Swiss Man Legally Changes Gender to Retire Earlier

[bruto]

So I see that an additional source does actually seem to support the initial idea that this was done for financial gain alone, but noting that the person involved was a known provocateur. It seems likely that the event was done, and made conspicuously public, as a gesture against, rather than for, trans rights. And it also seems likely that, conspicuous as it is, it results in the possibility that in exchange for a program that many would consider progressive and appropriate, the nation of Switzerland might be out almost 30 thousand bucks next year, if the now-conspicuously fraudulent gesture remains successful.

I don't think that changes much.

saving some post space, I add to the prestige:

I think you may be missing a point. The question as I read it is not whether some benefits to gay marriages are different from those to straight marriages. There are some benefits to marriage itself, and the question is whether a gay couple should face added obstacles to getting them, out of some fear that gay couples, unlike straight couples, might be more inclined to enter into marriage fraudulently.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I can't think of any undue benefit from sham marriage that homosexuals enjoy but heterosexuals do not. Or indeed any legitimate benefit from sincere marriage that only homosexuals should be entitled to. Are gay couples having an easier time getting green cards through sham marriages than straight couples are?

I imagine it would make it easier, now a person can commit fraud with 100% of the population, rather than only the approx. 50% of the opposite gender. I would think finding a willing partner to a petty fraud is a bit difficult, so doubling the potential pool of candidates can't hurt.

I would agree that such concerns sound ridiculous, but apparently this risk was something the public should take serious enough to deny gay people their rights.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow," Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal. "Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this, it's unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it's all about a free ride."

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/republicans-predict-fraud-bestiality-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized

Strikes me as bad-faith, pretextual nonsense obviously meant to paper over bigotry. Now, this single case of a provocateur gaming the swiss retirement system is something that really demands close scrutiny for totally legitimate, non-prejudiced reasons.

 

[theprestige]

saving some post space, I add to the prestige:

I think you may be missing a point. The question as I read it is not whether some benefits to gay marriages are different from those to straight marriages. There are some benefits to marriage itself, and the question is whether a gay couple should face added obstacles to getting them, out of some fear that gay couples, unlike straight couples, might be more inclined to enter into marriage fraudulently.

Oh god. That was a stupid fear and I dismissed it as a valid concern years ago.

ETA: And if that's what ST is asking, he's missing my point. I'm not concerned much about people changing their gender as a scam to get legal benefits. I'm concerned about the underlying premise that these benefits are or should be tied to gender in the first place.

And we do see this kind of exploitation more than just in this one case. There are a growing number of "anecdotes" where someone changes their gender and gains a benefit that probably shouldn't be tied to gender. Are they scammers? Sincere, inadvertent beneficiaries of a poorly-designed policy? Enjoying a legitimate right to which they are properly entitled by virtue of their trans-identity?

 

[shuttlt]

It's hard to answer this question unless one understands the reasoning behind a gender disparity in the retirement benefit scheme to begin with.

The fact that there's only a 1 year difference leads me to suspect it's largely a vestigial feature of a more sexist past.

There is apparently an effort to equalise the age at 65, which is being resisted, though apparently unsuccessfully.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/unions-contest-pension-reform-plans-with-bern-demonstration/46959184

It looks like this is the 4th attempt to equalise the retirement age. There is some possibility of women being compensated, so it may still be worth changing gender.

 

[lionking]

One reason a disparity in pension ages in Australia (and presumedly other countries) could be justified is that women’s retirement savings are much less than men due to the number of years they devoted to child raising.

 

[TomB]

One reason a disparity in pension ages in Australia (and presumedly other countries) could be justified is that women’s retirement savings are much less than men due to the number of years they devoted to child raising.

If that is the case, then I would propose that the disparity should be based on neither sex nor gender, but on a claim of having devoted a period of time to being a full time parent.

Something that men are increasingly starting to do because their partner (male or female) is the main career in the family.

 

[Beerina]

You'd think that women would have the later retirement age for the reasons you say, they tend to live longer and therefore would be drawing retirement longer.

Men seem to get screwed on both ends, dying sooner and having to work longer. Strikes me as strange.

Women got lower social security in the US because they lived longer, until the SC ruled it sexist against something or other.

There is a 75 franc fee, and a confirmation phone interview too! I suppose one year's worth of pension, plus the ability to show your friends your new driver's license is worth it.

"So you're a girl now?"

"Yep. Lesbian."

 

[TomB]

And we do see this kind of exploitation more than just in this one case. There are a growing number of "anecdotes" where someone changes their gender and gains a benefit that probably shouldn't be tied to gender. Are they scammers? Sincere, inadvertent beneficiaries of a poorly-designed policy? Enjoying a legitimate right to which they are properly entitled by virtue of their trans-identity?

The example that comes to mind is that of the individual who supposedly changed gender for lower car insurance rates. Actuarial tables take sex or gender into account, as anyone who has needed to add both a teenage son and a teenage daughter to their insurance can attest.

But that's a private company. I'm not losing sleep over their ability to address the issue. Government having policies where one demographic is preferred over another raises questions and should have good justification.

And it's possible that there is one. Time devoted to parenting was mentioned, and I don't have a problem with it. But it should be based on the act of parenting, not stereotypical gender/sex roles.

 

[shuttlt]

Women got lower social security in the US because they lived longer, until the SC ruled it sexist against something or other

They should do like with Covid and give women worse medical care until the numbers equalise.

 

[theprestige]

I imagine it would make it easier, now a person can commit fraud with 100% of the population, rather than only the approx. 50% of the opposite gender. I would think finding a willing partner to a petty fraud is a bit difficult, so doubling the potential pool of candidates can't hurt.

I would agree that such concerns sound ridiculous, but apparently this risk was something the public should take serious enough to deny gay people their rights.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/republicans-predict-fraud-bestiality-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized

It seems like you're less interested in what I actually think about the institution of marriage, and more interested in finding some sort of stick to beat me with by spurious association. And, since I reject the strategy elucidation of trans rights by appeal to analogy with gay rights, it's moot anyway.

Strikes me as bad-faith, pretextual nonsense obviously meant to paper over bigotry. Now, this single case of a provocateur gaming the swiss retirement system is something that really demands close scrutiny for totally legitimate, non-prejudiced reasons.

And here it seems like you're just flatly ignoring the actual issue I've raised. I think the basic premise of tying material legal benefits to gender identity rather than sex really demands close scrutiny for legitimate, non-prejudiced, and hopefully obvious reasons.

We've consistently received non-answers to the question of what rights a trans person should have by virtue of being trans. Maybe we'll have better luck with this question:

What material legal benefits should a person receive by virtue of their gender identity?

I'm not talking about social benefits like the entitlement to preferred pronouns. I'm talking about material benefits like money in the bank. What's your answer to this?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

\

We've consistently received non-answers to the question of what rights a trans person should have by virtue of being trans.

That's not what this example shows. This person is getting an early retirement bonus for claiming to be a woman, not for being trans.

Oppositely, a trans man would be incurring a cost upon themselves if they transitioned.

What I pointed out in my first posts stands. The scam here is more caused by the disparity of treatment between the genders than any recognition of the rights of trans people. If there weren't preferential treatment on the basis of gender, the entire scam becomes pointless.

 

[lobosrul5]

It does seem intrinsically unlikely that somebody would be willing to identify as female for $15-30k. Particularly if there is a $70 fee.

I disagree... if all you have to do is tell a government agent that yes I am now female, and now your DL says F instead of M. Yeah sign me up for an extra year of retirement. After a year you can change back to male.

The solution to this is pretty ******* obvious. The retirement age should be the same for both genders. It is in most countries if I'm not mistaken.


ETA:
"$15-30k. Particularly if there is a $70 fee."

Thats between a 21,400% to 42,800% ROI.

 

[pgwenthold]

I guess I liken this to a story in the US of two people who don't love each other and have no romantic interests getting married for "tax benefits."

Would anyone suggest there are not sham marriages that are done just for financial benefits?

If that happens, we don't say that the institution of marriage is corrupt, or even that tax benefits for married people should be abolished because of it (arguments to do so are based on broader issues, such as whether there should be tax benefits for married people in the first place, not because "it can be abused")

 

[lobosrul5]

Women got lower social security in the US because they lived longer, until the SC ruled it sexist against something or other.

Never heard of such, source for that? If you look at actuary tables you'll see that the lifespan between men and women narrows considerably. A 65 yo female only has a life expectancy 2 years more than a 65 yo man.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess I liken this to a story in the US of two people who don't love each other and have no romantic interests getting married for "tax benefits."

Would anyone suggest there are not sham marriages that are done just for financial benefits?

If that happens, we don't say that the institution of marriage is corrupt, or even that tax benefits for married people should be abolished because of it (arguments to do so are based on broader issues, such as whether there should be tax benefits for married people in the first place, not because "it can be abused")

Aren't all marriages shams? Ceremonial monogamy, officially recognized by the government and other people? That's weird even when it's not delusional, which is about fifty percent of the time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know it's unseemly of me, but I must say that, speaking as an emphatically cisgendered person, I suspect the security of anyone who thinks, or the motive of anyone who claims, that changing gender is a thing one might do casually. For most of is this would be a very big deal. You really could not pay me enough to do it.

What do you believe is involved in that change of gender?

What if you aren't required to have any sort of diagnosis, nor any medical treatment? What if you aren't expected to have any surgeries or any hormone treatment? What if you're not even expected to shave your beard, and it's perfectly acceptable for you to continue dressing in "butch" clothing, and continue being attracted to females?

What if there was literally no impact to you life other than the marker on your ID being "F" instead of "M", and sometimes people call you "her"? Is there a price for which you would consent to a pronoun change from some people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting that you latch onto the trans rights angle as the source of the problem.

It's not trans rights that are a problem. It's self declaration of gender identity with no additional requirements. THAT'S the problem.

Transgender people should have the right to not be discriminated against in employment or in housing or in medical treatment. They should have the right to live their lives free of abuse and harassment.

But magic words alone should not grant male people the right to take over female single-sex spaces, nor to count as females in statistics, nor to be housed as females in single-sex prisons and hospital wards and rape or domestic violence shelters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

FYI, most of the countries that have different ages for retirement between males and females do so because there's a general tendency of females to be younger than males in marriages. The age difference for retirement allows them to retire at roughly the same time.

I don't support it, but that's the rationale.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not trans rights that are a problem. It's self declaration of gender identity with no additional requirements. THAT'S the problem.

Transgender people should have the right to not be discriminated against in employment or in housing or in medical treatment. They should have the right to live their lives free of abuse and harassment.

They just have to constantly prove that they exist to your standard, nothing remotely off putting or discriminatory about that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm curious if you take a similar position around the issues of same sex people engaging in sham marriages in order to achieve some undue benefit. Do you think homosexuals should have to jump through some additional hoops to ensure that this scamming is harder to accomplish?

I can't think of any undue benefit from sham marriage that homosexuals enjoy but heterosexuals do not. Or indeed any legitimate benefit from sincere marriage that only homosexuals should be entitled to. Are gay couples having an easier time getting green cards through sham marriages than straight couples are?

Gay people don't get any different benefits as a result of their marriage than straight people do. The benefits are related the having the status of marriage, not the the combination of sexes represented in that marriage.

Do you have some reason to suggest that homosexual people are less honest in their feelings toward one another than straight people are? Do you feel that there's a higher likelihood of homosexual people fraudulently claiming marriage than for heterosexual people?