• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Swiss Man Legally Changes Gender to Retire Earlier

theprestige said:
It is in some jurisdictions, and there's a growing and vocal activist movement to expand that far and wide. So it's not just a question of "isn't", it's a question of "should not be" and whether that will last.
Click to expand...
Not really. It may be a criterion for recognising gender identity in the law in certain jurisdictions (though I doubt that it is the sole criterion in the vast majority), but laws do not define gender identity. People do.

And anyway we already have laws against trespass and voyeurism, and against benefit and pension fraud. No special case needs to be made for people who fake their gender identity in order to commit such crimes.
 
theprestige said:
It is in some jurisdictions, and there's a growing and vocal activist movement to expand that far and wide. So it's not just a question of "isn't", it's a question of "should not be" and whether that will last.
Click to expand...
But I think I read in one of the sources on this particular case that there is a provision for catching fraud. It may not work well enough, or be used well enough, but I think it exists. And I imagine something like it exists elsewhere.

But as you suggested earlier, one way to insure against such fraud would be to eliminate sex discrimination in the first place, which would make fraud pretty pointless. Then people could change genders, whether seriously or frivolously, and whatever consequences, other than the expected religious fury and maybe a few politicians' brains exploding, would be private, and not much a concern of the public.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not conversing about abuse of the system. I'm conversing about the underlying principle that opens the loophole.

And nobody's considering putting burdens to access on people. Swiss women have no undue or novel burden when accessing Swiss women's retirement benefits.

The questions I'm asking are:

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?

I find it interesting that every time I explain what I'm talking about and repeat my questions, you respond by trying to change the subject.

How about this? I promise to engage with any on-topic point you raise, substantively and in good faith, after you show me the same courtesy. In fact, if you want to start a separate thread about any off-topic point raised so far, like public nudity or gay marriage, I'll engage with those as well, in the appropriate threads. Fair? Or do you just want to try another fringe reset?
Click to expand...

It's probably to do with the fact that the Swiss tend to be a bit on the conservative side.
It was very common in most countries that women got to retire earlier as working women were considered less important than men.
Things like having to ask a husband permission to work, getting fired as you get pregnant as now the real thing starts etc etc.

These things were slowly phased out in the 70's or so in most European countries, but women did not get the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
These things were slowly phased out in the 70's or so in most European countries, but women did not get the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971.
Click to expand...
Sounds bad, but actually it was worse,

Women's suffrage in Switzerland
In 1991 following a decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Appenzell Innerrhoden became the last Swiss canton to grant women the vote on local issues.
Click to expand...
But hey, swings and roundabouts eh?
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes. This trivialisation of transition is what leads to vapid statements like this:

Let me be very clear: A man who dresses up as a woman in order to ogle women in bathrooms is not trans. He is just a pervert.

A man who puts F on a form and doesn't change anything else in his life is not trans. He is just gaming the system.
Click to expand...

And how do we tell the difference, from a legal and policy perspective?

We can't, which is the reason that self-id is for legal purposes (as opposed to purely social) is generally not supported by females. Because *legally* there's zero difference between the pervert, the person gaming the system, and a transgender person - they are all exactly the same in the eyes of the law because the only requirement is their declaration that they are trans. There is zero way to prevent the perverts and the gamers from exploiting those policies.

arthwollipot said:
Trans issues are completely beside the point here. The point is that the pension system in Switzerland is gender discriminatory. That's the issue that we should be talking about.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's a bit of both. Yes, I agree that Switzerland having differences by sex in their pensions is discriminatory and should probably be addressed by the Swiss. But it *also* demonstrates the problem with Self-ID: There is no avenue by which to exclude those who are gaming the system or those who are perverts. Self-ID opens up a gigantic gaping and patently obvious loophole... one that activists blithely ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

The discussion can incorporate more than one aspect of the situation.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well see there's the thing. Simple self-ID is not the sole criterion for being transgender.
Click to expand...

:confused: Yes, it is in many places. It's the sole criterion for all of Canada, many states in the US, several countries in Europe, and is on the docket for discussion in the UK.

And beyond the complete *legal* element of self-id, there's also a whole host of policies currently in place that use self-declaration as the sole criteria. For example, prison placement in California, Washington, New Jersey, and several other states, as well as participation in sports in school, accommodation in rape and domestic violence shelters, and several other venues... like "best actress".

Seriously, in this thread, it is literally the sole criteria used in Switzerland. I mean, what other criteria do you think is in place?
 
arthwollipot said:
Not really. It may be a criterion for recognising gender identity in the law in certain jurisdictions (though I doubt that it is the sole criterion in the vast majority), but laws do not define gender identity. People do.

And anyway we already have laws against trespass and voyeurism, and against benefit and pension fraud. No special case needs to be made for people who fake their gender identity in order to commit such crimes.
Click to expand...

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?
 
bruto said:
But I think I read in one of the sources on this particular case that there is a provision for catching fraud. It may not work well enough, or be used well enough, but I think it exists. And I imagine something like it exists elsewhere.

But as you suggested earlier, one way to insure against such fraud would be to eliminate sex discrimination in the first place, which would make fraud pretty pointless. Then people could change genders, whether seriously or frivolously, and whatever consequences, other than the expected religious fury and maybe a few politicians' brains exploding, would be private, and not much a concern of the public.
Click to expand...

In a technical sense, yes, if you eliminate sex from the equation altogether, then it eliminates fraud. But it opens up a pile of other problems that seem to frequently get ignored altogether. For one thing, it effectively decriminalizes voyeurism and exhibitionism in spaces where people are normally expected to be nude... which massively disproportionately disadvantages females. It also increase the risk of hidden cameras being placed and nonconsensual videos (primarily of females) being uploaded for porn. It increase the exposure of females to the risk of sexual assault by males in spaces that previously were viewed as safe from that risk.
 
Emily's Cat said:
In a technical sense, yes, if you eliminate sex from the equation altogether, then it eliminates fraud. But it opens up a pile of other problems that seem to frequently get ignored altogether. For one thing, it effectively decriminalizes voyeurism and exhibitionism in spaces where people are normally expected to be nude... which massively disproportionately disadvantages females. It also increase the risk of hidden cameras being placed and nonconsensual videos (primarily of females) being uploaded for porn. It increase the exposure of females to the risk of sexual assault by males in spaces that previously were viewed as safe from that risk.
Click to expand...

I think Bruto was referring to this specific type of fraud. If you don't have different retirement criteria for the sexes, you cannot use a gender change to get benefits early. Therefore this type of fraud becomes impossible.

Obviously, that has nothing to do with segregated spaces, sports, etc. I don't think an answer to problem A needs to be applicable or even remotely address problem B.
 
TomB said:
I think Bruto was referring to this specific type of fraud. If you don't have different retirement criteria for the sexes, you cannot use a gender change to get benefits early. Therefore this type of fraud becomes impossible.

Obviously, that has nothing to do with segregated spaces, sports, etc. I don't think an answer to problem A needs to be applicable or even remotely address problem B.
Click to expand...

The funny way to deal with this would be to arrest this guy next time he used a public men's restroom and put him on a sex offender list. After all, according to official declarations made to the state, this person is a woman.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The funny way to deal with this would be to arrest this guy next time he used a public men's restroom and put him on a sex offender list. After all, according to official declarations made to the state, this person is a woman.
Click to expand...

Which just brings us back to the question of whether certain benefits in public policy should attach to sex or to gender identity. Or in this case detriments. Which are just benefits with a negative sign.

Why would you put her on a sex offender list for using the restroom consistent with her sex? Why would you be considering a sex offense at all, and not a gender offense?

Actually a gender offender list would be kind of interesting. A list of all the people "proven" to be fraudulently self-identifying as a gender other than their sex.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: Yes, it is in many places. It's the sole criterion for all of Canada, many states in the US, several countries in Europe, and is on the docket for discussion in the UK.

And beyond the complete *legal* element of self-id, there's also a whole host of policies currently in place that use self-declaration as the sole criteria. For example, prison placement in California, Washington, New Jersey, and several other states, as well as participation in sports in school, accommodation in rape and domestic violence shelters, and several other venues... like "best actress".

Seriously, in this thread, it is literally the sole criteria used in Switzerland. I mean, what other criteria do you think is in place?
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up the "best actress" award. Other than it being kind of a trivial example, it's also not something that is (or should be) subject to the legal system.

The Grammys, Golden Globes, Academy Awards, Juno Awards, etc. are private organizations. They get to determine their own categories and the criteria to be eligible for those criteria. No one has a right to an award from a private organization, therefore, MJ Rodriguez winning a Golden Globe denies no one anything they are entitled to.

And, you know what? it could be a two way street. Elliott Page has been nominated for awards as an actress when he was Ellen Page. He's a strong enough actor and high high enough profile that it's likely he will, at some point, be nominated for best actor or best supporting actor. I don't have a problem with that.

And if I did (and if I cared about awards shows), I'd follow a different organization's awards show that had a criteria that I agreed with.

I haven't seen Pose, so I don't know the character and I don't know the performance. But I did watch Sense8 a few years ago and I thought Jamie Clayton was very good. Both she and her character were trans. If I were to give her an award for the show I don't know that a "best actor" would fit. At least not any better than "best actress" given the way the role was played. (I'm not saying Clayton deserved an award, just that I'd have a hard time placing her performance in a masculine category.)

This is not like athletics. There is not sexually derived advantage in acting.
 
theprestige said:
Which just brings us back to the question of whether certain benefits in public policy should attach to sex or to gender identity. Or in this case detriments. Which are just benefits with a negative sign.

Why would you put her on a sex offender list for using the restroom consistent with her sex? Why would you be considering a sex offense at all, and not a gender offense?

Actually a gender offender list would be kind of interesting. A list of all the people "proven" to be fraudulently self-identifying as a gender other than their sex.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The funny way to deal with this would be to arrest this guy next time he used a public men's restroom and put him on a sex offender list. After all, according to official declarations made to the state, this person is a woman.
Click to expand...

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?
 
As others have pointed out, it makes little sense at all to have differing retirement ages based on gender, especially not if the difference is to allow the longer-lived females to retire earlier. Pension plans and other financial products that are based on lifetimes are (mostlly) gender based, and have to be in order to be actuarially sound. A lot of women used to gripe that their retirement pay was lower than comparable men, but in fact the discounted present value of their benefits was the same; the difference was that women lived longer. There was noticeably less griping that life insurance was cheaper for women than for men.
 
TomB said:
I think Bruto was referring to this specific type of fraud. If you don't have different retirement criteria for the sexes, you cannot use a gender change to get benefits early. Therefore this type of fraud becomes impossible.

Obviously, that has nothing to do with segregated spaces, sports, etc. I don't think an answer to problem A needs to be applicable or even remotely address problem B.
Click to expand...
Basically, yes, I was thinking just in terms of the offense here. But for some of those other things, a definition of voyeurism might be made that draws a line at some level of behavior or threat, and if so it should be applied across the board. Hidden cameras should be illegal wherever they are.

I realize some of these potential problems remain a problem, but I suspect that they could be solved without making the process of transition harder than it already is. In the mean time, though, it's also possible, I think, to address retirement fraud as a separate issue that's easier to resolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom