SF gives trans $1200 per month, is this discrimination based on sex?

[David Hume]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-18/san-francisco-launches-guaranteed-income-program-for-transgender-residents

The city of San Francisco this week launched a guaranteed income program aimed at the transgender community.

The Guaranteed Income for Transgender People, or GIFT, pilot program will provide 55 eligible residents with $1,200 per month for 18 months, as well as healthcare and financial coaching.

Per Bostock, this is almost certain discrimination based on sex, and a direct violation of CRA.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Probably.

Also only 55 residents? LOL. Pretty meaningless virtue signaling as this sort of thing often is.

(Also how far does $1200/month get you in San Francisco anyway?)

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Disgusting neolib garbage. Free handouts to some "oppressed" minority and let the rest of the plebs starve to death.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Someone should sue for 14th amendment violations.

[DaleCooper]

Policies like this will destroy the credibility of universal basic income before it can even be legitimately tested.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I mean it's certainly vomitrociously garbage-tier policy, as if a benefit that by definition has to do with the amount of money someone has could possibly be means-tested fairly according to demographic categories besides income. And, yes, it is probably illegal as well.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

dumb, do it for everyone or don't do it at all.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I don't know if it's constitutional, but this is one of those instances where it's bad policy and bad politics.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Probably.

Also only 55 residents? LOL. Pretty meaningless virtue signaling as this sort of thing often is.

(Also how far does $1200/month get you in San Francisco anyway?)

2 avocado toasts and a latte per month.

[David Hume]

Someone should sue for 14th amendment violations.

I would be surprised if no one does. And frankly, even Sotomayor would rule this BS as illegal.

[Del Tachi]

Also only 55 residents? LOL. Pretty meaningless virtue signaling as this sort of thing often is.

It's a pilot program.

Also, haven't Black political organizers been asking for this for decades?  Truly shows what constituencies the DPUSA exists to serve nowadays   

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Probably.

Also only 55 residents? LOL. Pretty meaningless virtue signaling as this sort of thing often is.

(Also how far does $1200/month get you in San Francisco anyway?)

Do you know what a pilot program is BRTD? Lol.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Probably.

Also only 55 residents? LOL. Pretty meaningless virtue signaling as this sort of thing often is.

(Also how far does $1200/month get you in San Francisco anyway?)

Do you know what a pilot program is BRTD? Lol.

yeah but pilot programs should have decent sample sizes to reduce outliers screwing up the average result. 55 ain't that.

[DaleCooper]

I mean it's certainly vomitrociously garbage-tier policy, as if a benefit that by definition has to do with the amount of money someone has could possibly be means-tested fairly according to demographic categories besides income. And, yes, it is probably illegal as well.

This seems like a reparations policy aimed at trans people that's disguised as UBI.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I don't understand pilot programs on this topic. It often feels like a 'pilot program' is solely intended to show the individual benefit on an extremely small scale without showing any of the consequences.

Adding 14,400 to one person's income obviously makes a tremendous impact to them unless they are a large outlier of the income distribution. No need to study a thing. Adding a fictitious 800,000 over a year into an economy the size of San Francisco will barely be noticeable enough to warrant movement by the price or supply variables. So there is nothing to study.

Can someone explain to me what these programs are designed to tell the researcher? If launched universally, I think the macro effects of an injection of $11.5 billion with no additional output will be felt. Do you have to be a city resident? Another reason to jack up rent prices just to get in on this.

Even if the eventual program is literally an illegal giveaway based on a discriminated basis, who is going to deny being a member of this group which allows for self-selection? ("I'm cis but 15k is 15k....")

[progressive85]

I favor UBI.  Expand it to everyone else, or it looks like a gimmick.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I don't understand pilot programs on this topic. It often feels like a 'pilot program' is solely intended to show the individual benefit on an extremely small scale without showing any of the consequences.

Nominally a pilot program is intended to show that a controversial policy (in San Francisco's case, UBI but only for a few specific left-wing identity groups, or something) is feasible. In practice it's almost always an excuse to not actually implement the policy, even if it is feasible.

[politicallefty]

It's quite obviously unconstitutional and it should be struck down immediately.

[It’s so Joever]

As someone who has been in the closet all my life, I feel content to come out as trans. It has been a long struggle not being accepted by society and coming to terms wit- oh it’s just in San Francisco.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Life imitates art. Three years ago I ran on a cis tax on Fantasyland as a sh**tpost. Now San Francisco is instituting the foil to the cis tax: trans UBI.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Virtue signaling identity politics tends to be a dumpster fire.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Policies like this will destroy the credibility of universal basic income before it can even be legitimately tested.

It will also damage the credibility of self-ID! Regardless of the tortured debates about alleged incentives to pretend to be trans, many people would absolutely tick a box saying their gender had changed if it guaranteed them $1200/month (and I wouldn't blame them).

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So, how about a bipartisan federal constitutional amendment banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity in any form?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I don't understand pilot programs on this topic. It often feels like a 'pilot program' is solely intended to show the individual benefit on an extremely small scale without showing any of the consequences.

Nominally a pilot program is intended to show that a controversial policy (in San Francisco's case, UBI but only for a few specific left-wing identity groups, or something) is feasible. In practice it's almost always an excuse to not actually implement the policy, even if it is feasible.

If you're still uncertain, do what you always with your more toxic political proposals. Label it a pilot scheme and start it off in Scotland.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

So, how about a bipartisan federal constitutional amendment banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity in any form?

In order for an amendment to be bipartisan, it has to have bipartisan support. And considering most, if not all Republicans and some, if not most Democrats support discrimination on the basis of gender identity...