Given what Scott Wiener did with restaurant fees, it's hard to trust his judgement on any legislation. He clearly prioritizes monied interests over the general populace.
This guy is a menace. Among his other recent bills are ones to require cars not be able to go more than 10mph over the speed limit (watered down to just making a terrible noise when they do) and to decriminalize intentionally giving someone AIDs. I know this sounds like hyperbole.. how could this guy keep getting elected?? But its not, it's california!
I was surprised at the claim that intentionally giving someone AIDS would be decriminalized, so I looked it up. The AIDS bill you seem to refer to (SB 239) lowers penalties from a felony to a misdemeanor (so it is still a crime), bringing it in line with other sexually transmitted diseases. The argument is that we now have good enough treatment for HIV that there is no reason for the punishment to be harsher than for exposing someone to hepatitis or herpes, which I think is sound.
"Undetectable means untranstmitable" is NOT the same as "cured" in the way that many STDs can be. I am not okay with being forced onto drugs for the rest of my life to prevent a disease which is normally a horribly painful death sentence. Herpes is so ubiquitous that much of the population (as I recall on the orders of 30-40%) has it and doesn't know it, so it's a special exception
HIV/AIDS to this day is still something that people commit suicide over, despite how good your local gay male community is at trying to convince you that everything is okay and that "DoxyPep and Poppers is normal".
Bug givers (the evil version of a bug chaser) deserve felonies.
> Bug givers (the evil version of a bug chaser) deserve felonies.
I agree; I think that knowingly transmitting any communicable disease deserves a felony, but I don't think that HIV deserves to be singled out when all other such diseases are a misdemeanor. Hepatitis and herpes (oral herpes is very common; genital herpes much less so) are also known to cause mental issues and to increase suicide risk, if that's your criterion.
(Poppers are recreational drugs, I'm not aware of any link with AIDS except that they were thought to be a possible cause in the '80s. Were you thinking of prep?)
I don’t follow politics closely and don’t live in CA, but is he really that bad? I had a look on Wikipedia for some other bills he worked on that seem to me positive:
* wanted to decriminalize psychoactive drugs (lsd/dmt/mdma etc)
* wanted to allow alcohol sales till 4am
* a bill about removing parking minimums for new constructions close to public transit
Though I agree the car one seems ridiculous, and on first glance downright dangerous.
He's mostly good, and is the main guy fixing housing and transit in CA.
But yeah, there are some issues he's just wrong on (AI and the recent restaurant fee problem), others which are controversial (decriminalizing HIV transmission), and then some trans rights issues that some commenters are being hyperbolic about (should transwomen be in womens or mens prison?).
You'd think they'd learn from the streetlight cameras that it's just a waste of budget and resources 99% of the time to worry about petty things like that. It will still work on the same logic and the bias always tends to skew from profiling (so lawsuit waiting to happen unless we are funding properly trained personell.
I'm not against the law per se, I just don't think it'd be any more effective than the other tech we have or had.
Rental scooters have speed limiters. My class-1 pedal assist electric bike has a speed limit on the assistance. Car deaths are over 40,000 in the US per year. Why can't they be limited?
What a strange comment. I wonder if there was any consideration for the women locked up and powerless in the matter, or was the point really just to "show those bigots"?
If they’re transphobic and don’t want to be around transwomen, they could’ve committed the crime in a state that puts transwomen in with male prisoners (and get raped repeatedly). Of course, those states tend to treat their female inmates much worse than California, so this all seems like special pleading specifically borne out of transphobia.
These "activists" will go nowhere, because it's not coming from a well meaning place of wanting to stop fraudsters, but insists that all trans women are frauds and consistently misgenders them across the entire website.
I wouldn't take anything they said seriously. Also I clicked two of those links and found no allegations of rape, just a few ciswomen who didn't want to be around transwomen. I have a suggestion, how about don't commit a crime that sends you to a woman's prison?
Rape is endemic throughout the prison industrial complex, protections for prisoners are nowhere good enough. Subjecting transwomen to rape in men’s prisons isn’t the solution.
The JD Vance/Peter Thiel/SSC rationalist sphere is such a joke. Just a bunch of pretentious bigots who think they’re better than the “stupid” bigots.
> Rape is endemic throughout the prison industrial complex, protections for prisoners are nowhere good enough.
The most effective safeguarding measure against this for female prisoners is the segregation of inmates by sex.
SB132 has demolished this protection for women in Californian prisons and, as the linked articles discuss, we now see the awful and entirely avoidable consequences of this law, within just a few years of it being enacted. Exactly as women's rights advocates made legislators aware would happen in their unfortunately futile efforts to halt SB132 from being passed.
After 2 years of implementation, California has not seen an increase in sexual assaults. It's almost like transwomen aren't the problem.
Anyone can file a request, but the request must be approved, and this is based on the totality of the situation with the prisoner. Someone doesn't get to just wake up one day and go "I'm trans" and automatically get approval, this is fearmongering from transphobes.
There's tons of oversight involved and the idea this is some kind of "loophole" for horny cis guys is bigoted nonsense.
"The four witnesses for the prosecution gave detailed accounts of two horrible rapes and the efforts by the alleged perpetrator to dissuade one of the victims from seeking justice, even after she was moved to a new facility for her safety.
"One of the witnesses cited SB132 as the reason why Carroll was being housed in the women’s facility in the first place. He also noted that only males can rape females and that, until these past few years, there were no prisoners physically capable of rape."
That last part isn't true and is really only based on most men going "ah shit happens" to pretty much everything bad that happens to them in their lives until it all boils over into a violent outburst or suicide. :/
