Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Ooooof. I hadn't thought of that. Transition is lengthy, isn't it? I guess some of us just assume you go see a doctor and that's it. I guess that could be a problem for photo ID. Hopefully this isn't insensitive somehow, but if you've got the stuff to book and undergo transition, shouldn't you be able to just go and update your forms of ID?

The VA page says if your name has changed bring proof thereof. I think that since they can't prove that you're trans while applying, and that's not tracked by the state as far as I know, it should just be "my name has changed, no reason needed, here's the doc". Transitioning/transition should have zero bearing on the process of obtaining/using ID in theory.

So, for trans women, it's known that just the hormonal part of transitioning tends to take impact on a ten-year time scale (... if you must know, this is literally just the time scale for growing breast tissue). There's also legal paperwork, voice training, facial feminization surgery (or top surgery for trans guys), we can go on and on and on.

Legal access to hormones is heavily controlled and made difficult through cost and various legal barriers. Think about it like this: if they're trying to chip away at abortion in a state, you can bet your butt that they're probably trying to chip away at access to trans-affirming care, too. This also means that access to medical support in transition fluctuates. A lot of the "detransitioners" are people who, say, couldn't pay for their T for six months. It is also legal in many places to fire employees for being trans, refuse medical access in general, or just make every interaction possible a hassle.

Your ability to consistently access trans-affirming care is heavily dependent on your ability to access money which is heavily dependent on your ability to access trans care which is

The judge has to accept that changing your name will create a positive impact on your life. Trump has assigned many judges this year. Which judge will help you? Which will not?

The VA page says if your name has changed bring proof thereof. I think that since they can't prove that you're trans while applying, and that's not tracked by the state as far as I know, it should just be "my name has changed, no reason needed, here's the doc". Transitioning/transition should have zero bearing on the process of obtaining/using ID in theory.

*sigh*

OK, here's an easy way to think about it. Think about literally any environment in which a cis woman would typically have to navigate the possibility of being hit on (this is "every environment where there is a man, Alex."). Now imagine that each one of those interactions flipped over to the possibility of anti-trans harassment.

Every public bathroom, every restaurant, every street, and, yeah, every DMV, every legal institution, every doctor ...

[Vector]

clothing stores, makeup stores, classrooms,

[Vector]

there is LITERALLY an app called "Safe to Pee."

Sorry for triple-posting. I've got some emotion going.

[Dunamisdeos]

Now all of that is obviously a problem, really noone should have to go through all of that.

But, at the same time, those are social and cultural problems, not voting problems. I don't think we should change voting requirements because we have a social problem with how we treat trans people. And I'm not trying to minimize that kind of harassment, which I'm quite sure does exist, but I'm not really hearing any stories about trans people being turned away for basic state ID or documents because someone at the desk realized they were trans, or being otherwise prevented from voting. The judges that Trump installed that everyone was super sure were just going to pander to him kind of shat all over his parade instead. I don't think we're looking at widespread trans voter suppression, at least not from that angle.

TLDR: If other customers in the DMV are being hateful jackasses, that's a social problem. Doesn't mean the voting system is structured in away that prevents trans people from voting, it just means that people need to get their shit together and treat people like people. Show me where trans folks are being prevented from voting, and you've got my full support.

there is LITERALLY an app called "Safe to Pee."

Under any other circumstances that would be hilarious. What is this app for? Places that are... what, friendly for trans folks to use a bathroom in? I am super unfamiliar with trans life, I'm sorry to be such an ignorant on this subject. I legit just don't really know any trans folk IRL. Ain't had any chance to accrue knowledge.

[Frumple]

I mean... if you know the social problem exists, and can unfuck the voting process to account for it easier than you can unfuck the social problem, especially with little to no downside for voting fidelity (bonus points for general access improvements!), then, like.

Why the hell not?

[hector13]

The wrong people will win the election, obviously. Then that means the people with all the power and money might lose that power and money, or worse, have to share it!

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean... if you know the social problem exists, and can unfuck the voting process to account for it easier than you can unfuck the social problem, especially with little to no downside for voting fidelity (bonus points for general access improvements!), then, like.

Why the hell not?

Because we DO need some kind of verification. I'm not sure what, other than a federal registry rather than the current state-based one, could be a meaningful improvement. Also voting improvement as a solution to problems with trans acceptance doesn't seem like they really conflate. Trans people being harassed by customers at he DMV shouldn't mean we remove the DMV. That's like... the ultimate issue-avoidance response.

That's where I was going with the whole Federal Registry thing. What, aside from just outright removing voter verification, which I don't think anyone is suggesting, can or should be done here? If we do agree that we need voter verification of some degree, then we've at least established that opposition of the Georgia bill does not conflate with a removal (or lack) of voter registration. And if we can agree there, then logically there's no need for the bill at all.

[None]

Wearing a mask is a social problem, too: customer-facing employees usually can't say anything about corporate-endorsed mask requirements despite building signage because to do so means challenging the customer and that's ended up frequently in bodily harm for the employee, which is expensive and bad for revenue.

Having legally-enforced mask mandates helps shift the onus of responsibility of enforcing mask wearing away from the employee (the fellow earning $12 and most at risk of catching the virus, or from disgruntled shoppers, lead or knives) and onto the state, against whom 'muh liberties' is much less of a defense.

The point I'm trying to make here is that having enforceable protections for the disenfranchised gives cushion where socially/culturally that grace is not available. Some of these voter ID laws strip away the rights and protections for people for whom mustering the resources to prove identity may be a challenge. For people without cars or drivers' licenses, transport to the DMV is inadequate, for people without permanent residences, people in halfway homes or roommates that don't have utility bills in their names, proof of residency could be a challenge, for students far away from home, getting the necessary proof of birth can be difficult.

You don't put a fire out with stricter fire codes, you put out a fire with more available fire suppressants. We already have state-determined voter registries which you can give your name/address/DOB/SSN/DL (although it looks like in Wisconsin, for example, you can't vote for 20 days if you've registered online, though you can vote same-day if you register in person?)- you can produce the name/address/DOB/SSN from memory, and some stranger having that information from you is pretty committed to doing the fraud, and the fraud would come up if you went to vote and someone already used your information. They've got your information, you've got your information, your vote gets one entry, having to produce a utility bill or license is just extra physical tokens that may impede someone that doesn't have their stuff together as much as Gertrude, 60, retired, who has all the time in the world to collect and produce arbitrary documentation of proof of existence/land ownership/vehicle drivership/personal plumbing.

Voter registration already works. It needs to be more accessible to people so that their ledger entry is assured so they can go vote. Resources being pooled towards stricter ID laws and having to produce extra paperwork at the ballot is anathema to that.

[MrRoboto75]

ur a social problem

[None]

As 'the liberal agenda' in Bumfuck, Nowhere, I really am!

[Starver]

I agree that there is a need for voter verification of some degree.

As I (and others) have said, the UK currently has 'a degree' of voter verification and I rather think it works quite nicely, thank you for asking.

Now, obviously, we may hit the same kind of problem of cultural comparison with, say, gun-ownership. You're starting from a worse place, for various historical reasons, and you can't/shouldn't easily get from one situation to the other. But then you've got those whose aim in life is to shift the window entirely in the other direction.


((Ninjas arrived, during the writing of this message. And all I got was this lousy katabira.))

[Dunamisdeos]

The point I'm trying to make here is that having enforceable protections for the disenfranchised gives cushion where socially/culturally that grace is not available. Some of these voter ID laws strip away the rights and protections for people for whom mustering the resources to prove identity may be a challenge. For people without cars or drivers' licenses, transport to the DMV is inadequate, for people without permanent residences, people in halfway homes or roommates that don't have utility bills in their names, proof of residency could be a challenge, for students far away from home, getting the necessary proof of birth can be difficult.

Voter registration already works. It needs to be more accessible to people so that their ledger entry is assured so they can go vote. Resources being pooled towards stricter ID laws and having to produce extra paperwork at the ballot is anathema to that.

snip snip snip snip lots of good thoughts

See this makes sense to me.

So how do we make it more accessible then? VA has online voter registration, can't get much better than that. How common is that across the nation?

What provisions do we have in place for people who don't have a permanent residence? Students in a dorm can use their dorm address, but how does a halfway home or other such facility verify the identity of the person living there? There's got to be somewhere to start, how can we better or more easily someone to verify their identity?

[Frumple]

Can actually get better than online registration, especially in rural or poorer areas -- this is your regular reminder than a lot of places in the US have shit internet infrastructure, and reliable access is not, at all, something everyone in this country has. Mailing stuff to people (postage prepaid, damn it), having voter registration stuff readily accessible at places like libraries, food pantries, etc. Have a bloody person driving around a few times a year officially knocking on doors and checking with homeless folks. Stop screwing around and get freaking aggressive with getting the vote out.

Frankly, among the best ways would just have it be opt out. You're born stateside, you get vote access the same day you get your birth certificate, active just as soon as you hit voting age. You're a citizen in any other way, you're automatically registered, flat out. None of this special registration horseshit, if you're a citizen you get a vote. Can work out details about location and proof later, but for the love of fornication, the base state should be fucking enfranchisement, it shouldn't have any hoops to jump through to get at least that much.

[Dunamisdeos]

See that brings us back to the federal registration. That frankly sounds like the best way to do it.

I feel bad for not putting 2 and 2 together with the online thing. Lot of me dang neighbors have unreliable internet or no internet.

[Bumber]

(Schools are funded by local property taxes, and redlining made sure all the people of color had to form "their own" neighborhoods where they couldn't get property loans, forming impoverished communities that happen to be non-white.  As a deliberate result the schools are underfunded, which makes it that much harder for young people of color to succeed.  Or vote.  Since redlining was officially ended, this policy sometimes catches some affluent people, which is why the Republicans push school vouchers - rich people should be paid for the privilege of avoiding those gross yucky public schools which keep mysteriously failing.)

Why is this still the case in places where Democrats have controlled the state for over a century? Shouldn't this have been fixed by somebody ending the local funding policy? Shouldn't something have been done by now?

I don't understand the resistance towards giving school vouchers to under-served children if it will improve their education. Is it because it puts children before the teacher's unions? Is it because the orange man supported it?

This article mentions a several cases where charter schools vastly outperformed traditional public schools despite being in the same location and having the same student composition (chosen by lottery.)

There's also evidence that public school performance can be improved by the existence of a charter school nearby.