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’m going to leave it up to the court of public opinion. If anyone else is this far down and has an opinion, feel free to weigh in, i’d like to know what piece of this I’m missing.
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.
I’m going to leave it up to the court of public opinion. If anyone else is this far down and has an opinion, feel free to weigh in, i’d like to know what piece of this I’m missing.