Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[d4m10n]

One, veteran status is a formal, accredited identity based on facts.

Two, veteran status is predicated on how others perceive you, based on the facts.

Three, veteran status on your government ID can be used to obtain services predicated on veteran status.

You have moved the goal posts from where they were originally, "Adding non-identifying information to identity documents is bad policy" to where they are now with these three new criteria. As with my reply above to EC, I would ask whether these criteria ought to apply to custom license plates as well.

 

[theprestige]

You have moved the goal posts from where they were originally, "Adding non-identifying information to identity documents is bad policy" to where they are now with these three new criteria. As with my reply above to EC, I would ask whether these criteria ought to apply to license plates as well.

Veteran status is identifying information. Self-image is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm entirely unsure why this rule of thumb ought to apply to one's license to drive a vehicle but not the license plate on that vehicle, which may be customized to show one's support for all sorts of special interests which are orthogonal (at best) to the process of vehicle identification. Have you ever expressed your disapproval of custom license plates because they violate the rule which you've promulgated above?

I'm only speaking for myself, and I'm not sure if I've specifically addressed the issue here, but yes, I'm opposed to custom license plates. Once upon a time, license plates all had a solid background color and a letter color. And you could tell what state a license plate was from by the color combo. For example, California plates all had yellow lettering on a blue background. So yes, customized plates are inferior to the old solid color style, making it harder to ID a car. I wish they would go back to the old way. But that's not going to happen, because the custom plates are a cash cow, and I don't get to decide.

Surely you must be aware that some owners of public accommodations (e.g. Wi Spa) would prefer to provide special privileges to individuals based on their personal sense of self as a woman or man.

Sure, but if it's self-ID, then why does that need to go on a government ID? Those providers who care can just ask directly, they don't need to consult the ID. For any legitimate case in which self-ID is relevant, there's no reason to involve the government at all. That explicitly takes away from the self part of self-ID.

I'm open to arguments about surgical status, but that's not self-ID, and that's not what the TRA's are pushing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm entirely unsure why this rule of thumb ought to apply to one's license to drive a vehicle but not the license plate on that vehicle, which may be customized to show one's support for all sorts of special interests which are orthogonal (at best) to the process of vehicle identification. Have you ever expressed your disapproval of custom license plates because they violate the rule which you've promulgated above?

Vehicle license plates don't directly include any identifying information for the vehicle. They provide an alpha-numeric code by which law enforcement can verify that the vehicle is registered, and can access information that describes the vehicle to which the plate number is assigned, and to whom the vehicle is registered. The rest is window dressing, and entirely cosmetic.

The license plate number is analogous to your DL#. By itself it contains no specific information, it's a key that links to data. The plate is analogous to the piece of plastic upon which the DL# is printed. If you would like to argue that individuals should be able to select from a variety of background images for their DL card (similar to how many credit cards do), or even have the ability to customize their DL#, by all means do so. I have no objection to that.

Surely you must be aware that some owners of public accommodations (e.g. Wi Spa) would prefer to provide special privileges to individuals based on their personal sense of self as a woman or man.

Actually, if you read back through the various articles and quotes, it seems relatively clear that the owners of Wi Spa do not want to provide special privileges based on subjective feelings, but rather they are required to do so because California decided that special feelings are more important than reality.

 

[d4m10n]

Veteran status is identifying information.

Certainly not in the same sense as eye color or height or sex, which are the sort of characteristics you can usually estimate by just looking. Even if I'm wearing my favorite veteran hat (Operation Allied Force) you've no way of verifying whether I was really involved in that effort without doing some deep research on the .mil web.

Self-image is not.

Self-image (with respect to gender expression) is arguably more useful than veteran status for identification purposes at a glance; it's relatively easy to pick out a bloke in a dress from a lineup of otherwise gender conforming people.

 

[d4m10n]

Actually, if you read back through the various articles and quotes, it seems relatively clear that the owners of Wi Spa do not want to provide special privileges based on subjective feelings, but rather they are required to do so because California decided that special feelings are more important than reality.

Fair enough. Pick another spa or gym, one which openly supports the reasoning behind CA civil rights laws.

The rest is window dressing, and entirely cosmetic.

Granted, but why argue against the window dressing on the grounds that it is superfluous to the task of identification?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Surely you must be aware that some owners of public accommodations (e.g. Wi Spa) would prefer to provide special privileges to individuals based on their personal sense of self as a woman or man.

I feel like you're intentionally avoiding the obvious here.

Veteran status is a verifiable factual thing, that confers government granted concessions. Whether you agree that those concessions should be granted is a different issue. But it is still factually reflective of military service having been rendered.

Personal feelings are not verifiable, they're not factual.

Look - would you support the government making policies that allow anyone to have a veteran identifier on their license, if they say that they "feel veterany", without having ever served? Would you support anyone being able to have a disabled placard if they say that they "feel handicapped" with no actual physical limitations at all?

 

[theprestige]

I don't mind reconsidering the propriety of putting veteran status on a driver's license. I do mind doctrinaire arguments to the effect that since we already put up with a minor amount of possible nonsense, therefore we must according to a perfect system of formal logic accept without complaint whatever egregious nonsense bad actors wish to perpetrate.

 

[d4m10n]

Veteran status is a verifiable factual thing, that confers government granted concessions. Whether you agree that those concessions should be granted is a different issue. But it is still factually reflective of military service having been rendered.

Whether or not someone believes themselves to be transgender or non-binary is a fact about that individual, one which confers "government granted concessions" in places like California, as mentioned just above. This fact cannot be backed up by government paperwork unless we have some sort of process for doing so, as with GRC's in the UK.

Personal feelings are not verifiable, they're not factual.

Not all facts are objectively observable, which is why we have things like the pain rating scale.

Look - would you support the government making policies that allow anyone to have a veteran identifier on their license, if they say that they "feel veterany", without having ever served?

Not really, but as you say we're talking about (objectively) verifiable facts here rather than personal sense of self. This is not a weakness in the veteran marker analogy, since I was hoping to test whether uselessness in terms of identification was really the key criterion in play.

Would you support anyone being able to have a disabled placard if they say that they "feel handicapped" with no actual physical limitations at all?

If they are wheelchair bound on account of (competently diagnosed) BIID, probably so.

 

[Paul2]

I'm entirely unsure why this rule of thumb ought to apply to one's license to drive a vehicle but not the license plate on that vehicle, which may be customized to show one's support for all sorts of special interests which are orthogonal (at best) to the process of vehicle identification. Have you ever expressed your disapproval of custom license plates because they violate the rule which you've promulgated above?

If there is a document (driver's license or ID card for non-drivers) that is used as identification with objective characteristics (sex, DOB, hair color, etc.), then other documents or objects, like the license plate, can be individually customized without harming the objective identification function of the license/ID card.

ETA: Oh, and the state can charge more money for a customized license plate.

 

[Darat]

Thread being split - Continuation thread: https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371593

Posted By: Darat