No. I’ve stated multiple points in multiple different comments that bring this out of the realm of examples you brought us into. You can engage with any point you take issue with or agree with, I don’t care.
That is why I tried to steer us out of the realm of examples, you can make an example for your position no matter what your position is. Engage with any of my actual statements on the matter.
This is bad faith enough where I’m just going to respond with the same level of bad faith: so by your logic gender isn’t a part of someone’s identity?
So this is the second comment I’ve seen trying to apply a sentiment that doesn’t actually refute the claim, attempt to refute it. The ability to change your appearance isn’t mutually exclusive to allowances being a beneficial data point for identifying someone. Not only is it fringe, but we already have multiple laws that deal with intentionally hiding your identity from the state or law enforcement.
I clarified that in my previous comment.
I’ve also tried to steer us off this subject and into the realm of a debate centered on theory multiple times. If you’re unhappy with the example, please join me in not continuing to bring it up.
Do you have any thoughts on anything else I’ve said?
Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.
I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples. That seems misguided at best. No one claimed these are perfect data points for officers, only that they can help and are therefore warranted.
The information on IDs is the information officers have access to in their computers, it’s also the information dispatch has access to while giving a description. That is why having them on an ID in this particular example is important.
If you want to look at specifically why gender could be useful information in this one example, you can simply envision someone with a beard who identifies as female. The fact that their gender is female could inform an officer what they’d be wearing, where implying looking at the picture would guide the officer to assume the opposite.
This, again, is one example. As a general rule, more identifiers on an ID= a more effective ID, asking for specific examples and trying to reason them separately won’t change that, though we can do that if you’d like.
Can you source the studies that claim lefties prioritize self the least? Liberty conceptually is prioritizing yourself (or other individuals) over the good of society as an aggregate, so the idea that lefties would prioritize society so far above self is very counterintuitive.
What does that have to do with gender-neutral bathrooms?
Your third paragraph confuses me. Why would conservatives be alright with this solution?
That would be tracking sex, not gender. Gender has no bearing on medical issues as it’s a social construct.
Conservatism is not fascism. In no understanding of either definition could either be considered congruent with the other. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism, as you’re well aware.
She’s a progressive, not a social democrat
You don’t think I’m arguing in good faith? That’s certainly one way to look at this conversation. Your inability or unwillingness to read my comments in their entirety doesn’t constitute bad faith on my part. You’ve once again ignored my comment and made a completely seperate point that I’ve already addressed 3… goddamn times. I’m trying my best to remain cordial but you’re incredibly frustrating to debate with. If your reading comprehension is so low, or you’re unwilling to actually read my entire comments, then please stop commenting. At this point you are outright ignoring the majority of any of my given comments so that you can continue claiming very basic things I’ve addressed and refuted.
The fact you claimed I’m not acting in good faith is fucking unbelievable. Something something every accusation is a confession or something.