts.

 

[Metaphor]

Your "defense" is about as strong as Peterson's. In fact it is nearly identical. You just don't like trans people because they make you feel icky, and you don't want to admit they might have a point. I get it.

You don't. I note you have responded to none of my points. None of them. You cannot address, let alone refute, what I have said. Despite that, you have confidence that you are right in your beliefs and the unbelievers are wrong and sinful. It is always such with religious believers.

It's a shame, Ford. For you. You had a chance to understand someone else's perspective, and disabuse yourself of at least some incorrect beliefs. But you squandered that chance.

 

[Ford]

Your "defense" is about as strong as Peterson's. In fact it is nearly identical. You just don't like trans people because they make you feel icky, and you don't want to admit they might have a point. I get it.

You don't. I note you have responded to none of my points. None of them. You cannot address, let alone refute, what I have said. Despite that, you have confidence that you are right in your beliefs and the unbelievers are wrong and sinful. It is always such with religious believers.

It's a shame, Ford. For you. You had a chance to understand someone else's perspective, and disabuse yourself of at least some incorrect beliefs. But you squandered that chance.

I understand your "perspective," but I reject it. You've explained your phobia at length, but I reject it. You think that you are possessed of some truth, but I disagree. You arrogantly pity me because I won't accept your "truth."

You remind me of a fundamentalist Christian who looks down on a gay person and says "I'll pray for you."

 

[Metaphor]

I understand your "perspective," but I reject it.

If both those things are true, then I pity your moral sensibilities.

You've explained your phobia at length, but I reject it.

A set of beliefs you object to but cannot address are not a 'phobia', Ford.

You think that you are possessed of some truth, but I disagree.

You have not pointed out a single falsehood. You can only, and have only, deigned to imagine motives I do not have. You also repeatedly claim I'm being 'led around by the nose' by people you imagine are brainwashing me. I suspect you are projecting.

You arrogantly pity me because I won't accept your "truth."

I do pity you but I am also afraid of how your attitude reflects the ruthless grip gender ideology has. You can't even entertain the mildest skepticism from your religion.

You remind me of a fundamentalist Christian who looks down on a gay person and says "I'll pray for you."

I will not pray for you.

And when I die, I will go to the only Judge whose Verdict matters. Judge Judy. And I will accept Her pronouncement on my soul.

 

[Politesse]

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?

So, your position does not have scientific support?

Depends on which of my positions you're talking about. My positions on scientific questions have scientific support; my position that Bruckner was an artistic genius, maybe not. What "side" is it that you think intoning "science" on behalf of is curiously all I have offered?

Yes, clearly I was asking about your opinion about Bruckner, not your bullshit opinions about other people's sex and gender identities and the discrimination they face on account of similarly ignorant people in their communities. You know, the topic of the thread?

 

[laughing dog]

That bullshit is truly ironic.

I.e. you not only have problems with reading comprehension, but also with comprehending irony, and, last but not least, also with bovine husbandry.

More bullshit irony.

Your emphasis required an assumption. Duh.

No. It only required reading what Toni wrote and replying to her.
You made a mistake thinking I assumed it was a study, when it was really Toni who did so.
Instead of owning up to your mistake, apologizing and moving on, you dig in.
That's what makes discussing anything with you so frustrating.

That is a funny way of admitting your error and moving on by shoveling even more bullshit irony.

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

So discrimination in government benefits is ok? Would restricting say welfare payments to whites only be acceptable to you?

Discrimination in gov't benefits is okay - ever hear of WIC? That doesn't mean every form of distinguishing eligible recipients is okay.

To answer your 2nd question, it would depend on the circumstances and purposes.

This is a program designed to ameliorate the effects of discrimination against a particular group.

It has not been shown that this "particular group" suffers any significant discrimination in the hyperprogressive city of San Francisco.

Really? Do tell.

No one has the right to income maintenance from the gov't.

That does not mean that if government decides to give "income maintenance" they should discriminate by things like race, sex, sexual preference or gender identity. One way or the other.

You are too late on that one. WIC is still a program and clearly distinguishes eligibility based on sex and age.

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

Disabled are actually disabled.

But according to you, that discriminates against the able-bodied. Apparently you agree that it is okay to distinguish between potential recipients as long as you approve of the criteria.

The reasoning behind giving special benefit to trans people because they are more likely to be homeless (or some other negative outcome) is like saying that if Italian-Americans are more likely to be disabled, all Italian-Americans should be given disability benefits.
Why use such a crude proxy instead of helping people who actually need help?

Your reasoning is ridiculous. There is nothing in the program that says it will be given to any transgender person. You have no idea whether the resulting recipients actually need help or not.

 

[Toni]

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.

I understand why it is important to be seen and acknowledged for who you are if you’ve spent most of.your life being forced to hide important parts of yourself.

 

[Bomb#20]

And when I die, I will go to the only Judge whose Verdict matters. Judge Judy. And I will accept Her pronouncement on my soul.

 

[Bomb#20]

That does not mean that if government decides to give "income maintenance" they should discriminate by things like race, sex, sexual preference or gender identity. One way or the other.

You are too late on that one. WIC is still a program and clearly distinguishes eligibility based on sex and age.

Male caregivers are eligible for WIC. A rose by any other name...

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

So, your position does not have scientific support?

Depends on which of my positions you're talking about. My positions on scientific questions have scientific support; my position that Bruckner was an artistic genius, maybe not. What "side" is it that you think intoning "science" on behalf of is curiously all I have offered?

Yes, clearly I was asking about your opinion about Bruckner, not your [expletive deleted] opinions about other people's sex and gender identities and the discrimination they face on account of similarly ignorant people in their communities. You know, the topic of the thread?

Why do you behave this way? Do you keep digging when you're in a hole because your ego isn't up to the challenge of admitting you made a mistake? Or are you just so chauvinistic about your religion that anyone who disagrees with you is outgroup and all the people in your outgroup are interchangeable parts? You trumped up a false charge against me. You aren't going to actually point out any "opinions about other people's sex and gender identities and the discrimination they face" I've posted, let alone any opinion I curiously offered intoning "science" to support. The reason you aren't going to point those out is because you made it all up. And now you're trying to get away with it through pure bluster.