r/PoliticalDebate • u/-F3rris- Reactionary • 1d ago
Debate There's no valid reason whatsoever for the government to issue documents with "gender identity" info rather than biological sex.
Why should a passport or id have something as vague as "gender" rather than sex? Categorizing people around sex makes sense, it's as simple as that.
10
u/Chance_Adhesiveness3 Progressive 1d ago
Narrator: it’s not “as simple as that”.
Why does categorizing people around sex make sense?
5
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
Instantly exclude a large category of people to identify someone faster... Which of course gender is more helpful with. OP just dislikes trans people.
3
u/Chance_Adhesiveness3 Progressive 1d ago
If you can’t identify someone’s sex/gender from their passport photo, then the added information isn’t useful. Same with race.
•
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 2h ago
Surely it becomes easier to falsify a passport as you remove information from it. If the photo doesn't have to match the sex/gender/age/race, then it must be more vulnerable to forgery.
-2
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Because sexual dimorphism is a thing in our species.
5
u/Chance_Adhesiveness3 Progressive 1d ago
Even setting aside that it’s not as simple as that… so what? There are lots of ways you can categorize people. You can categorize them by sexual orientation. Whether they’re right or left handed. Whether they have straight or curly hair. Doesn’t mean sticking it on a passport has to make sense. And if the point of a passport is to identify people, it’s far from clear that it has any value.
Like difference in gender presentation is very socially constructed. There are women with unibrows and hairy legs. A checkout lady at my local grocer has a goatee. Plenty of men have bigger breasts than plenty of women. And that’s all… fine.
-2
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Exactly, now you get it. Gender is socially constructed, that's why classifying people by their sex is much more reliable.
5
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s only more reliable if every single time an ID is checked genitals are as well, and even then it’s still useless if a person has had a reassignment surgery.
Is that really what you’re arguing for? Genital checks at grocery stores for alcohol purchases, speeders with learner permits being required to let police inspect their genitalia at traffic stops? All just so IDs can meet your personal idea of “accuracy”?
How does “sex” make identification more accurate if they aren’t explicitly checking a person’s body against what is listed on their identification?2
u/thingsmybosscantsee Progressive 1d ago
their sex is much more reliable.
Reliable for what, exactly?
9
u/kireina_kaiju 🏴☠️Piratpartiet 1d ago
The argument against what you are saying is immediately apparent when you ask why you are requiring this for identification purposes to begin with.
I also have a very easy to understand way to frame the counterargument that is immediately apparent on inspection that you will understand and at least tacitly agree with even if circumstances compel you to not admit this fact.
Here it is.
We should not put natural hair color on identification documents.
8
u/TentacleHockey Progressive 1d ago
At that point, why not drop both? Outside of specific uses in birth certificates, medical records, criminal justice, demographic statistics, employment reporting, and certain elite physical sports, what purpose does recording someone’s sex or gender actually serve? Especially on a government ID, where neither is necessary to establish someone’s identity.
1
u/LT_Audio Politically Homeless 1d ago
The requirement to list sex on identification documents solves several practical issues within existing systems. First, current international travel standards between 195 nations mandate a sex field. Meaning passports without one risk rejection at most foreign borders. Second, law enforcement agencies rely on those markers as a primary filter to quickly narrow down search pools in criminal databases. And perhaps even more importantly, governments use that baseline demographic data to track population trends, monitor civil rights, and allocate public resources. Which aren't all great arguments for why gender or even something else entirely couldn't potentially be used instead.
And in the modern era as those systems may well at some point be redesigned in ways make those constraints less of a hurdle than they are right now... they may not be as necessary. But right now... they still matter and removing them entirely would come with substantial costs and create other problems.
2
u/TentacleHockey Progressive 1d ago
If passports can accommodate an X designation, clearly the system isn’t limited to biological sex. As for law enforcement and demographics, I already addressed those. That’s information the government can maintain in its own records without displaying it on everyone’s ID. I’m still not seeing a compelling reason why biological sex, let alone gender needs to be printed on government identification.
2
u/LT_Audio Politically Homeless 1d ago edited 1d ago
Those are all valid positions and the arguments I made are pretty weak. Looking into them a bit further...
It seems the ICAO which is the international body that manages the passport system among other things had a formal review of the process and essentially agreed with you that the field, purely as a technical identifier, was of diminishing value. But also decided that the temporary compromise of just using using the "x" workaround made more sense from a cost/benefit perspective. The idea being that facial ID and biometric sensors are going to make them obsolete and unnecessary anyway as identifiers as the current systems are redesigned and updated to incorporate them.
The most defensible use cases are probably in places where laws or rules that restrict access to spaces by sex exist. Like women-only train cars in Japan... segregated facilities in more conservative nations... or in the US state laws regarding locker rooms and shelters. In most of those situations there is no quick and practical way to universally reference a government database at the door. The physical card mostly exists so that a low-level clerk, security guard, or police officer can enforce that kind of sorting on the spot.
And you're certainly not wrong that in many places and certainly in the US, the whole topic has turned into much more of an ideological policy statement for political factions to weaponize and use in the pursuit of political capital. Rather than more practical discussions on merits and costs. Which just further gridlocks the process of finding enough consensus to modernize international standards.
Also interesting... just found out that Finland, as of a couple of years ago, is already in the process of removing the field entirely on its national ID as they've deemed it "meaningless clutter". I appreciate the reply and the pushback.
-5
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago
IDs with accurate sex markers would prevent activists from threatening women with genital inspections if they don’t agree to give up their sex based rights, protections and spaces. We could just rely on people’s IDs for that information. I’d consider that a win for women.
8
u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
Imagine having to produce ID in order to go to the toilet. Insanity.
7
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago
Conservatives seem to be advocating for ever more “papers please” situations, apparently even using public restrooms requires government identification in their ideal world.
5
u/TentacleHockey Progressive 1d ago
In a free-market society, shouldn’t businesses generally handle these situations themselves? If someone breaks the law, then it's a government matter.
Also these incidents are incredibly rare, and the controversy only spiraled after conservatives made it a major political issue. There’s no evidence trans-inclusive policies make bathrooms less safe. Ironically, nearly all high-profile cases involved women being harassed because someone wrongly assumed they were trans.
You’re proposing a government-wide requirement for a problem that hasn’t even been demonstrated to be more than an outlier event.
-1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
No women’s basic rights should not be conditional on whether or not a business believes a woman deserves rights. There are plenty of examples I can provide of predators exploiting self ID loopholes to gain access to vulnerable women and children and I promise you don’t want me to share them. School shootings are rare, that doesn’t mean we don’t want to try and safeguard children and prevent them from happening. You can’t safeguard women and prevent crimes against them if you refuse to acknowledge the reality of sex in policy and law.
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/outrage-as-golds-gym-revokes-membership-of-singer-who-opposed-man-in-womens-locker-room The man turned out to be a convicted felon who had previously served time for beating his ex wife into a pulp, but they revoked the woman’s membership because she expressed discomfort with a naked fully tact male in her locker room.
5
u/TentacleHockey Progressive 1d ago
How would having gender or biological sex on a government ID have prevented any of these incidents? You’ve provided examples of crimes, but haven’t explained how your proposed policy would have stopped them. You’re arguing against a point neither OP nor I made.
-4
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
IDs would obviously need to be coupled with a return to sex segregated spaces to protect women and children when they are most vulnerable. When women and children see a naked male in their locker room, they should be able to have that person removed based on sex alone rather than have their concerns dismissed, rather than being accused of bigotry, rather than being asked to wait for a crime to happen to them -defeating the whole purpose of sex segregated spaces. Women can no longer be told that a males need for affirmation matters more than actual women and children’s safety and comfort. It’s called safeguarding. And, importantly, trans activists can no longer threaten women with genital checks if they don’t have access to our spaces because accurate IDs exist.
The convicted third degree sex offender with children’s swim schedules saved to his phone had to scan his ID to get into the women’s locker room in which he liked to hang out naked. He was allowed to continue to harass women and children for months on the basis of gender identity despite many women complaining to employees and authorities. Perhaps, his sex marker should have disqualified him from being able to access the women’s locker room. Or perhaps he should’ve been prevented from entering based on the fact that he was a CONVICTED PEDOPHILE of the worst degree and wasn’t allowed to be around children. Self id policies provided him access to his preferred victims -children- and the legal cover to do it. These policies prioritized the desires of a convicted sex offender over the safety of children.
3
u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
IDs would obviously need to be coupled with a return to sex segregated spaces
So a "return" to never.
This is why I say that TERFs are dishonest.
Trans people have always been here, and have always been using the facilities of their gender.
YOU are the ones who want the laws changed, not them.
3
u/Vermicelli14 Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
"IDs would obviously need to be coupled with a return to sex segregated spaces to protect women and children when they are most vulnerable."
You mean in their own homes? You know, the place where most assaults of women and children happen. By cisgender, heterosexual men.
2
u/Nearby-Complaint I Don't Even Know Anymore (Left) 1d ago
I have digestive issues, and I would never remotely want to consider a system that involves being ID'd to use the toilet in public. If it comes down to that, it's usually an emergency.
6
u/L11mbm Progressive 1d ago
Let's flip this around: what's the value of listing someone's gender/sex/etc. on an ID in the first place? Is it in case someone has to inspect their genitals then they know what to expect? Or is it so that someone can look at them and know they have the right person based on their appearance?
If there is a warning issued by the police about a person, people will have very different expectations of what a "man" or "woman" will look like when the description of the person is announced.
-3
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Don't you as a progressive support people expressing themselves however they want to? In a society like that, "gender" is more and more irrelevant and the only thing meaningful that's left is biological sex.
11
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago
Unless law enforcement is going to check genitals at every single traffic stop and security checkpoint at airports gender makes more sense than biological sex as far as identification goes.
9
u/spice_weasel Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
And even then a significant percentage of trans women get bottom surgery. I did, and I don’t see how looking in my pants is going to help an officer make an “M” on my driver’s license be useful in identifying me.
-7
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Some men had their dicks blow off in Iraq. Literally no one said it's mandatory to have a dick to be a biological male.
7
u/spice_weasel Liberal 1d ago
I didn’t say anything about being a “biological male”. I’m talking about whether the marker actually facilitates identification or hinders it. What do you think is the purpose of the marker on an ID?
-8
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
You are the one who used yourself as an example. I'm just saying that your sex remains the same whatever happens to your genitals.
He doesn't need to check your genitals to identify you. I don't know you, so I can't exactly make a judgment, but on average people who are biologically male look closer to men despite what they are wearing.
7
u/spice_weasel Liberal 1d ago
Trans people who have medically transitioned aren’t “on average”, though.
The purpose of including that marker on someone’s is clearly to identify them. If someone passes well enough, that marker is more likely to cause confusion than it is to aid in identification.
-7
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
I'm inclined to agree a trans-identified individual is more likely than a regular individual to have their sex confused in these situations, you're correct. The problem is that using gender would also cause confusion, more confusion in fact, since most people in that demographic are visibly trans and therefore don't closely resemble someone of the opposite sex.
Moreover there's also the "non-binary" classification which is supported by the LGBT movement and would cause even more confusion.
6
u/thingsmybosscantsee Progressive 1d ago edited 1d ago
You're making the case that such markers don't need to exist, not that they match "biological sex".
4
-1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago
I can assure you there were no genital checks at traffic stops or security checkpoints when IDs reflected accurate sex markers prior to the last decade. Ridiculous.
3
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago
If they aren’t confirming a detail when confirming identification then that detail is irrelevant and doesn’t need to be included for identification purposes.
Your experience is showing exactly how unnecessary sex indication on ID was.0
u/7nkedocye Nationalist 1d ago
Sure but this is an argument for removing the marker from IDs, not for letting trans people pick their ID marker.
4
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago
That was my point, and I’d be perfectly happy with that. If it’s not useful or practical for identification purposes it doesn’t serve a purpose being on a form of identification.
-1
u/7nkedocye Nationalist 1d ago
No that’s not your point. You explicitly said gender makes more sense than biological sex as far as identification goes.
5
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Who are you to tell other people what their point is? You making an assumption about my point doesn’t change it.
Including presented gender does makes more sense in the majority of contexts, but that doesn’t make it necessary either.
Something can both make more sense than one alternative and still be redundant or unnecessary.
That just underscores how little sense mandating the inclusion of biological sex makes.-1
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
They don’t need to. Because a qualified person (I.e. doctor, geneticist, etc) has already done so and documented it for legal purposes for everyone. Anyone caught with fake IDs is guilty of a crime and can be punished accordingly along with other violations of other people’s rights. Using a social construct like gender is useless for protecting women’s sex based rights. It’s useless for conveying essential information to medical professionals in the event of an emergency.
5
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
You had a doctor confirm your sex when you got your drivers license? I sure as fuck didn’t.
You also seem to be repeatedly making the assumption that emergency responders are stopping to check IDs before rendering aid. In your hypothetical what do they do for patients who do not have their ID on their person at the time of their emergency? Just delay treatment until they fetch it? Or is the sex indication on their ID perhaps less necessary than you’re attempting to present it?
-2
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
No , they confirmed it when I was born. And at every freaking health check up. All of my kids sexes were confirmed at 10 weeks en utero without any genital checks. There was no question about my sex when I gave birth to them. Accurate birth certificates and health records means all other government documents are accurate.
3
u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
No , they confirmed it when I was born.
No they didn't. They look a quick glance between your legs and wrote down what was probably, but not always, correct.
-1
u/212312383 Libertarian 1d ago
No def do confirm visible sex during birth. It’s not just a quick look. They confirm visually for the birth certificate
-3
u/NearlyPerfect Right Independent 1d ago
This would only be true if the majority of people with non conforming gender identity are passing.
That’s an assumption that doesn’t necessarily hold true.
And some find it incredibly offensive that you would assume someone’s gender identity matches their appearance.
4
u/oraclebill Left Leaning Independent 1d ago
I don’t think laws should be crafted that only work well if you are in the majority.
26
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
What is the purpose of putting sex on the document at all? Is it not to identify people?
If someone has surgically transitioned and takes hormones, what information will help identify them more effectively? Biological sex or current gender?
Would you be in favor of putting baby photos on passports instead of current photos?
-7
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
By the same logic I can crossdress and cause confusion, so I shouldn't have M on my documents.
12
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
In this comment you claim that you changing clothes would be all it takes to cause confusion, but in another comment you claim the vast majority of people cannot convincingly portray the opposite sex no matter how hard they try.
Either your opinion is inconsistent or you’re subtly claiming that you are above average at presenting as the opposite sex.
7
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
Do you think they're transgender and they're obliquely asking for help defending gender on passports? What a twist!
4
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
They might be an egg. I hadn’t considered that angle.
Their post history would make a lot more sense under that light.-2
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
As an effeminate 5'5" tall gay man, trust me, I'm way above average. It literally does not matter though. Just because I could confuse people, it doesn't mean I'm not a male.
5
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not a good faith argument in the least. The whole system is an imperfect best effort to identify people, and you just want to make into a political or moral statement.
7
u/luminatimids Left Independent 1d ago
What argument are you even making here? That the gender on Id’s isn’t meant to be used to identity someone?
0
u/xfactorx99 Libertarian 1d ago
They’re saying the exact opposite
3
u/luminatimids Left Independent 1d ago
But what could it possibly be for other than that? It’s on a document that’s used to identify you lmao
-8
u/not-a-dislike-button Republican 1d ago
To correctly identify people. If they're trying to accurately record the number of people born each year, or if cops are looking for a rapist, or are looking to identify a corpse, etc, biological reality matters.
9
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
Passports aren't used to track births. Most people don't have one.
If they're trying to identify a body, it could be tremendously helpful to know they transitioned, but in this scenario they've already found their passport, so I'm not sure identification is the primary concern.
Can we not locate and convict rapists with expired passports? What exactly is the correlation between rape and passports here?
5
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of those situations have anything to do with passports, drivers licenses, or any other form of government issued identification though.
The census bureau doesn’t check people’s identification pretty much ever, and law enforcement isn’t going to only look at what identification a person may or may not have on their person when identifying suspects or corpses.6
u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
or if cops are looking for a rapist, or are looking to identify a corpse, etc, biological reality matters.
HRT is, in fact, part of "biological reality".
-6
-4
u/Powerful-Persimmon87 Centrist 1d ago
Well, for one, it would allow women to draw a boundary between themselves and males when sex is relevant to women’s rights without us being threatened with genital inspections. It’s also pertinent information for first responders in the event of a medical emergency. There are plenty of reasons.
5
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
when sex is relevant to women’s rights
I just don't see the correlation with passports, unless you feel that generally accepting trans ideas in one place means accepting it in all places. If someone is in line at DFW with 20 people behind them, how does having to have a conversation about their appearance and gender with a random customs officer protect women's spaces?
It’s also pertinent information for first responders in the event of a medical emergency.
What does this have to do with passports though?
There are plenty of reasons.
Related to passports specifically?
8
u/ProfessionalTap2400 Progressive 1d ago
It seems to me more likely for a given person to look like their chosen gender identity than their biological one, no?
It’s not like people will ask to see your genitals to check.
-12
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Most people can't even look close to the opposite sex no matter how much effort they put into it.
4
u/oraclebill Left Leaning Independent 1d ago
As a gay man, do you want all laws to cater to “most people” or do you recognize the advantages of equal treatment under the law?
4
u/skyfishgoo Democratic Socialist 1d ago
what valid reason does government have to issue documents with sex or gender on them?
does my government want to fuck me?
7
u/libra00 Communist 1d ago
There is, actually: If your id says you're biologically male and you show up to the airport in heels, a dress, and long hair, the TSA prolly isn't letting you on that plane. I get that that's not a concern for you, but it is for some people. They need id too.
1
u/katamuro Democratic Socialist 1d ago
in that situation I would say that it's not TSA(or any other authority) to stop a person boarding a plane just because they are dressed in a non-traditional way as long as they are conforming to reasonable hygiene standards. Having high heels a dress and being biologically male is not an issue for a flight safety. Being drunk, high or having violent criminal record saying "riots on planes" are.
2
u/ecchi83 Progressive 1d ago
So why bother having sex at all? We obviously use it as part of the identification process, and if a woman shows up w/ ID that says she's a man, that's going to be a hassle for everyone.
-2
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
and if a woman shows up w/ ID that says she's a man
People can tell them if a person is biologically male despite clothing, it isn't that impossible.
1
u/libra00 Communist 1d ago
Yes, actually, it is in fact within their authority to stop people who are flying under false or stolen IDs. If your ID has incorrect information it is no longer valid, and since someone decided that sex was important to include, now we have to include gender because it might be different than the one you were born with. If your ID is required to report on your sex and your gender doesn't present as is expected for someone of that sex, that can absolutely cause problems everywhere your ID gets checked. And since we don't have different IDs for trans folks, that means everyone's ID has to have their gender on it.
6
u/Ruanito_666 Socialist Market Economy 1d ago
They shouldn't have either. Useless information.
1
u/mkosmo Libertarian 1d ago
Until you wind up in custody and they need to know where to house you... or any other situation where it's absolutely relevant.
6
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 1d ago
So what happens if someone is arrested without a passport? Is it a loophole to avoid detention?
6
u/Ruanito_666 Socialist Market Economy 1d ago
What is the risk of having men and women in the same prison that wouldn't also be true for having trans women in men's prison? Feel free to also name other situations in which it's "absolutely relevant."
3
2
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 1d ago edited 1d ago
So it’s only relevant when detained by the government, and the state cannot make an assessment without the government issued identification an individual may or may not even have on their person at the time they are detained?
It’s odd that a self-identified libertarian’s only example of the “necessity” of sex markers on government issued identification is to facilitate the state in determining how to lock a person up.
More of a police state argument than a libertarian one.
5
u/thingsmybosscantsee Progressive 1d ago
What is the reason the Government includes a sex marker at all on an identifying document like a driver's license or passport?
5
3
4
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 1d ago
What makes more sense to me is identifying people based on how they present. Otherwise, people like Blair White and Buck Angel are gonna get stopped because they don't match their listed gender.
Why should sex be the identifier?
-3
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
Blair White and Buck Angel are outliers. Obviously it isn't easy to identify 100% of people based on sex, it doesn't need to be infallible to be relevant.
7
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 1d ago
But that doesn't mean we should opt for the less reliable path. I'm not seeing a compelling argument for why we should stick with sex over gender.
4
u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought 1d ago
How are we defining sex? If a trans woman gets surgery so she has a vagina, then are we listing her sex as female?
8
u/harp011 Skeptical 1d ago
Sex is simple! Unless you think about it or ask questions.
What about intersex people? XXY folks?
Why is sex even considered a useful identifying trait? Are we gonna start doing crotch checks at customs?
-1
u/-F3rris- Reactionary 1d ago
What you call "intersex" are measurable genetic defects. It has absolutely nothing to do with a nebulous inner idea about gender.
If someone's sex is difficult to define, that's what doctors are for.
6
u/TheRealCthulu24 Gardener Thought 1d ago
Okay, so are intersex labeled “intersex” on government documents? Also, once again, if a trans woman gets surgery to get a vagina and breasts, is her sex to be marked as female?
2
u/OreoSpeedwaggon Left Independent 1d ago
Gender identity and sex are two different things.
Sex is biological and identifies the physiological characteristics of a person.
Gender identity is psychological and chemical and describes the outward expression of one's gender.
Both sex and gender have spectrums that cannot necessarily say someone is one of two options. It's not black-and-white like that, and that's why gender identity on government documents is helpful to indicate -- even moreso than someone's sex IMO.
1
-7
u/not-a-dislike-button Republican 1d ago
Agreed. It's a vital statistic records. If you feel like a boy or girl or whatever is completely irrelevant.
•
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty constitutionalist 14h ago edited 8h ago
Government issued identification isn’t for “statistical records” purposes.
If I got rid of all my identification the government would still have its records of me. Those are independent of identification.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.