Swiss Man Legally Changes Gender to Retire Earlier

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm curious where this claim of hidden camera risk comes from.

Seems pretty obvious to me that the greatest risk of hidden cams comes from staff. These are the people who have access to bathrooms and changing rooms when nobody is watching.

Is this a reference to some incident I'm not aware of or just another ass-pull for the bathroom wars?

 

[Ziggurat]

And it raises questions about the material benefits themselves. What property of Swiss women prompts a policy of earlier retirement benefits for them?

Given that women usually outlive men, seems like men should get retirement benefits earlier than women.

I predict that these exploitations will continue to increase in number. I predict that trans-inclusionists will continue to dismiss each one as a one-off anecdote. And I predict that trans-inclusionists will continue to vehemently denounce any attempts to close the policy gaps and regularize the definitions of sex-based properties and the material benefits attached to them in law.

In this specific case, I suspect that the end state will be removing the difference in retirement benefit age. That sidesteps the whole trans inclusion question.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm assuming that a person claiming to be a woman for the purposes of chiseling out a year of pension benefits is not actually identifying or behaving as a woman in public.

If this person walks into a men's room, but has official state ID claiming to be a woman, that strikes me as something that may be criminal. Then again, maybe it's not in that country.

I suppose they could really commit to the bit and start using the women's room until they change their ID back. That seems more of a burden than just lying on a form.

Precisely. She only has to do so for a year, then she can de-transition for another 75 bucks. If she gets arrested in the interim for backsliding, she can at least go to a prison that will respect her gender.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, this thread is very quickly turning into that other thread that I refuse to set foot in. I'm out.

 

[Roboramma]

The point is that the pension system in Switzerland is gender discriminatory. That's the issue that we should be talking about.

Pretty much agree with that.

And with this:

Under the current Swiss policy, what are the properties of Swiss women that they believe make an earlier retirement age appropriate? And does a Swiss man acquire those properties when he starts identifying as a Swiss woman?

If there's a good reason for the system to discriminate based on sex, then I might be able to get behind that difference*, though my instinct is that it's probably better for the age to be the same for both sexes.
I'm having a very hard time understanding why there should be differential treatment based on gender, though.

*Lionking suggested that it might be due to differences in savings between men and women due to differences in childcare, for instance. That could potentially make sense, though it might be better to apply it to mothers rather than women in general. Still I'm not convinced either way here.

 

[Arcade22]

This "woman" deserves every form of praise for taking advantage of Swiss sexism. Did you know that Switzerland didn't allow women equal rights to vote even as late as 1990?

Now back to your regular scheduled transphobic tirades and self-righteous TIRFS moaning about how they are treated just like the Jews who were driven into gas chambers.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This "woman" deserves every form of praise for taking advantage of Swiss sexism. Did you know that Switzerland didn't allow women equal rights to vote even as late as 1990?

Now back to your regular scheduled transphobic tirades and self-righteous TIRFS moaning about how they are treated just like the Jews who were driven into gas chambers.

I'm no mind reader, but I could easily see such a stunt as more an anti-sexism thing than an anti-trans thing.

The entire male population could do this and it would illustrate the absurdity of such a distinction, all while having the effect of making a state benefit slightly more generous. Sounds like a win-win to me.

If this is such a huge problem, the state could fix it easily, either by being generous (lowering men's retirement age) or by being stingy (raising women's retirement age).

 

[catsmate]

Meanwhile, do we have any evidence that this unidentified person changed gender in order to qualify for early retirement? Or is that an invention of this far-right, conspiracy-laden website?

No evidence, nutjob website, and Tippit.

 

[bruto]

No evidence, nutjob website, and Tippit.

Yes, for Tippit's web site, but if you read on you'll see a link or two that elaborates, and suggests that it was, indeed, done as a gesture by someone known as a provocateur. It's not made obvious, however, whether it was to disparage the ease of declaring a gender change, or the pension discrimination itself. Tippit's original source suggests the former, but it's not certain.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not made obvious, however, whether it was to disparage the ease of declaring a gender change, or the pension discrimination itself.

Could be both. In any case, as I already said, I suspect the remedy will be a change in the pension system. That's the part that most people will have a stake in.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Easy solution. They can just re-identify as non-binary in a wee bit.


ETA: Are you also of the opinion that people who self-declare themselves to be transwomen, but who haven't gone through the legal process of changing their legal sex, should be considered sex offenders if they enter the restrooms of the other sex?

Not asked at me, but to both of you...I don't think just entering a restroom of the opposite sex should EVER be sufficient to be a crime.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not asked at me, but to both of you...I don't think just entering a restroom of the opposite sex should EVER be sufficient to be a crime.

I don't think it generally is. I've done it accidentally, I doubt I could be charged. I'm glad no one was in there, though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If there's a good reason for the system to discriminate based on sex, then I might be able to get behind that difference*, though my instinct is that it's probably better for the age to be the same for both sexes.
I'm having a very hard time understanding why there should be differential treatment based on gender, though.

*Lionking suggested that it might be due to differences in savings between men and women due to differences in childcare, for instance. That could potentially make sense, though it might be better to apply it to mothers rather than women in general. Still I'm not convinced either way here.

As I mentioned earlier...

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.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not asked at me, but to both of you...I don't think just entering a restroom of the opposite sex should EVER be sufficient to be a crime.

I don't think it generally is. I've done it accidentally, I doubt I could be charged. I'm glad no one was in there, though.

I don't think just entering is a crime, nor do I think it should be. It's a social convention. There are always going to be some reasonable exceptions, and when we're talking about bathrooms, I genuinely don't care at all.

I do, however, think it's reasonable to allow some services to be segregated on the basis of sex. And I think there are some situations that should be required to be segregated on the basis of sex, although I would be amenable to allowing rare exceptions for good reason.

 

[bruto]

Could be both. In any case, as I already said, I suspect the remedy will be a change in the pension system. That's the part that most people will have a stake in.

Agreed. Even if the event here is trivial and of little cost, it provides a bump to a change that ought to be done anyway.

 

[Roboramma]

As I mentioned earlier...

Ah, I missed that.

As with you, I'm not sure I agree with that rationale, but I'll have to consider it for a moment.

 

[xjx388]

Let's make sure to keep this specifically on the topic: The Swiss retirement laws as it pertains to sex/gender and not sex/gender in general which has it's own thread. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

 

[mgidm86]

How do you tell - legally - whether someone is faking their gender identity? What policies would YOU want put in place to determine whether someone is genuine or not before granting them access to services and spaces they would otherwise be excluded from on the basis of their sex?

"Hey Mac, pull 'em down.....ah ya yer okay get in line C!"