On Jan. 1, California is basically becoming a different state | Hacker News Reader

On Jan. 1, California is basically becoming a different state

qz.com

16 pointssubmeta14 comments

Nice, but similar to Scandinavian countries is exaggerated. I'm from Austria and we have up to 3 years of state paid m/paternity leave, contracts must not be terminated before and after that, employers must not pay you less after your leave or give you a lower job. Mothers typically can leave the job a few months before birth being paid 80% of their salary ("Mutterschutz"/"mother protection"). At least 5 weeks of paid vacation + holidays + unlimited sick days.

Guns for school officials? Wtf.

This saddens me to see this. The USA is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of do what we say or else.

There are 50 states. Pick whichever represents your idea of “freedom”.

Or any country for that matter.

There is no homogenous USA and there never has been.

> ...parents won’t be required to list gender on their children’s birth certificates.

Ok. Then say Sex. Whatever. How do we identify someone if we keep making parts of the identification "optional". It's like saying we shouldn't list eye color because you can get contacts to change it.

On the other hand, how often are birth certificates legitimately used for identifying physical characteristics of people?

For example, if my accountant absconds with the payroll, and I'm describing him or her to the police, they are going to go by photos, descriptions from me and others who know the accountant, and so on. I doubt that they are going to go track down a birth certificate to help with identification.

I can see harm from putting sex or gender on birth certificates: some of the states that have enacted anti-trans bathroom laws have written those laws to say that you must use the bathroom that matches your birth certificate. Maybe if it is not listed on the birth certificate, it will make it harder for those states to enforce those laws.

So, we've got a tangible harm from having it there, and I can't think of anything it really NEEDS to be there for, so I'm OK with it being omitted.

The situation you described is irrelevant to the point here.

It's the basis of your legal documentation. It's almost like saying that you don't need to specify a name, as there is an almost insignificant chance that they might want to change it in the future.

To get my license, I need to provide documentation that says who I am. Same for a passport or other form of documentation. Name, DOB, SSN, Eye, Hair, Skin, Sex. These are all attributes that go into uniquely identifying someone. If the argument is that someone might want to change one of these, our ability to identify ourselves uniquely is degraded which leads me to think that this will get to the point where someone can make a good argument for setting up a database of DNA or fingerprints so we can identify someone.

I can see more harm in someone who does not have their Sex listed on their birth certificate not being able to get a passport or ID from a state. It's a lot easier for a state to say (with good reason) that all identity documents needs to have name, DOB, sex, and eye color. That's tangible, and realistic harm.

The solution should be sex is listed on your birth certificate, but you can get a court order to switch it with a *. Or have a column for Sex and Gender

Side note, I think it is incredibly fucked up that a parent can make that choice for a kid. 99.999% of the people born will have sex listed. For the 0.001% chance, not having it listed tells me that the parent has already decided that they want a trans kid. That's the true harm.

I think the idea is that if someone decides later in life they want to change their sex, their birth certificate shouldn't be an impediment to their future life living as the gender of their choice.

Super exaggerated headline

> Antibiotics for animals will need prescriptions

Impressive.

But why?

"It will be illegal to ask prospective employees for their salary history"

Interesting - haven't we all been asked that?

> Beginning a road crossing while the signal is blinking will be considered jaywalking.

I did not know this.

Anecdotally, this already seems to represent a thing at the municipal level, at least in Sacramento, where police seem to arbitrarily enforce it to detain people they deem undesirable (e.g., homeless, by the downtown arena).

There is a correction to the article. They omitted a "not" before "be considered".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com