No she didn’t. She never said that. And she did suffer all kinds of repercussions brought on by people who keep saying she did.
Good question. My guess is that companies must accept a person’s legal gender but I don’t know for sure. I can’t think of many legitimate price differentials based on gender (as opposed to, say, questionable ones like haircuts and dry cleaning), but auto and life insurance might be one of them. Legitimate, that is. Given that prices are determined by averages not individuals.
Even based on self-identification, it’s a major pain to change one’s legal gender, so I can’t imagine hordes of men doing so in order to lower their auto insurance rates. I don’t mean that you were suggesting this–I can just hear it as an objection, along the lines of bathrooms and sports teams.
Bathrooms, school or otherwise, are probably the biggest reason for the fuss over legal definition of gender.
By contrast, we have had full self-identification for most ethnic groups for a long time, and it hasn’t resulted in chaos. If I self-identify as Irish but the Ancient Order of Hibernians balks and says that my hair is to dark to be Irish, I can tell them to go pound sand and continue on as I was. This is possible because self-identifying as Irish doesn’t actually grant any significant benefits - there are no separate Irish bathrooms, schools, or anything like that I could take advantage of.
Yes, she did.
I’m wondering if you read your own link…
The link says exactly what he claimed.
Presumably your point was that she didn’t get hired on that basis. But that has not been part of the claim in this thread.
You might qualify for a scholarship for being Irish.
And there are several benefits available, such as in hiring, admittance to college and grant programs, based on race, sex, etc.
No it doesn’t.
There is no proof that she ever said she is a native American.
She may have said she has native American ancestry, but so what? Lots of people do. That doesn’t mean she claimed her ancestry was significantly native American. She could have said it was her great great great great great grandmother. Still true. There’s no evidence that she ever claimed any kind of advantage for it, which would require her to have said she was of significant native American ancestry, like a half or fourth or eighth. None.
The insurer is not obligated to offer women lower rates. They do that as a matter of course because women represent lower risk, but there’s no law that says they have to.
I don’t know enough about the topic to say whether transwomen represent reduced actuarial risks like cisgendered women, and given the relatively tiny number of transpeople it’s probably not worth it for any insurer to bother having a policy about it.
The link also says there is no evidence that she applied on that basis.
Snopes writes:
For the second time: no one has claimed that she claimed any advantage for it, in this thread.
For the third time: that’s not part of the claim in this thread.
Really, this is a simple matter. The only claim put forth in this thread is that “Elizabeth Warren said she was Native American”, and that claim is supported by Snopes, in the quote above.
Bullshit. That is NOT the claim. The claim is that she said she had enough native American ancestry to describe herself as “native American” or “a” native American. There is no evidence that she did anything more than say she had some measure of native ancestry. If that’s all this was about, nobody would have brought it up, including you.
Guys, can you do the Warren/Native American stuff elsewhere, please?
I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes trying to write their policy of charging less to women, but excluding transgender women. Or the PR guy who has to field calls about it.
IMO if someone lists themselves on “the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American”, that counts as calling yourself native American. I don’t intend to argue this if you want to deny this.
The relevance and connection to this thread is not about how evil Warren is - which is the phantom claim you’re presumably defending against - it’s about whether someone can claim to be something they’re not, which is what Warren did.
Please show me what you’re talking about. What list? And is she the one who put herself on it that way or did someone else?
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
Carefully reread post #31. (Or read the linked Snopes article.)
That’s what interests me. Are you, or should you be, who you say you are or are you, or should you be, limited by physical constraints? Or reality, if you will.
If I am physically a man does the simple fact of saying or believing I am a woman make me one? Or is it incumbent on me to effect some physical change before asking society to accept my new gender? If gender can be a moveable feast what of race? Species? There many people out there who honestly believe themselves to be wolves, bears, chipmunks, etc. (I forget their term for themselves.) Should society accomodate them by accepting their claims?
Is there, or should there be, any difference between those born women and those who become so later in life. I read of one women’s organization which has already changed its rules to limit membership to women who were born so. Is that fair or not? One can easily think of situations in which transgender women would have unfair advantages (sport, for instance). Could they find themselves second-class women, so to speak, never fully accepted by natural-born women?
I see many challenges ahead, which doesn’t mean of course that society shouldn’t face those challenges and resolve equably any difficulties that arise.
You’re confused because you’re not defining clearly enough what you mean by “being a man” or “being a woman”.
Obviously, we can objectively test claims about physical reality. If somebody claims to be physically a wolf, i.e., a member of the species Canis lupus, but their physical and genetic characteristics correspond to the species Homo sapiens, we can conclude that in some objectively realistic sense that person is “wrong” in their claim.
Likewise, if somebody claims to have two X chromosomes, and genetic testing reveals that they actually have XY chromosomes, their claim is wrong. If they claim to have a physical vagina but their genitalia are actually a penis and testes, their claim is wrong.
But what does it mean for somebody to claim to “be a man” or “be a woman”? If it means that their personal gender identity is male or female respectively, then their claim is not wrong even if their physical chromosomes or genitalia don’t correspond to the gender they’re claiming to be.
This type of unresolved ambiguity is why most anti-transgender-acceptance arguments end up being logically inconsistent. They’re trying to treat the complexities of gender identity and gender conformity as equivalent to basic physical facts, without explicitly acknowledging that that’s what they’re doing.