I have no clue as it would obviously be beneficial. I feel like you’re hyper fixated on this either way. Like I said in my previous reply, this is one example. Even if I granted that this someone disproved my example (I’m not entirely sure how that would work) it wouldn’t actually have any bearing on my original statement.
Trust me, I do get your point, but the reason we don’t have race on our ID’s is because its arbitrary. Black Irish exist for example.
So why would my skin color be listed on my ID if my picture is there?
Anyone who is cross referencing the picture could simply just say what the skin color or ethnicity is.
In any case, I think your argument is moot. If police are trying to identify someone in a crowd, why would having their gender on their licence help?
If police know who they’re looking for, they will look up the person on their computer, and could see gender there. That doesn’t mean it needs to be on a licence.
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.
Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.
Which part of my comment proved race is not arbitrary?
Black Irish?
Do you expect my drivers licence to list “black Irish” as a race?
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.
I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples.
This example is so extreme.
Even in this example I still dont understand why gender needs to be on the licence
If police know they’re looking for a trans woman, why would having the gender on the licence help?
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?
You can’t just declare yourself as someone making sense lol
Reiterate your point: give me an example where having gender on a licence is helpful.
I reject your previous example because the police looking for a trans woman would know it’s a trans woman they’re looking for. Having that info on the licence doesn’t help them at all.
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.
Nah I’m good. I don’t think youre arguing in good faith.
I’ve stated multiple points in multiple different comments that bring this out of the realm of examples you brought us into.
Both law-enforcement examples were yours. All I’ve asked for is one where a printed gender field helps, meaning it tells an officer something they couldn’t get from the photo, the police record, or the dispatch description. You said there were “more than enough examples”, gave two (which I reject), and declined a third.
You acknowledge police work from the information on their computer systems. Gender can be recorded there without being printed on ID, and neither example gets from “recorded” to “printed”. Your rule that more identifiers make a more effective ID only holds for identifiers that add something.
My question was why it needs to be on a licence. You still haven’t answered that.
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.
I have no clue as it would obviously be beneficial. I feel like you’re hyper fixated on this either way. Like I said in my previous reply, this is one example. Even if I granted that this someone disproved my example (I’m not entirely sure how that would work) it wouldn’t actually have any bearing on my original statement.
Trust me, I do get your point, but the reason we don’t have race on our ID’s is because its arbitrary. Black Irish exist for example.
So why would my skin color be listed on my ID if my picture is there?
Anyone who is cross referencing the picture could simply just say what the skin color or ethnicity is.
In any case, I think your argument is moot. If police are trying to identify someone in a crowd, why would having their gender on their licence help?
If police know who they’re looking for, they will look up the person on their computer, and could see gender there. That doesn’t mean it needs to be on a licence.
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.
Which part of my comment proved race is not arbitrary?
Black Irish?
Do you expect my drivers licence to list “black Irish” as a race?
This example is so extreme.
Even in this example I still dont understand why gender needs to be on the licence
If police know they’re looking for a trans woman, why would having the gender on the licence help?
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?
You can’t just declare yourself as someone making sense lol
Reiterate your point: give me an example where having gender on a licence is helpful.
I reject your previous example because the police looking for a trans woman would know it’s a trans woman they’re looking for. Having that info on the licence doesn’t help them at all.
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.
Nah I’m good. I don’t think youre arguing in good faith.
Both law-enforcement examples were yours. All I’ve asked for is one where a printed gender field helps, meaning it tells an officer something they couldn’t get from the photo, the police record, or the dispatch description. You said there were “more than enough examples”, gave two (which I reject), and declined a third.
You acknowledge police work from the information on their computer systems. Gender can be recorded there without being printed on ID, and neither example gets from “recorded” to “printed”. Your rule that more identifiers make a more effective ID only holds for identifiers that add something.
My question was why it needs to be on a licence. You still haven’t answered that.
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.