(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Your ID is all about a representative likeness of your legal self. The trannies will and should lose.

Youre forgetting the medical issue here. In order to transition, a person must present as that gender for two full years at all times.

If the transgender person is under the guidance of a medical doctor then it changes the situation.

-----

If the point of an ID is not to look like one presents, then I suppose we can dispense with it being used for ID for voting.

It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

(07-11-2014 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Your ID is all about a representative likeness of your legal self. The trannies will and should lose.

Youre forgetting the medical issue here. In order to transition, a person must present as that gender for two full years at all times.

If the transgender person is under the guidance of a medical doctor then it changes the situation.

-----

If the point of an ID is not to look like one presents, then I suppose we can dispense with it being used for ID for voting.

It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if your argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

What's the compelling interest? To have a picture that clashes with medical science? That doesn't look like the person? That exists only to humiliate the person? That is worthless for visual identification?

If your argument is correct, then I propose having everyone's ID be a picture of them naked at an age of 1 day. That would show the WV mandated gender and serve the same purpose of being completely useless for identification.

Although, I think a better protest would be to have transitioning m to f transgendered persons stand in front of the DMV with no shirt on, showing their breasts. Heck, if they're legally male, then its perfectly legal to do so. Or outside a school. I'm sure WV would love that.

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Your ID is all about a representative likeness of your legal self. The trannies will and should lose.

Youre forgetting the medical issue here. In order to transition, a person must present as that gender for two full years at all times.

If the transgender person is under the guidance of a medical doctor then it changes the situation.

-----

If the point of an ID is not to look like one presents, then I suppose we can dispense with it being used for ID for voting.

It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Your ID is all about a representative likeness of your legal self. The trannies will and should lose.

Youre forgetting the medical issue here. In order to transition, a person must present as that gender for two full years at all times.

If the transgender person is under the guidance of a medical doctor then it changes the situation.

-----

If the point of an ID is not to look like one presents, then I suppose we can dispense with it being used for ID for voting.

It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

(07-11-2014 09:38 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 09:24 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Tom...trannies, yes I used that word, are a deviant subculture and are mentally deranged and are unnatural freaks. WV will not lose this law suit and are keeping anyone from voting.

Your response was not rooted in medicine, but in emotion.

My first response was to just add you to the list of Ignored people that I feel are incapable of contributing to any discussion.

But I'm feeling nice today, so I'll just ask you the following. So you used the words freaks, deranged, and deviant. Do you have any medical backup for those classifications?

You show your ignorance again Tom. You spend too much time believing your own bull****.

Deranged? Yes, there is plenty of medical history that supports this claim. Just like if you claimed to be Napoleon, and really believed it in your heart. You're not Napoleon. These men aren't women.

Deviant? That's a term from statistics. It has meaning. Here's a start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_test

Quote:Medical science is clear that transgendered persons are not freaks or deranged and that transitioning and presenting as the gender deeply held is appropriate.

No. Politics w/in social "science" may claim that, but not medical science.

Quote:Lets be clear, they are preventing her from working, voting, etc.,

More of your exaggerated bull****.

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Youre forgetting the medical issue here. In order to transition, a person must present as that gender for two full years at all times.

If the transgender person is under the guidance of a medical doctor then it changes the situation.

-----

If the point of an ID is not to look like one presents, then I suppose we can dispense with it being used for ID for voting.

It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 09:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And 'trannies' is kind of like using the N word. If you're looking to be credible, you might wish to use the term transgender or transitioning.

Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Just so you know, if you take politics and religion out of this, Tom has nothing to stand on. J/S

Even his mother called him a "he". So it's pretty clear that he's not a female thus making him subject to the rules of the DMV whether "he" likes it or not.

It's a sick world, folks. Too bad we have so many Redtoms in it too.

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 09:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And 'trannies' is kind of like using the N word. If you're looking to be credible, you might wish to use the term transgender or transitioning.

Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

I've only known two words to be really offensive in use: the n-word and the c-word. That's it. Everything else moves and changes based on time and who is complaining.

IMO, most of us think it's a lifestyle choice. So, to us, we really don't care about the rules you create to garner acceptance of your choices. I also don't care to know what polygamists, drag queens, lovers of bestiality, those involved in incest, pornographers, and prostitutes believe are insensitive or whatever.

(07-11-2014 02:05 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 09:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And 'trannies' is kind of like using the N word. If you're looking to be credible, you might wish to use the term transgender or transitioning.

Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

I've only known two words to be really offensive in use: the n-word and the c-word. That's it. Everything else moves and changes based on time and who is complaining.

IMO, most of us think it's a lifestyle choice. So, to us, we really don't care about the rules you create to garner acceptance of your choices. I also don't care to know what polygamists, drag queens, lovers of bestiality, those involved in incest, pornographers, and prostitutes believe are insensitive or whatever.

You have a right to speak like you came out of Westboro Baptist Church, but I was just trying to help some of you guys not sound like you did. Feel free to be ignorant if you will. Celebrate it as 'not being politically correct'. But know that using terms like that will make you sound like some ignorant rube or a hater of the Fred Phelps/Matt Barber variety.

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It doesn't change it at all.

Your ID must be a representative likeness of known data points about you in order to fulfill its role as a proper ID. That means what is in the picture is male or female in appearance. If you are dressed as a woman and your ID says male you do not have a representative likeness.

It's a compelling government interest here. One that I'd put money on surviving constitutional scrutiny. You can't appear to be something you aren't in an ID photo, or else why bother with IDs?

Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair. Deal? I didn't think so.

The policy isn't based upon any rational interest. Just the fact that people don't like transgendered persons and that certain interest groups give favor to state actors using the state to humiliate them for no purpose.

(07-11-2014 12:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that if they don't look anywhere near how they present in the photo, then the ID is useless.

Not true. There are physical attributes that can't be changed. When police put out a composite, they frequently change the hair and facial hair or add hats or whatever for people like us to recognize, but unlike the rest of us, they are generally taught to look for things like bone structure more than hair style. Good ID training like TSA, Cops and DMV teach you to look for these keys.

Quote:The only way this works is if NO ONE is allowed to wear makeup in their photo. Or hair extensions. And that it is enforced equally. And that will never happen. Look, this appears to be simply the result of people wanting to harm, hurt, single out, and demean Transgendered persons.

It may appear that way, but that is because you are clearly sensitive to the issue.

Makeup CAN give the appearance of changing facial features... even to pros... far more than simply wearing eye shadow or hair extensions. I suspect that these people aren't just wearing 'basic' makeup... but perhaps more theatrical. No, I don't know this for a fact, but you also don't know that they aren't. I know for a fact that male actors who dress like women for parts (i.e. who haven't had hormones or anything) must wear VERY heavy base makeup or even prosthetics.

Quote:The Religious folks have been on a witch hunt for a while now. They want to make trans persons unable to be employed, vote, drive a car, or even have access to a bathroom while engaging in public commerce. Or they will force humiliations (and yes, making a transgendered person revert to a hated and psychologically damaging presentation is humiliating). But that's the point of the DMV. Their goal is to humiliate the transgendered person.

Give me a break, Tom.

The law says that it is illegal to have your ID taken in a manner made to make you appear to be a different gender than the one you legally are. Transgendered people, once complete, are whatever their new gender is and it would thus be similarly illegal for a former woman, now a man, to wear heavy makeup to make him look like a woman.

Gee, can you imagine why, other than for religious reasons, an ID would want people to appear to be the gender they are?

You're being dishonest if you say no.

Yes, it absolutely creates a problem for those in transition... and perhaps some exceptions need to be made in those instances... but that is what the law says, and I don't think we want some clerk at the DMV trying to determine if the guy in the dress and makeup is actually a transgendered person in transition OR someone trying to hide their identity, do you? Once the law recognizes them as being a woman, the previous ID would be just as illegal.

No, I don't think asking someone who KNOWS they are in an unusual situation (being transgendered but early in transition and needing a new photo ID) to understand that they are in an unusual situation and that the law is meant to make people as easily recognizable as possible to law enforcement and not merely to 'out' them

(07-11-2014 02:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:05 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

I've only known two words to be really offensive in use: the n-word and the c-word. That's it. Everything else moves and changes based on time and who is complaining.

IMO, most of us think it's a lifestyle choice. So, to us, we really don't care about the rules you create to garner acceptance of your choices. I also don't care to know what polygamists, drag queens, lovers of bestiality, those involved in incest, pornographers, and prostitutes believe are insensitive or whatever.

You have a right to speak like you came out of Westboro Baptist Church, but I was just trying to help some of you guys not sound like you did.

Pharaoh, you can respond to this so that Tom will see it since he has me on ignore.

Tom, saying tranny is nothing like coming right out of Westboro. Real Christians detest the people of Westboro. Never once have I carried a sign or uttered the term "I hate fags" or "God hates fags." I simply disagree with gay marriage. If your only way of coping with that is to call me names and compare me to some racist bigotry church that I despise, then so be it. Until you grow some thicker skin, you're going to be a very miserable person.

I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that if they don't look anywhere near how they present in the photo, then the ID is useless.

Not true. There are physical attributes that can't be changed. When police put out a composite, they frequently change the hair and facial hair or add hats or whatever for people like us to recognize, but unlike the rest of us, they are generally taught to look for things like bone structure more than hair style. Good ID training like TSA, Cops and DMV teach you to look for these keys.

Quote:The only way this works is if NO ONE is allowed to wear makeup in their photo. Or hair extensions. And that it is enforced equally. And that will never happen. Look, this appears to be simply the result of people wanting to harm, hurt, single out, and demean Transgendered persons.

It may appear that way, but that is because you are clearly sensitive to the issue.

Makeup CAN give the appearance of changing facial features... even to pros... far more than simply wearing eye shadow or hair extensions. I suspect that these people aren't just wearing 'basic' makeup... but perhaps more theatrical. No, I don't know this for a fact, but you also don't know that they aren't. I know for a fact that male actors who dress like women for parts (i.e. who haven't had hormones or anything) must wear VERY heavy base makeup or even prosthetics.

Quote:The Religious folks have been on a witch hunt for a while now. They want to make trans persons unable to be employed, vote, drive a car, or even have access to a bathroom while engaging in public commerce. Or they will force humiliations (and yes, making a transgendered person revert to a hated and psychologically damaging presentation is humiliating). But that's the point of the DMV. Their goal is to humiliate the transgendered person.

Give me a break, Tom.

The law says that it is illegal to have your ID taken in a manner made to make you appear to be a different gender than the one you legally are. Transgendered people, once complete, are whatever their new gender is and it would thus be similarly illegal for a former woman, now a man, to wear heavy makeup to make him look like a woman.

Gee, can you imagine why, other than for religious reasons, an ID would want people to appear to be the gender they are?

You're being dishonest if you say no.

Yes, it absolutely creates a problem for those in transition... and perhaps some exceptions need to be made in those instances... but that is what the law says, and I don't think we want some clerk at the DMV trying to determine if the guy in the dress and makeup is actually a transgendered person in transition OR someone trying to hide their identity, do you? Once the law recognizes them as being a woman, the previous ID would be just as illegal.

Man, Tom is one ridiculous piece of work. Dude is seriously lost and out of touch with reality. Without politics and religion, he's got zero arguments.

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that if they don't look anywhere near how they present in the photo, then the ID is useless.

Not true. There are physical attributes that can't be changed. When police put out a composite, they frequently change the hair and facial hair or add hats or whatever for people like us to recognize, but unlike the rest of us, they are generally taught to look for things like bone structure more than hair style. Good ID training like TSA, Cops and DMV teach you to look for these keys.

Quote:The only way this works is if NO ONE is allowed to wear makeup in their photo. Or hair extensions. And that it is enforced equally. And that will never happen. Look, this appears to be simply the result of people wanting to harm, hurt, single out, and demean Transgendered persons.

It may appear that way, but that is because you are clearly sensitive to the issue.

Makeup CAN give the appearance of changing facial features... even to pros... far more than simply wearing eye shadow or hair extensions. I suspect that these people aren't just wearing 'basic' makeup... but perhaps more theatrical. No, I don't know this for a fact, but you also don't know that they aren't. I know for a fact that male actors who dress like women for parts (i.e. who haven't had hormones or anything) must wear VERY heavy base makeup or even prosthetics.

Quote:The Religious folks have been on a witch hunt for a while now. They want to make trans persons unable to be employed, vote, drive a car, or even have access to a bathroom while engaging in public commerce. Or they will force humiliations (and yes, making a transgendered person revert to a hated and psychologically damaging presentation is humiliating). But that's the point of the DMV. Their goal is to humiliate the transgendered person.

Give me a break, Tom.

The law says that it is illegal to have your ID taken in a manner made to make you appear to be a different gender than the one you legally are. Transgendered people, once complete, are whatever their new gender is and it would thus be similarly illegal for a former woman, now a man, to wear heavy makeup to make him look like a woman.

Gee, can you imagine why, other than for religious reasons, an ID would want people to appear to be the gender they are?

You're being dishonest if you say no.

Yes, it absolutely creates a problem for those in transition... and perhaps some exceptions need to be made in those instances... but that is what the law says, and I don't think we want some clerk at the DMV trying to determine if the guy in the dress and makeup is actually a transgendered person in transition OR someone trying to hide their identity, do you? Once the law recognizes them as being a woman, the previous ID would be just as illegal.

Why the fixation on the private parts? Why are falsies allowed in pictures? Why is dyed hair okay? How about a wig?

The WV policy, as applied, is directed at one group and one group only. Transgendered persons.

The solution is to allow a doctor certified by the state to certify that this person is transitioning. Of course, that would resolve the non-existant problem of non-transitioning persons demanding to wear clothing not consistent with their state determined gender. And it would take the decision out of the hands of persons who have a problem with gender issues.

How much you want to bet that the religious right and the GOP are vehemently opposed to that solution?

(07-11-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

You can't get a court order from a WV court unless you have already transitioned. And it takes 75k to get that surgery. And either way, you can't have the surgery unless you live 100% as the new gender for at least 2 full years.

----

Lets apply the same scrutiny to your grandmother. Lets say she got some missing hair, its really grey, and she has some missing teeth. It happens as we age. But she wears dentures, has a wig/dyes her hair. How do you think it would make her feel if everytime she voted, drove a car, bought alcohol, went on a plane, entered a courthouse, etc., she would have to present this picture that is hideously unflattering and then explain 'yea all my teeth rotted out' and 'im older than I look'.

Its no different for transgendered persons under the WV regime. Its humiliating. Needlessly. But that's the whole point of it. To humiliate. Because the same concept isn't applied to anyone else.

(07-11-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that if they don't look anywhere near how they present in the photo, then the ID is useless.

Not true. There are physical attributes that can't be changed. When police put out a composite, they frequently change the hair and facial hair or add hats or whatever for people like us to recognize, but unlike the rest of us, they are generally taught to look for things like bone structure more than hair style. Good ID training like TSA, Cops and DMV teach you to look for these keys.

Quote:The only way this works is if NO ONE is allowed to wear makeup in their photo. Or hair extensions. And that it is enforced equally. And that will never happen. Look, this appears to be simply the result of people wanting to harm, hurt, single out, and demean Transgendered persons.

It may appear that way, but that is because you are clearly sensitive to the issue.

Makeup CAN give the appearance of changing facial features... even to pros... far more than simply wearing eye shadow or hair extensions. I suspect that these people aren't just wearing 'basic' makeup... but perhaps more theatrical. No, I don't know this for a fact, but you also don't know that they aren't. I know for a fact that male actors who dress like women for parts (i.e. who haven't had hormones or anything) must wear VERY heavy base makeup or even prosthetics.

Quote:The Religious folks have been on a witch hunt for a while now. They want to make trans persons unable to be employed, vote, drive a car, or even have access to a bathroom while engaging in public commerce. Or they will force humiliations (and yes, making a transgendered person revert to a hated and psychologically damaging presentation is humiliating). But that's the point of the DMV. Their goal is to humiliate the transgendered person.

Give me a break, Tom.

The law says that it is illegal to have your ID taken in a manner made to make you appear to be a different gender than the one you legally are. Transgendered people, once complete, are whatever their new gender is and it would thus be similarly illegal for a former woman, now a man, to wear heavy makeup to make him look like a woman.

Gee, can you imagine why, other than for religious reasons, an ID would want people to appear to be the gender they are?

You're being dishonest if you say no.

Yes, it absolutely creates a problem for those in transition... and perhaps some exceptions need to be made in those instances... but that is what the law says, and I don't think we want some clerk at the DMV trying to determine if the guy in the dress and makeup is actually a transgendered person in transition OR someone trying to hide their identity, do you? Once the law recognizes them as being a woman, the previous ID would be just as illegal.

Why the fixation on the private parts? Why are falsies allowed in pictures? Why is dyed hair okay? How about a wig?

The WV policy, as applied, is directed at one group and one group only. Transgendered persons.

The solution is to allow a doctor certified by the state to certify that this person is transitioning. Of course, that would resolve the non-existant problem of non-transitioning persons demanding to wear clothing not consistent with their state determined gender. And it would take the decision out of the hands of persons who have a problem with gender issues.

How much you want to bet that the religious right and the GOP are vehemently opposed to that solution?

Dude, stop trolling. This isn't a f*cking political situation.

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair.

In on way I don't think what you're saying is a bad idea, but women, and sometimes men, change their hair styles or get hair cuts. The purpose of an ID is to identify. If a trans ran out in the middle of the night without the required accessories that make him a trans and he tried to use his credit card and the clerk asked for ID, then what? His driver's license would show a pic of a woman and he'd be presenting the image of a man and now the clerk is in a pickle. And what if that trans, like some of us tend to do, go haywire and go off on a loony binge. The ID photo the news uses for the public to call in with might not look anything like the person they're looking for.

An ID card is not a social wish list, it's to identify you not just in bars but at hospitals and morgues. Can you imagine if a house is burning and they find the body of a trans man and firemen risk their lives going back into the house looking for a woman thought to be living there when there isn't one?

And what about passports? Do we even want to go there?

BTW, out of respect for "you" I removed the word trannies from the thread title even though I really don't see anything wrong with it. For better or worse people get nicknamed - does Obamacare ring a bell?