If the various approaches are government programs, costs and benefits could be compared in terms of dollars spent, dollars of taxpayer benefit produced (if someone would have been willing to pay to change, say, a dress code, and obtains that benefit for free, that’s an IPED dollar-value benefit to them) and approval-rating percentage points.
I would expect gender-related oppression of misc/other folks to be higher, in per capita terms, than either men or women, yes. For one thing, earlier stages of this very discussion glossed over them altogether. However, I would also expect that quite a bit of that oppression is not strictly gender-specific, and avoid initially allocating disproportionate funds to that category out of respect for the limits of my department’s mandate.
Presumably there is a Director of Spending on Surgically Correctable Birth Defects or somesuch who would legitimately have at least partial jurisdiction over transsexuality, and a lot of individual citizens who are oppressed for reasons only tangentially related to ambiguous gender. I would of course want to coordinate with other departments to clearly delineate who is responsible for which edge cases and to what degree, erring on the side of too much overlapping coverage, if for no other reason than because broad prohibitions on charity might leave some unaccounted-for micro-minority with absolutely no legitimate recourse.
Naturally, if subsequent investigation reveals the misc/other category to have more low-hanging fruit, or useful externalities on a larger category, that changes things. Evidence based reallocations were explicitly included in my proposal.
So I don’t see why we disagree.
I suspect it’s a matter of technicalities rather than fundamental goal disconnect. If I want to keep the Baby-Punchers Local #403 from getting a new pool table in their rec room, I’ll probably need to come up with some plausible-sounding budget allocations today, not in six-plus months after all the research is already done and paid for.
No actually the reason we disagree is that I was having an argument with HughRistik and asked him a question as a method of argument, and then you answered the question having already internalized my stance and thereby saying a bunch of true but irrelevant stuff, and then I didn’t bother to look up his name and verify that you were different people.
If the various approaches are government programs, costs and benefits could be compared in terms of dollars spent, dollars of taxpayer benefit produced (if someone would have been willing to pay to change, say, a dress code, and obtains that benefit for free, that’s an IPED dollar-value benefit to them) and approval-rating percentage points.
I would expect gender-related oppression of misc/other folks to be higher, in per capita terms, than either men or women, yes. For one thing, earlier stages of this very discussion glossed over them altogether. However, I would also expect that quite a bit of that oppression is not strictly gender-specific, and avoid initially allocating disproportionate funds to that category out of respect for the limits of my department’s mandate.
Presumably there is a Director of Spending on Surgically Correctable Birth Defects or somesuch who would legitimately have at least partial jurisdiction over transsexuality, and a lot of individual citizens who are oppressed for reasons only tangentially related to ambiguous gender. I would of course want to coordinate with other departments to clearly delineate who is responsible for which edge cases and to what degree, erring on the side of too much overlapping coverage, if for no other reason than because broad prohibitions on charity might leave some unaccounted-for micro-minority with absolutely no legitimate recourse.
Naturally, if subsequent investigation reveals the misc/other category to have more low-hanging fruit, or useful externalities on a larger category, that changes things. Evidence based reallocations were explicitly included in my proposal.
I suspect it’s a matter of technicalities rather than fundamental goal disconnect. If I want to keep the Baby-Punchers Local #403 from getting a new pool table in their rec room, I’ll probably need to come up with some plausible-sounding budget allocations today, not in six-plus months after all the research is already done and paid for.
No actually the reason we disagree is that I was having an argument with HughRistik and asked him a question as a method of argument, and then you answered the question having already internalized my stance and thereby saying a bunch of true but irrelevant stuff, and then I didn’t bother to look up his name and verify that you were different people.