Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Pulls North Carolina Plan After Transgender Bathroom Law (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: PayPal Holdings Inc on Tuesday canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and invest $3.6 million in the area after the state passed a controversial law targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens. In a letter on March 29, founders and chief executives of more than a hundred companies, including Apple Inc, Twitter Inc, and Alphabet Inc urged North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the legislation.
PayPal is one of the first companies to protest the controversial measure requiring people to use bathrooms or locker rooms in schools and other public facilities that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity. "The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal's mission and culture," Chief Executive Officer Dan Schulman said in a statement. PayPal's original plan was to open the operations center in Charlotte and employ 400 skilled workers there.
Are they going question every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
That law is ridiculous and I am glad other people recognize this. Dan Schulman made the right call here.
nothing wrong with that
... PayPal's original plan was to open the operations center in Charlotte and employ 400 skilled workers there.
The company I work for is relocating twice that many to Charlotte from NYC so that makes up for stupid PayPal and then some...
I want to cry and commiserate with my friends and eat HagenDas. On the other hand I feel rage and want to chop down trees and drink Miller lite.
So confusing...I wish there was a law to instruct me how to feel about this issue!
I'm cool with gay marriage and LBGTWTF rights and all, but I think that this is ridiculous. If you have a penis, use the boys room. If you don't you'll make everyone else in the womens room uncomfortable. Once you get your penis chopped off and a vagina installed, you can use the girls room.
What if some regular schmuck decides for the lulz to dress up as a women for a day and go all perv in womens room? Is there a statute in the law that says you have to be transgender for a certain amount of time before you can use the womens room? How are you going to prove it?
At this point why not make all restrooms communal or unisex?
I see how the law is targeting transgender people, but how the law is targeting lesbian, gay or bisexual people?
for those who think this isnt an egregious concern for the state of North Carolina, they very much do have a lot to lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of the largest research parks in the world, but its been largely a pearl in an otherwise very salty oyster. Its home to Cisco, Redhat, Microsoft, and NetApp among others. Governors and statesmen are wrecklessly gambling with this research park in the hopes that pandering to ten million North Carolinians with rhetoric from the culture war is a sustainable or responsible approach to governing their state.
PayPal has made it very clear: there are 49 other states that will gladly accept our proposition to employ hundreds of high skilled knowledge workers. Your tax incentives are by no means exclusive to the state.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I wouldn't be too quick to applaud the principled stance of paypal, or corporations generally, as they typically will do business even in atrocious hellholes if the money is right(and/or go out of business at the hands of competitors who don't share their scruples); but it is worth remembering that they have options, and they aren't going to choose a location unless its overall combination of 'desirable' and 'cheap' beats out that of the alternatives. Some places make it on desirability(it's not like you go to any trendy part of silicon valley for the rent). Some places focus on being cheap. Most combine the two in varying proportions.
This being the case, making your location less desirable strongly suggests that you will have to make it more cheap in order to maintain the same level of interest. You have fun with that, NC.
The law does NOT prohibit businesses from either having their own policies against LGBT discrimination or from private businesses accommodating transgender customers in whichever bathroom. But it does require schools and government facilities to police their bathrooms and require transgender people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the sex listed on their birth certificate.
to reduce this to basics, in usa, when there is a conflict where two group have conflicting values, one group is saying only the values backed up by money should matter.
ideally,
majority democratically established, with constitutionally established checks and balances, should pass laws.
constitutionality of the laws should be judged by courts.
while that is never achieved, continuous blatant violations in favor of money elite, and ignoring of others legal attempts, will eventually bring about a conflict that will get ever more violent and illegal. be warned.
Before one criticizes this law, one should reflect on whether one would be comfortable with a cross-dressng boy using the same locker room with one's daughter. I would not. While I respect everyone's right to dress as they wish and assocate with whom they wish, I feel that bathroom and locker facilities are sex specific and not gender specific. If we start down this path and do not apply some common sense, we will soon have a myriad of facilities that will seem as ridiculous in 20 or 30 yeas as color-based drinking fountains do today.
This bill isn't "about" bathrooms (that's just one provision of many, probably added so that people like the submitter can spin the backlash as being about that).
The far more significant provision (the one which actually has PayPal and others abandoning the state) is the one which explicitly permits business to discriminate against LGBT employees and customers under the guise of "religious freedom".
People need to remove the LGB from this discussion because there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate. Except that for positioning people conveniently lump those other groups into the lot. Here is your trigger warning, either go away or hold that rage for a minute. This is about people who dress like the opposite sex. The reasons for dressing like the opposite sex are varied, and can be perverse as well as due to any type of identity condition.
So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman.
This blanket assumption that everyone is innocent and altruistic is a fantasy that people need to snap out of. The actual amount of transgender people demanding to use any restroom they want is extraordinarily tiny. Blackmailing companies to force them to do it the way .1% of the population wants it is not the way to succeed in society where the other 99.9% of the population does not agree.
People need to wake up to the amount of social engineering being forced down their throat and take action against it. If not, well, you can see how things turned out in other countries when the loonies started running the asylum.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The comments they make when I release the death fog is fucking hilarious. I don't care how big your dick is, lady. My alien acid shits will drive you out of the men's room FOREVER!!!!
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
Stop bullshitting. It was done to ensure individual communities couldn't pass laws that prohibit discrimination. In other words, the Jesus-yokels in the state house said "We're looking at YOU, Raleigh, Charlotte, and especially you hippies in Asheville, and we don't like you getting all fag-friendly and whatnot."
The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is, instead of all this double-talk about "different and contradictory laws" in different communities. What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I think we will need more than three
Have gnu, will travel.
Remember, this is the same company that excludes its users from commerce in legal but politically incorrect products & services.
https://www.paypal.com/ca/weba...
Honest question here - how does this law affect gays and lesbians? It doesn't (to my admittedly naive thinking) seem to apply to anyone who has not changed their gender. Right? Wrong?
Unisex bathrooms.
And make them with closed stalls. So nobody will know which way the feet are pointing when they take a leak.
Have gnu, will travel.
My wife *just* found out about this.
Her exact words 'Oh that will take about 1 second for some pervo to take advantage of that'
Basically stalker pervos (and they exist) will just go into the wrong bathrooms to get their jollies. Then claim 'oh I dont identify that way' and get off scott free. THAT is why we have separate bathrooms.
'no no honey its ok there is a 40 year old man in that bathroom watching you'.
As a citizen of North Carolina, I am grateful to Paypal for standing up to protect people from discrimination. As bad as the treatment of transgender folks is in this law, the real impact is much broader. This law removes the right of all citizens to access state courts to sue for employment or housing discrimination based on age, race, national origin, or sex. The Republicans are using the bathroom stuff as cover because they think a majority of voters don't identify with transgender people. But the real impact is to legalize all forms of discrimination in North Carolina.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Who cares! "Look everyone: LGBT/gay" etc. to control a narrative for "damage control" distracting from real issues like bogus wars YOUR TAXES PAY FOR that rebuild enemies (fucking stupid if you beat someone's ass, right or wrong, keep them down or they come back at you, not help them but the rich get richer on no-bid contracts for their good ole' boy netywork and soldiers come back to no jobs that they were promised). Instead they import the enemy to infiltrate us those stupid fucks (since they work cheaper) and give them welfare too AND then give soldier and us citizens jobs to those enemies overseas too! How fucking STOO-PID! Why were wars like WWII ones that helped the USA? We eliminated competitors in what made us strong - manufacturing (though I don't feel it's right to bust up others in THEIR HOME telling them how to live - let them handle it). No, instead, they put up bullshit like this to distract from say, the 1% panama papers bullshit. It's all this bs really is. Carrots for ignorant donkeys that fall for it. The 'powers that be' must really RREALLY think we're all fucking stupid pulling tricks like bullshit "stories" like this one against more important issues that affect far more people adversely. Makes me ill. I hope it does the rest of you also. It's such ridiculous inconsequential horseshit designed to make you forget the real issues out there that are burning the USA into the ground due to shitbag leaders who are nothing more than puppets of the wealthy who fund their campaigns (trump excluded) and who consider the usa their constituency stupid, obviously. Toss some "bread and circuses" in their too and you have their recipe for controlling the masses (along with controlling communications this way).
Republicans are all for everyone's right to be a Republican. That's why they fight against the ACLU and EFF and so on, yet have no conservative organizations that "compete" against these to protect our rights in a "conservative" way, whatever way that might be. They don't give a shit about how big government is or whether it's trampling on any of your rights, as long as you've got the right to guns (Reagan's Addendum: if you aren't black).
No one at PayPal or any of these other companies cares at all about anyone in North Carolina.
North Carolinians don't want men in the girl's locker room watching their young daughters undress or naked men in the girl's showers watching them shower. Why should they want that?
But PayPal and transgender activists don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Has she ever had this issue before in her life? No? Well then, isn't that odd.
This law require trans men to use the ladies room. Tell her to get used to seeing men there now, because this law requires it.
I've always figured the public bathroom gender designations were more of a cultural suggestion. If you're obviously a man entering a woman's bathroom you're going to get in trouble, culturally. Probably in the form of a black eye. I didn't think it was ever a matter of law.
So what's wrong with that system? The reason for different bathrooms is women are uncomfortable undressing around men. If you were born a man and identify as a woman you can use their bathrooms if you manage to not make them uncomfortable being around you. If you do, no law is going to save you. If a woman wants to use a men's room, I couldn't imagine anyone complaining.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Gym locker rooms.. maybe not covered or maybe so? Every time I show up at the gym and get my workout done I'm being compelled through this kind of legislation.. to take a shower in an environment where my gender is enforced by a door plaque, In reality this is unenforced as the current "regulations" mean that the "men's room" is "co-ed" thusly I'm compelled to ask why I'm being subjected to this. I think we need a "third" bathroom that is "gender neutral" where those that cross-identify can find their safe space and not infringe on the rest of us?
I mean, what is wrong with you? We don't have gender split bathrooms in our country and the country hasn't exploded. Literally, our country is still here, cause you know what? Your shit stinks the same as the other gender.
When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
-1: Troll.
Why not just have "penis bathroom" and "vagina bathroom".
Going to the bathroom is not an expression of sexuality, it's an expression of waste. Bathrooms are designed to facilitate the organs you have. A urinal for example.
I'm yet to see anyone complain that it's unfair they can't use a urinal because they have a vagina.
Be whatever sexuality you like!! Use the bathroom that matches your mechanics. Thee are much better ways to embrace your sexuality than worrying about public bathrooms.
What about my right to not participate in somebody else's delusion? What's next? Do we need to start worshiping people who think they're Jesus? Keep in mind that a schizophrenia diagnosis goes hand in hand with somebody who has gender identity problems.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding Jeebus up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Family Values" types try to claim that all gay men are pedophiles. Now suddenly all transexuals are actually peeping toms who want to wear dresses.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Separate is not equal! It is time to do away with the injustice of bathroom segregation.
Men
Women
Obamanations!
VOTE TRUMP/NUGENT 2016
This is the first time I've ever had a positive thought about Paypal. But then, I have had many dealings with them, so I'm hardly unbiased.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is...
Unless the OP is a post-off transgender, in which case, it's totally cool to no longer have the balls, and she's free to use whatever restroom she wishes except in North Carolina.
Where aliens will be found, computers will be sentient, brains will be uploaded, and Linux will have a year on the desktop, all believed with the fervent faith of a religious nutter...
but the idea that gender identity is an innate function of the brain, which may not always develop to the identity dictated by chromosomes or genitalia, is just too damn mind blowing for them to handle, despite oodles of scientific evidence.
There are such things as gender-neutral and unisex bathrooms; eliminates need for separate gender restrooms, provides appropriate privacy and is even being done by the US navy on aircraft carriers. Some minor modifications to existing bathrooms can get most to this standard. They are not expensive and actually can reduce the overall restroom footprint and maintenance requirements for separate bathrooms.
But this would get in the way of someone's old fashioned hate, so it probably is a bad idea.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Uh, probably not, but what crime will the pervert be committing assuming he's just looking at little girls put on their bathing suits? Will there have to be surveillance cameras and laws regulating eye position in bathrooms and changing rooms so that a tiny number of deviants can feel both special and normal?
I'm the one that submitted the article, and I am in fact a passable transgender woman. Can't speak for the OP that you replied to, though.
The deeper issue is that bigots are making excuses for this kind of law with absolutely no thought. It means that trans men, like Buck Angel, will be forced (by law) to use the women's room. Transgender people are estimated to make up 1 in 500 to 1 in 2,000 people, and approximately half of those will be trans men. This means you will be seeing men in the restroom and they are required to be there by a law that bigots blindly supported, so women in NC have no choice but to deal with it; good luck trying to figure out which one are actually trans guys and which are those icky pervy men you were complaining about!
On the other end, trans women like myself, would be required to use the men's room. We're already targeted for murder in assault, particularly from men in bigoted southern states, and needing to out ourselves in such an obvious way (particularly in a bathroom) is only going to further put us at risk.
So, all these morons have accomplished is putting more people at risk and further convolute things in order to "solve" something that was never an issue in the first place.
Also a prominent Broadway composer has banned his works from being performed in NC. I'm very heartened by this; the boycott movement might actually get legs and make NC think twice.
Unfortunately, Mississippi has passed an even more egregious law than the one in NC. The Mississippi law basically makes it legal to fire LGBT people and refuse them housing.
What the hell is going on in the Bible Belt? Are these people insane?
The same crime he was always convicted of.
Let's imagine for a moment a female sex predator sneaking a peak at young girls in a women's washroom, or a male sex predator doing the same in a men's washroom. Are you saying these individuals cannot be prosecuted because they have the right bits under their clothes?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are women, who were born women... who just happen to have XY chromosomes and a genetic insensitivity to the androgens that that Y chromosome produces, so they develop as female anyway.
And there XXY in men, women and intersex people ... Yup in complex systems all sorts of things can go wrong. But this is beside the point which was that gender is inherently mental (in contradistinction to sex which is matter, your objection to the word 'chromosome' notwithstanding).
It's rare, but it happens, and if you pin sex to chromosomes, you end up having to call such people male; and also say that most of the time we have no fucking idea what sex anybody is.
Oh I don't mind being wrong on rare occasions. :) I don't follow what you mean about "most of the time" though, nearly all of the time genetics and anatomy work out just fine.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
What happens when pandering goes all wrong.
... I just canceled my account.
So your wife has bought into the bullshit fear-mongering. Lucky you and lucky her.
What crime will a pervert be committing assuming he's just looking at little boys putting on their bathing suits? Or is that OK because he's got a penis too?
If someone is gawking at kids or other adults in a bathroom, then there's a problem. What sex they are is irrelevant.
On the other hand if some transgendered person goes into a stall in the women's bathroom and minds their own business like we'd expect anybody using a public bathroom to do then honestly I don't understand the problem.
Most doctors are required by law for you to take a long bunch of psych evaluations over many months by several different physiologists before they even start you on your hormone therapy. That would have to be one dedicated perv.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Because a rapist is going to be bothered by going into a women's toilet....
Indeed, similar situation here. Also in debt up to my eyeballs from all the bills related to doctor and endocrinologist appointments.
If anyone ever tells you being trans is easy, they're lying or grossly misinformed.
Birth gender is not as cut and dry as most people think. There are many many people who had gender assignment surgery just after birth, to make the child meet the physical standards of being a male or female. From wiki, Sex Assignment:
- In approximately 1 in 2,000 infants, there is enough variation in the appearance of the external genitalia to merit hesitation about appropriate assignment by the physician involved.
- Before the 1950s, assignment was based almost entirely on the appearance of the external genitalia. Although physicians recognized that there were conditions in which the apparent secondary sexual characteristics could develop contrary to the person's sex, and conditions in which the gonadal sex did not match that of the external genitalia, their ability to understand and diagnose such conditions in infancy was too poor to attempt to predict future development in most cases.
Not only that, you may have had re-assigment surgery, and never been told. Before the 1990's:
- Non-disclosure of the intersex condition to the individual on whom sex assignment treatment was conducted.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Inn Seattle, just after a LGBT friendly law was passed a man walked into a women's changing room at a pool and undressed in front of young girls. He was wearing standard men's clothing and after swimming he returned to the dressing room and repeated the process. At no point were any police called because he said he 'identified' as female and the staff were unable to prove otherwise. He was told he could use a separate room but he refused and they were not legally allowed to force him.
It's not going to happen everywhere but with 'feelings' based laws there is little anyone can do about it unless the person has prior sexual convictions and then they would most likely be in violation of something else besides these laws.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
You're because of the money. Shove it in your ass, it may help. Works for me. But I still prefer natural pussy. No offence, it's called opinion and it makes me an individual, which is basicaly what makes transgenders individuals. So fuck You squares. Again, lots of people starving and those ignorants worried about wig dudes versus witches using restrooms.. Fuck dude, people crap on those places! Have some respect.
So your wife has bought into the bullshit fear-mongering. Lucky you and lucky her.
I described the law to her. Before I finished what the law was that fell out of her mouth. She put that together ALL by herself. No fear mongering needed.
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding FSM up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Equal Rights" types try to claim that all southerns are bigots. Now suddenly all people who want privacy in the bathroom are actually hateful, homophobic, bigots who want to put all LGBT people in the 'back of the bus'.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender - He didn't get off scott-free but that doesn't undo the damage he's done
You do realize that most of the South is going to pass these laws, right? And having locations in the South is much cheaper. So you're going to find that most corporations will just move from one state to another. Sorry, but that's corporations for you. Fine taking a stand until they have to lose money and explain it to the stockholders.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Two points:
1. You fully have the right to live your life as you see fit.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
So you want to play girl. Fine, you go for it, I doubt the vast majority of people care. I know I don't.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room. You likely are no threat to my wife or daughter, but they can't know that, now can they? How exactly do they tell the difference between you and someone just pretending to be you?
Answer: They can't. It may not be "fair" to you, but your right to live your life as you wish ends when it impacts their ability to feel safe in a public restroom.
Basically stalker pervos (and they exist) will just go into the wrong bathrooms to get their jollies. Then claim 'oh I dont identify that way' and get off scott free. THAT is why we have separate bathrooms.
How do we not have an epidemic of this already? There are gay stalker pervos out there already, you know. I must have missed the news stories about gay men getting their jollies in the mens' room. Well, except for Republican lawmakers like Larry Craig.
We should all be boycotting the bigots at PayPal, Apple, etc who are not supporting the Zoophiles, Pedophiles, Nocrophiles, Rapists, etc. Clearly, drawing lines around people and their activities based on their sexual preferences is the new form of ugly discrimination.
Oh, wait .... I guess I missed the memo.
Is all this attacking Christians and Jews for the moral definitions they have held for 2000 years, upon which western civ was built, and which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both insisted they believed way back in the stone age (2008) limited to only certain arbitrary proclivities? I'm stunned. This is what a formerly-advanced civilization looks like as it commits suicide.
Of course this "tolerance" parade is all a fraud and anybody paying attention has known it for decades. Originally, the demand was for tolerance for gay men. Then it was "gays and lesbians". Then it was "Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals" under the "GLB" banner. Then they added transexuals (and transgenders, the "T" being dual-use) and it became "GLBT". Then they added even more confused and delusional, er, "Questioning" and changed the acronym to "GLBTQ". The ACLU, which is in all this up to their eyeballs has insisted for decades that age of consent laws are age discrimination, so it's quite rational for opponents of the public perversity movement to connect the dots and see that child molesters (who, incidentally, always insist they were "born this way" and who mental health professionals insist cannot be changed any more that gays can) will eventually be a protected class. We've already seen liberals bring test cases to the courts to try to legitimize incest (they've done it with consensual incestuous relations between adults) and polygamy. The only thing that might block zoophiles is Peta. There is simply no argument in support of the currently popular pervs that does not equally apply to all other pervs, as long as somebody can claim consent was involved.
When you ditch morals and discernment, all bets are off.
No one is talking about the baby changing station. Think about it. You're a guy. People already look at you funny if you're with your own child and the mother is elsewhere. Now you can't even use the baby changing station, because it's in the women's restroom.
Or maybe you can, after all, people understand right? Baby needs a new diaper. It's obvious. So you take a chance. You go in, and a nice lady inside smiles at you because she finds the image of a young father with a baby adorable. And so you're in there, changing the babies diaper, you come out and...
You're surrounded by cops, (or worse, Asset Protection.) Wait, what?
Onlookers, confused, and trying to fill in the missing data, assume the worst. Because it would be asinine (but correct) to assume it has to do with your chromosomes, they make more reasonable assumptions like, "he stole a baby," and "he's a peeping tom."
Welcome fathers, to the future! You're now officially a creep until proven otherwise.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
There is no difference. It's called 'autogynephilia', meaning that these so-called "transsexuals" get off on being treated as women. They make other people reluctant props for their own sexual arousal. Stuff like this used to be considered extreme anti-social behavior.
A state makes a relatively mild anti-gay law, and Paypal makes news doing this. But they have an office in Singapore, where male on male homosexual contact is prohibited by law.
Does this sound more or less liberal than the North Carolina law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If we as a society weren't irrationally concerned with people seeing other people's bodies outside narrowly defined, culturally relative bounds of acceptability, that would be a complete non-issue.
There are nudist colonies where children of any sex can see adults of every sex all the time and they're not psychologically traumatized by it.
There are and always have been societies around the world where all sorts of people routinely see all sorts of people naked and nobody fucking cares.
Our culture's hangups about what parts of which sex have to be covered by what garment is just a slightly lesser version of the same ideas that lead to mandatory burkas in Islamic countries.
The law should not mandate anything about clothing except where it might be a public health concern (e.g. the kinds of places where hairnets or gloves or whatnot are mandated).
Laws about clothing are the "feelings" based laws in the first place. Oh noes, you're offended by the sight of someone's body; or worse, by someone else's sight of someone else's body! Who fucking cares. You're free to be offended and to shame or disassociate from such people as you like, free speech and association and all that, culture's going to do what culture does and if naked people are uncool, whatever; but they should be legally free to dress (or not) as they like, because it's not harming anyone.
Also, bathrooms should all be unisex (as far as the law is concerned) for similar reasons, except in that case who the hell's genitals are visible to other people even in a bathroom? (At least without going to creepy, obvious efforts to look at them, which should be as much a problem for cis men creeping each other in the men's room as transwomen creeping other women in the women's room... not that it's even really possible in a women's room, since there are no urinals and toilet seats get private stalls).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
you know, year after year I come back here to post a snarky comment and read some stupid commentary.
even thought i tell myself i should spend that 10 minutes a day more usefully.
but this is too much. idiotic back and forth about restroom use and laws clearly to appeal to
idiots who think the whole men dressing up as women thing is just too icky
not coming back. there is in actuality nothing left to see here.
And if he doesn't have any convictions and doesn't do anything demonstrably wrong, a pedophile is free to change in a room full of little boys -- as always.
I don't see how any reasonable non-evil person can argue that the safety advantage of preventing the hundreds of actual violent attacks on transgender people forced to use their legal gender restroom is negated by one perv in Seattle changing in the women's room. Come back when you have a long list of women assaulted or murdered and we can have a reasonable debate about which way is safer.
This space intentionally left blank
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all trans because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules?
All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every trans person because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not. The attack is against the law anywhere, and someone wishing to attack is not going to be stopped by a sign that says "do not enter" because what they're planning to do is already far, far more illegal than going into the wrong restroom is.
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
This space intentionally left blank
That's because this isn't about bathroom privacy or about protecting children, it's about imposing social and religious views out of step with the times. Since a trans woman is going to go into a bathroom stall just like a woman born to that gender, can you explain how anyone's privacy has been breached? And with the current state of gender reassignment surgery for trans men, it isn't likely to often be a problem for men.
You can certainly try to hide your bigotry behind some flimsy wall of privacy and decency, but it doesn't really hold up. Trans women forced to use men's washrooms are going to be at pretty significant risks in some areas, and since they aren't actually bothering you at all, why exactly do you feel your non-right to not feel icky should overwhelm their very legitimate concerns and liberties. What is it you think is going to happen in that stall beside you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Remember: Far more senators have been arrested for sexual crimes in bathrooms than trans people using the bathroom of their identity.
Let's pass laws banning politicians from public restrooms and THEN worry about whether there're actually any issues with the trans community.
No, I think just a hetro bathroom and an everyone else bathroom should cover it. Maybe now they'll make stall doors without the obligatory 2" gap around them.
Nullius in verba
Let me start off by saying that I am normally against "save the children" arguments but here is mine:
I'm 100% supportive of an individual making their own life decisions and support a man/woman having whatever clothing, lifestyle, operations, etc. as they see fit to better fulfill their lives. We can chat, have lunch, they can come celebrate holidays, etc. at my house. No problems whatsoever. Also, I have no problem standing next to a drag queen taking a piss in a public restroom...totally cool with their decisions.
But there is no way, whatsoever, that I will now or ever support a law that allows a current/former man to be allowed in a public bathroom with my daughter when she's old enough to go into the ladies room alone. She's 3 1/2 now...been in the men's room many of times as you'd imagine but I've never gone into the ladies room to help her use the restroom under the guise of...I'm trying to promote her understanding of her gender.
I support LGBT but I'm no more trusting of a transgender than a perverted uncle. People who have had difficult life struggles should be awarded for overcoming them but not by being allowed alone in a bathroom with my daughter.
If you were bone male and you choose to wear ladies clothes at home and around your friends, have it it!
If you choose to get breast implants, and take female hormones, go for it, but don't make me pay for it.
If you choose to have a surgeon mangle your junk and make it look like lady parts, feel free to do it as long as I do not have to pay for it.
If you want to shop buy something from my business, and you are behaving yourself like any other customer, that's ok - you will get treated like any other customer.
If you insist that I cater to you in some manner that implies that I endorse your choices, then you have crossed a line and violated MY freedom of conscience.
If you plan to hang out in a restroom or locker room with a young son or daughter of mine or with my wife, then you and I have an issue because I have an absolute moral responsibility to keep them safe. It's called "risk reduction". The more contra-normal somebody's sexual and moral compass points, the more of a risk they become. As with every risk, it's not personal. There are people who appear to be normal and yet abuse innocent victims, possibly the appearance of normality is the limit of their self-control. Then there are people who are, shall we say, "flamboyant" who never assault any victim. I do not care any more than I care about the fact that some planes crash and others do not. Members of my family are not raw meat to be dangled before lions, and they are not test subjects to be used to test of the limits of the self-control of people who have loudly demonstrated some extreme moral and/or gender confusion/flexibility.
How exactly do you propose to make the law pertain to only the good people and ignore the bad ? Do you have any answer to this besides some fantasy view of the world as being full of perfect people who will do no harm? I have not seen an answer to this question, and very much doubt you have one. In fact in you just falsely claimed that my reasoning about your poor decision is based on "panic", when in fact I spelled out exactly what the problem with a law in of this nature is.
If people were only worried about the use of the rest room as you just attempted to claim then there is no need for the government to force people to accept the minority view. I can not find one instance of a woman being arrested for using the men's room without other circumstances (drunk, drugs, violent). Men are not running around threatening women with lawsuits if they happen to be transgender and using the men's room.
Alternatively, I have seen is women *rightly* complain that they feel threatened by women that appeared to be very masculine using their rest room. So this law does the exact opposite of protecting woman. Women will be _MORE_ at risk with a law of this nature.
So answer the point I addressed instead of making more false claims and ad hominem and fallacy. Surprise me with reason and logic instead of providing the expected trolling we normally see from SJWs and shills.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
PayPal seems to have no trouble doing business there. What are Saudi Arabian bathroom policies like? How are LGBT rights doing there?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not.
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
What she should NOT have to do is guess... guess "is this a man who feels like a woman, or a man who is up to no good".
The problem with "guessing" is that she has to wait until he does something bad. By then it is too late.
As it stands now, by his mere presence, he has made himself a thread and she can respond accordingly.
The attack is against the law anywhere
Do you always wait for someone to attack before deciding if they are a threat or not?
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
Sadly, you're wrong... but since you're not a woman, you don't understand that.
The solution is to create stalls; stalls for urinals and stalls for showers. Frankly I hate public showers, mainly because I'm an overly bloated middle aged guy that all the jocks mock, sometimes openly. I'd gladly use a shower co-ed show facility where everyone had privacy. That way, whether the person next to you was a man, a woman, a trans man, a trans woman, a ten year old or a ninety year old, would be irrelevant. If privacy is the real concern here (which it isn't, I think even the supporters of this law know perfectly well that it is a smokescreen for legalized discrimination) then the solution isn't three types of bathrooms, it's one type of bathroom with more privacy.
As it happens, I'm seeing more urinal stalls in public facilities all the time, which is nice, because why should urinating be somehow a less private act than defecating?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
You literally are the one trampling the rights of another. Stop trying to confuse the issue and deflect blame. You're actively supporting an anti-LGBT bill which suppresses the rights of transgendered people.
Now about this law that you're promoting so much.... You do realize it requires guys like this to use the ladies room, right? Get ready to see plenty of men in the women's room now, and good luck figuring out which ones are trans and which aren't. That's right, as women in NC get used to seeing trans men, like the one pictured above, in the women's room, you could very likely see an increase in perverts using that to their advantage.
All of this over a hypothetical that just doesn't happen... Not only are transgendered people statistically far more unlikely to commit a crime (such as the one you're proposing), but the hormones that a trans woman are suppress sex drive to that of a regular woman, and hence even if she was at one time a sexual deviant, she would no longer pose any need to participate in the behavior you're describing.
It's funny to me that bigots like yourself lacked any sort of thought process before openly supporting this law. Not only does it do nothing to prevent these "peeping Toms," as you claim, but rather it makes this far more confusing and only adds new risks.
Do you think Saudi Arabia should set the standards of conduct in the US?
So all the faggot lovers are up in arms.
The State wants to AVOID A PATCHWORK OF ORDINANCES that vary from town to town. Lots of States forbid local muni's form passing laws because it will turn into a fucking nightmare.
FEDERAL LAW WILL OVERRIDE ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE. Everyone is protected by Federal Laws.
As usual faggots and queers got nothing better to do than pretend that the world is out to get them.
As for paypal, the world wold be a better place is they went out of business.
They are just 2 of the 58+ sex/gender identities that idiots at places like Facebook count (and they seem to be looking for more) as part of one actual problem: extreme mental disorder.
There is not is dime's worth of difference between any of these dysfunctions and the dysfunction of bulemia or anorexia in which a person claims their brain tells them something other that the objective biological truth about their body. If fact, there's little difference even from people who claim to hear voices in their heads when there are objectively and biologically no other persons in there.
Historically this gender-confusion garbage has not been rejected as an act of bigotry but rather because people used to be more tied to reality. Now, we have people who think the internet is the real world, think they have friends all over the world on Facebook, think that closing a factory or coal mine in Virginia and moving it to China or Mexico will save the planet, etc and are easily confused into thinking that there is some grand mystery around what's between their legs. It's as though when they encounter a simple fact, they've been convinced by reality TV or magicians that there's gotta be some gimmick, so they just cannot face the idea that there are male humans and female humans and that nobody gets to decide which one they are born as. Rather than face the real world, they spin off into la la land and get offended if anybody refuses to join them in their delusions. Genuinely buying into any of this requires an intelligence beneath that of a squirrel. Businesses who buy into it are generally not actually buying into it so much as they are pretending to because somebody said they could make more money doing so, which is smart business if you do not mind the immorality of encouraging people to be delusional and self-destructive.
No, it isn't. We have separate public toilets as a remnant of a policy of excluding women from public life and enforcing class divisions. Female public toilets did not exist until the early 20th century and were still rare well into the 20th century.
Additional fun facts: In West Virginia, women were barred from jury service until 1956 because courthouses didn't have female toilets. In the US Capitol building, there were no toilets for female senators until 1992.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Irrelevant. The judge will rule based on what the law says; if the guy says "I identify as female", the judge is not allowed to go "Oh no you don't", the prosecution has to provide proof that the person did not, at the time of the offence, identify as female. This is clearly impossible.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
Or mind her own business until someone does something genuinely threatening to her. That's an option too; the correct one. Her irrational fear of someone just because of their sex does not justify assault, and especially does not justify state-aided assault, abduction, and confinement.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Show me in the law where there is discriminating. Not someone telling you that it is discriminating, but the actual portion of the law which is discriminating. The majority of the bill is defining what exceptions exist for the use of the bathroom by someone of the "other" gender. The only complaint I can find (not the hysterics and ranting) is that people are legally restricted to the restroom matching their biological gender, and that local ordinances can not nullify or supersede the law. That last part being painted as nefarious and unconstitutional ignores the fact that nearly every State Law does this same thing. Your city can not pass a law reducing the drinking age to 12, or make it's local speed limits 200MPh, or allow 9 year old kids to get married, legalize heroin injection, etc.. etc... because the State Law is written to prevent usurpation by lower levels of Government. Federal laws prohibit States from usurping their power too. In other words, it is not only Constitutional for the State to claim exclusive powers but nearly boilerplate in the bill writing process at the State and Federal level.
If you are going to point to Section III, and the use of the term "biological sex" I have to ask WTF? If a transgender woman wanted to teach physical education to boys they can not be discriminated against due to being a biological woman. That wording is not discriminating, it's inclusive. If your complaint is that they didn't also call out every possible politically correct term we can find for gender then you are extremely short sighted. That level of detail would be discriminatory if they did not also call out every possible religion, ethnicity, handicap, etc..
The people complaining about a transgender person using the rest room are not men. As I said below in a different comment I can not find a single case of a woman being criminally charged for using the men's room without additional circumstances and charges (drunk, narcotics, violence, criminal trespassing/vandalism, etc..). Transgender does not make a difference, there are simply no charges I can find being filed, and no law suits to stop a person that I can find either. You may be able to find the 7-leaf clover, but that is not indicative of a systemic problem requiring legal protection.
I can find plenty of cases where men are arrested for being in the woman's bathroom. There is a pretty even split between transgender men and perverts in a brief search. So who are you trying to protect exactly? The men who are the subject of the overwhelming majority of the complaints benefit, not the women attempt to portray as needing the protection.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or mind her own business until someone does something genuinely threatening to her.
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
First she says "excuse me, you're in the ladies room".
Normal men will say "oh gosh, so sorry, and rush out the door in embarrassment".
Men up to no good will not. Those are the threats.
Her irrational fear of someone just because of their sex does not justify assault, and especially does not justify state-aided assault, abduction, and confinement.
No, you're wrong and mistaken...
What you are actually saying is that if a man were to walk into her home, where he doesn't belong, then she shouldn't assume he is a "bad guy" until he actually touches her.
She feels threatened by a man in a place he does not belong, when asked to leave, he refuses. Self-defense is justified at that point.
Transgender does not mean that a person has been reassigned. A person being reassigned changes their biological sex, not to be confused with their sexual orientation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Discrimination sucks too, but PayPal is like a used car salesman who mated with the return line at walmart.
People claiming this is some outrageous act by the State ignore that nearly every State Law has the same wording. This is done to prevent lower Governments from usurping State power. Federal law does the same thing, to prevent States from usurping their power.
If people want to complain about State authority that's fine, but demand that you can have laws like a local drinking age of 18 and legalize drinking while driving and open containers. State law will negate any local laws regarding that subject, and if you believe otherwise let me know how jail feels.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"absolute dictator of planet Earth". Facebook has not yet added that gender to their list of over 40 gender identities, but that's probably just because they are a bunch of racists and bigots.
Who's on board for a boycott?
This is just a pathetic attempt from this failure of a company to get some desperately needed attention since nobody is using their services anymore.
Normal men will say "oh gosh, so sorry, and rush out the door in embarrassment".
Men up to no good will not. Those are the threats.
Firstly: no, just being there is not itself threatening, not nearly enough to warrant violence. There could be many reasons for a man to be in a women's restroom on purpose; just one example someone else gave in this thread is they may have a baby in need of changing and the men's room may lack a baby changing station. Or, an example I've seen myself, they may have a daughter who needs help using the bathroom; would you rather the little girl have to go to the men's room, than her daddy help her in the women's room? Or maybe their daughter went in to use the room by herself and hasn't been hear from since, and the father is checking in to make sure she's OK and still in there and didn't slip past him outside and get lost. I'm sure you can come up with more scenarios yourself. Point is, unless the guy's response to "this is the women's room, why are you here?" is to glare menacingly at the woman's breasts or something, just being in there is not in and of itself a threat to anyone.
Secondly, and correct me if I misunderstood you, but you seem to be lumping transwomen in as "men" (for being biologically male), in which case, they are not "up to no good", they are using the bathroom where they're less likely to get beaten up by homophobic neanderthals. This, the very case under discussion, is in itself a counterexample against the notion of any biological male in the women's room on purpose being "up to no good", which you're trying to use to keep exactly these not-up-to-no-good people from using the bathroom where they feel safest.
Thirdly, say a transman (born biologically female, on androgens and looks and acts and identifies as male now) walks into a women's room. Should the women there feel threatened because he looks like a man, or is it all fine because he's genetically female? Note that this law in question now requires that he use the women's room, where, I expect, you will say it's justified for the women there to assault him, for doing as the law mandates.
What you are actually saying is that if a man were to walk into her home...
That's her home. Sex and gender have nothing to do with it at that point, she has every right to control who is or isn't in her home and enforce that as necessary. You are begging the question if you say the cisgender people in public restrooms have that same right to determine who shares the bathroom with them; the question at hand is precisely who does or doesn't belong in what bathroom, and leaving it up to the cisgender masses is basically condoning a public mob to chase trans people out of every bathroom with the threat of violence.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
... German Rails are marking some trains compartments as women-only. I wonder if I'm allowed to use it when I'm bigender. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-women-transportation-idUSKCN0WX2F2)
We have separate public toilets because men don't need to hear women making the same noises we do when taking a dump.
Why not simply have unisex bathrooms? I suppose there are some practical reasons - women tend, on average, to take longer in the bathroom, or perhaps more accurately, men are quicker, because they have the option to use the pissoir. Maybe a balanced solution would be to have a toilet to be shared by both genders, with a separate pissoir to offload the men into, leaving more capacity for women.
I'm always suspicious when the articles never mention the text of the law, a link to the law, or anything else except one-liners saying how it's anti-anything.
They must have an agenda.
I have no agenda. In the morning.
So why was nobody upset enough to call the police? Maybe you should look into that. Perhaps the incident has some more details you did not describe.
Police and Judges are very much focussed on fact. They would tend to have 'feelings' that they should apply indecency laws that are on the books if the fact is relayed to them that a man undressed in front of young girls.
To state what should be obvious - if a guy wearing a dress goes into the wrong mens room at the wrong time they will get the utter shit beaten out of them. That's the sad situation that seems to be deliberately ignored in this thread and others.
It's not really about gender here but whether people should be forced to take that sort of risk or not.
Other laws are still on the books so if intent can be shown they can still be charged with those other laws. Not cracking down on those who are not perverts doesn't mean giving up on the perverts.
That reeks incredibly strongly of bullshit.
You can be ejected from commercial premises if the staff do not want you there, they do not have to justify it by citing a law. No shoes no service. Nobody has a "right" to walk into any shop and not be asked to leave if they annoy the people responsible for running the place.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room
Christ alive you're an idiot. You would not be able to tell the difference between a post-op transgender person and a person born with that gender. So now by your own idiotic hard and fast rules, people who look more or less indistinguishable from men (with beards, baldness, testosterone fueled muscles and everything) have to go into the woman's changing room.
And how do you deal with people who were just flat out misidentified on their birth certificate? Rare but it's not unknown.
The world is subteler than your silly black and white view.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
THAT is why we have separate bathrooms
As a European living in a country where it's normal for strange men and women to join each other completely naked in heated rooms you Americans provide us with no end of amusement.
Paypal discriminates Transfinancial people all the time.
I identify myself as a rich person but Paypal refuses any transaction I start saying I don't have money. I have lots of transmoney but they insist on discriminating me saying I don't have any cismoney.
The government also discriminates me refusing to pay my transition.
Stop Transfinancial discrimination.
Life is complicated. Deal with it.
My wife *just* found out about this.
Her exact words 'Oh that will take about 1 second for some pervo to take advantage of that'
Basically stalker pervos (and they exist) will just go into the wrong bathrooms to get their jollies. Then claim 'oh I dont identify that way' and get off scott free. THAT is why we have separate bathrooms.
'no no honey its ok there is a 40 year old man in that bathroom watching you'.
C'mon, she should know better. What's with the idea women's toilets are a utopia where women run naked in the fields or something? They're marginally less grotty than ours, they go in, do their business in a stall then wash their hands (probably) and leave. There could be an woman, man or alien taking a dump in the stall next to them and they would be oblivious.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Replace LGBT types with Jews. Try again and see how you think.
...it's normal for strange men and women to join each other completely naked...
Phrasing.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
When I go to the ladies' room, I'm not trampling anyone's rights. What the hell are you talking about?
I've had precisely one comment from a woman in a public washroom. And her comment was: "I really like your necklace."
And secondly: You and your ilk do not have the right to force me to risk my safety. You do not have the right to make it legal to deny LGBT people housing or employment.
wait a minute
so neutros don't want to go on either the men or ladies restroom but they are ok if the restroom is used by either and all sexes??
wtf?!
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
Yes, except I'm not a man. Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will force this guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
You conveniently ignore the fact that that incident took place before Toby's bill was passed giving trans people protection. So lack of a law offer no protection at all.
The fact that you found a surgeon willing to mutilate your genitals and prescribe you hormone pills makes you no less a member of a particular gender than me buying my 5-year old a litterbox does because she tells me she's a cat!
You either stand up or sit down to pee, and no amount of plastic surgery, psychological 'counselling', nor political distractions are going to change what you were born with. If you're unhappy about it, take it up w/ someone else, but stay the fuck out of my bathroom!
whatever they want it to mean on that particular day.
So apparently Paypal think that any man should be allowed to spend as long as they want in female bathrooms, and when challenged, they can say 'But my 'gender identity' is female'. This is clearly insanity, and fuck Paypal for supporting this Jewish, nation-wrecking agenda.
thankyou.
If the Holocaust happened it's because the Jews deserved it.
Activist CEOs run a real risk of alienating half of their potential markets by pulling shit like this. If I'm the CEO of a company, I want to make money from everyone, not just the ~1/2 of people who agree with my political ideologies.
Boards of directors are unfortunately being polluted by activist thinking as well, so it's unlikely we investors will see much improvement in this.
I have four bathrooms in my house, and none of them are gender keyed.
There are 8 bathrooms in my office, and none of them are gender keyed.
Why the hell do we even have gender keyed bathrooms anywhere?
I'd love to see the XX's use the urinals, that would be fun!
www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-rules-abercrombie-fitch-discriminated-against-muslim-woman-over-338191
So I must be a bad parent then. I don't really care who my children shower with in a group setting, it's healthy for children to see the different anatomies and it's actually a bad parent that would want to shape their children in any particular religious connotations of sexuality. Your kids will find out eventually what the bits are for and in your world view they won't be educated or ready for it when their body and hormones are ready for it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I thought "the core of PayPal's mission and culture" was to make money?
This may have some traction in the tech community, who knows who PayPal is. But realistically, they were planning an investment of 3.6M, which is trivial (a smallish building in an office park? a big house for a corporate manager?) and maybe, speculatively, "hundreds of jobs" (which they probably claimed to get some sort of tax incentive).
Let us know when Wells Fargo closes all their branches (>20,000 employees), when Bank of America moves their HQ from Charlotte (>10,000 employees), when American Airlines leaves (>10,000 employees)
Way to Go. Screw Paypal. They are a business and need to learn they can't control all their customers. Fuck em.
NC is practically begging the Federal government to intervene. It's Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States all over again.
If someone wants to be homosexual, fine, be that way, don't care, but as a Christian, why should I be forced to participate in your "wedding"? It use to be "we reserve the right to refuse service". Why would two people, want to do business with a business that does not support their choice? It would be similar to if you took a bunch of Jewish or Muslims into a restaurant, and force them to eat pork products. Or forcing an atheist to pray at a Church service. Not to mention, all you have to do, is go down the street and find some business who doesn't give a rip what your "lifestyle choice" is. I know & work with homosexual people and they are about as offended in this crap as I am.
Announces in: Mar 18, 2016 we are opening a call center, about same time bill gets introduced.
Paypal, now says they are not opening it, odd the timing on this whole thing. 400 callcenter jobs at 10-12 bucks an hour? Call centers are crap jobs. Double crap announcements and attempts to manipulate.
"The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state."
Not true. In fact, in NC, a post-op transexual can have his/her birth certificate changed to reflect his/her current sex.
Statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. 130A-118(b)(4), (e) (2005).
Text: (b) A new certificate of birth shall be made by the State Registrar when . . .
(4) A written request from an individual is received by the State Registrar to change the sex on that individual's birth record because of sex reassignment surgery, if the request is accompanied by a notarized statement from the physician who performed the sex reassignment surgery or from a physician licensed to practice medicine who has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery.
I don't support HB2, but let's make sure to research the facts.
Really I can't believe there are so few of these in the first world. Nobody wants to hear you taking a dump and you don't want to hear them. Just do it, it would solve all the problems. About locker rooms, if you want to use one in public it's your call. Go where you want and know that anyone else can do the same, it's up to you if you want to use it or not. They have stalls in there. I don't see the problem, changing rooms are all close to each other in clothes stores, anyone could be in there, no big deal.
Twinstiq, game news
Start identifying restrooms by sex rather than the flexible, ever-changing definition of gender. Mark the rooms with XX or XY. Problem solved.
Allowing multi-use bathrooms opens up a whole range of issues similar to what Germany is experiencing with their influx of male refugees. Rapings will go up. People will suffer as a result.
Go to your assigned bathroom, do your business and leave. Stop trying to over complicate something because of your feelings (of which nobody can control).
The law states that one must use the restroom for which one has the plumbing.
If you have a penis, use the restroom marked "Men".
If you have a vagina, use the restroom marked "Women".
found the bigot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
because pervs were just waiting for permission from law to be pervs?
idiot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
there is little anyone can do about it
About what? Someone minding their own business in a change room? Or did the person actually do something wrong other than have a penis?
Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.
The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1
2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4
3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5
4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6
5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5
6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10
7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?
8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.
Yes, the judge is allowed to test a defendant's claims. You're just trying to invoke spurious objections.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
NC is a very "purple" state and not homogeneous by any measure. Not just the RTP triangle, but Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington are huge areas where people are quite socially liberal, and those 4 alone make up over half the population of the state. I live in Charlotte, and people in Charlotte tend to be particularly annoyed when Raleigh craps on things Charlotte wants to do, particularly in terms of funding and policy, as Charlotte is the largest metropolitan area in the state.
I'm confident that this legislation will eventually be overturned, but it makes me angry because it does scare away open-minded people and businesses who might want to live in this state. Charlotte is currently undergoing a real estate boom and things are going great, it would suck for our economy to struggle because of politicians.
So your argument boils down to that you think this person should be forced to use the female bathroom because they were "born female": https://metrouk2.files.wordpre...
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
You are missing the point because you are focusing on such a specific scenario because it's the only one that supports your argument. A rapist could easily hide in a bathroom and wait for someone to show up - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily enter a bathroom after someone has already gone in - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily do a dozen other things that aren't made any less difficult by allowing transgender people to fully be their gender in society.
Also, here's an unintended consequence of the laws you are defending (look at the tweet after the first two paragraphs).
your ignorance is astounding.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
To be fair, some of us conservatives actually do support this, and oppose Carolina's new law. Sorry to go true Scotsman on you, but I wouldn't consider someone who supports bathroom legislation to be anything close to "conservative", any more than someone who opposes single payer health care is a "liberal". The Republicrats are all just corrupt crony capitalists.
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all legal gun owners because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules? All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every legal gun owner because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
Unisex bathrooms immediately fix this problem. No law needed. I agree with you.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
Too bad you don't follow your own advice and insist on denying a minority equal rights under law.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
But PayPal does businesses in 5 Middle East countries, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Shouldn't they stop any expansion there? If not, why not? Do they offer their services there? If so, why?
National focus is 99% on the bathroom/gender verbage, a small (and nigh-unenforceable) part of this terrible bill. Watch the NCGA redact that part only, and leave HB2 solely as the stranglehold on justice in cases of discrimination that it is written to be.
full text: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf
"SECTION 3.2. G.S. 143-422.3
Investigations; conciliations.
The Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the authority to receive charge of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination. Throughout this process, the agency shall use its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the charges of discrimination. This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based 20 upon the public policy expressed herein."
TL/DR;
The Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration will take care of discrimination.
No more EEOC, or citizens (and their lawyers) getting their day in court; just political appointees deciding what actions, if any, the State will take when anyone cries "Discrimination !"
"Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law"
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-post-and-other-media-outlets-arent-0
Of course, the validity of it's assertions is still in question, but it seems relevant to your statement. Particularly the part that says, "this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s." It will be interesting to see how things play out over time.
I love seeing once set of assholes, fucking over a worse set of assholes.
http://abc7.com/archive/9102790/
This article is from 2013 and the perpetrator was using a disguised camera. Legalizing such behaviour, in the absence of a camera, doesn't seem to be likely to decrease the chance of such abuses. Additionally, a campus is an unlikely place for such things to occur as students are typically governed by a code of conduct. Just as corporate bathrooms are unlikely to suffer such abuse. Truly public bathrooms however wouldn't have that issue for the would-be pervert abusing society's good will.
Overall I think this could be remedied by moving to single occupant rest rooms and doing away with gender designations on them. While that last bit is unnecessary it would make the subject of gender in regards to rest rooms moot.
has no business in the women's restroom. If you have a dick, you're a man, ditto women's parts you're a woman.
What will you people do when someone claims that normal and good to want to masturbate in front of children?
What will you people say when some man or woman says that sex with minors is somehow enshrined in the Constitution. Or sex with animals? Where is the line drawn. Or polygamy? Or any number of other aberrant behaviors. God made them male and female. Full stop.
People are male or female. Nothing else. People's ideologies don't make for facts. I can "think" I'm Spock, but I'm not. I can think I'm a priest, or an architect, when reality says something different. We are NOT what we FEEL we are. We are what we actually are. People have allowed the sexist propaganda to dictate -- the voices of a few to dictate the nation's conscience. Homosexuality is NOT normal despite what nonsense the homosexuals trot out. God says men shall not lie with men and women with women. God says dressing as a man as a women and vice-versa is an abomination, and it is. Where did our morality go? We traded it for political correctness -- that aberrant men and women convinced us that inserting a penis into another man is normal and good, when plainly, patently, the parts don't go together. Women and men are God's design. They are compatible. I realize /. is almost totally anti-Christian, anti-God. You have that free will. For now. Even if you don't believe there is God out there, a rational mind cannot deny that men's penises are not meant for men's anuses in a way that is normal and not aberrant.
PayPal still has offices here in the Hate State, but good for them.
Also, PayPal is evil.
Clearly, you are unaware of 'judicial activism.'
Well, heck there weren't really indoor toilets until the early 20th century, so that makes perfect sense. I don't understand your logic.
Can't tell if trolling.... dude, there is no difference.
I'm not a Genetics-Denier like you. A man who undergoes a transgender operation is still a man. I call him a transgendered man because he's had the operation to become a genetic male mutilated to look like a woman.
We could just call most of them extreme eunuchs. It would more accurately describe the situation.
..after the state passed a controversial law targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens. As opposed to addressing the concerns of the other 98% of the public ?? lol This is why I hate the media. It's like there's a bunch of legislators sitting in a room trying to figure out how to screw over a section of the public. Yeah Right ! If I see the wrong person in a bathroom I'd just leave. No biggie. Now if there was only another internet pay co I could switch to...
Too bad you don't follow your own advice and insist on denying a minority equal rights under law.
When that minority wants rights that will trample on the majority, then they aren't asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights that only apply to them and ignore everyone else.
So your wife would rather have this dude in the bathroom with her, because he happens to have a vagina that he was born with? (Not that she has any way of knowing that, if both of them are using the bathroom as intended.) Because that is what the NC's law would require.
> every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
Paypal already did that, in 2003. They didn't bother to interrogate the customers, though, they just seized your account based on suspicion and wouldn't talk to you about it, wouldn't tell you what they suspected you of or why. The secondary effects caused problems for a significant portion of all online businesses.
In 2003, Facebook and Netflix didn't exist yet, Yahoo got more traffic than Google, and the web commerce wasn't yet ubiquitous, except for porn sites. In fact, 70% of the money in online commerce was related to adult sites. Paypal had just been purchased by eBay.
First, Paypal decided to change their written policy and not allow Paypal to be used for any adult products or services (aka porn sites). That was a bit disruptive, but they would certainly within their rights to do that. They then ran "dirty word" searches through all of the transaction comments and email addresses for all payments and seized the accounts of anyone who had payments which included suspect words. So if you were selling Wordpress themes plugins or plugins and someone bought your theme for use on nakedcheerleaders.com, they might use their support@nakedcheerleaders.com email address for payment, or they might put "For installation on nakedcheerleaders.com" in the comment box. Paypal's database query would see naked cheerleaders, mark you as "suspected porn" and lock down your account. Funds for withheld for six months, as I recall.
Remember at the time not everyone and their dog had an e-commerce site at the time. About 70% of all the money flowing on the internet was porn related, so almost everyone selling hosting, CGI and PHP scripts, themes, SEO, graphic design, clipart, etc all had adult sites as customers. Suppose you're selling clip art; not only does your Paypal account get with your funds get snatched, the same thing happens to your customers, so they don't have access to their funds and can't pay you. Therefore you can't pay your web host. He would like to be patient and understanding, but the same thing happened to 40% of his customers and he has to pay his bill for datacenter space - he needs some of his customers to pay him or he'll be in deep shit. The funny / tragic thing was sometimes the web host (Zing Hosting) owes the marketing guy, the marketing guy owes the graphics guy and the graphics guy needs to pay his hosting bill, where he's hosted with Zing Hosting. A can't pay B until he's paid by C, and C can't pay A until he's paid by B. It was a real problem for a month or two. In some cases, people managed follow the trial of who owed who, unwinding the 'net economy, and resolve unpaid bills with nothing but an email, like this one:
Anna owes Bob
Bob owes Charlie
Charlie owes Dan.
Dan owes Anna.
Please deduct $100 from all of the above bills - Anna is sending the $100 IOU to Dan, who is sending it to Charlie, who is sending it Bob, who is sending it back to Anna.
Come to think of it, I could have helped a lot of people made some money by doing so at the time. I should have either spent a couple hours putting together an account reconciliation database which would find cycles as above and issue "paid" notices, or issued digital payment IOUs/"poker chips" as I did once before.
In an earlier life I issued physical poker chips which I guaranteed that I would exchange for cash within 24 hours of demand. Because of my reputation in the community/clique, my chips circulated as payment for a occasionally. I could have done the same online in 2003, possibly stating I would pay the recipient of the chip 7 days after they got that chip. That would give them incentive to try to pass the chip along as payment to someone else right away, rather than waiting 7 days for me to pay them, before they could pay whomever.
* Wordpress plugins wouldn't actually exist until 6 months later, but you get the idea.
What is wrong with people?
This is a good law that prevents people from doing this:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/04/01/california-man-dressed-woman-busted-videoing-womens-bathroom/
Your DNA will always say what you are.
You are missing the point because you are focusing on such a specific scenario because it's the only one that supports your argument. A rapist could easily hide in a bathroom and wait for someone to show up - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily enter a bathroom after someone has already gone in - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily do a dozen other things that aren't made any less difficult by allowing transgender people to fully be their gender in society.
Yes, a rapist can do all those things, and right now, if my wife walks in and finds such a man, she can safely assume they are either REALLY lost, or a "bad person".
But if you add transgender to that list, if a man walks in and claims to be one, is he? How does she know? Does she have to wait until it is too late to find out?
The trans person's desire to have access to the ladies room does not trump her right to be secure and safe in there.
You're trying to give him special privilege at the cost of hers.
When that minority wants rights that will trample on the majority, then they aren't asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights that only apply to them and ignore everyone else.
Oh, FFS, we're talking about women who want to go to the bathroom in the women's room and men who want to go to the bathroom in the men's room. There's nothing "special" about that. You know what? Screw it; ban all public bathrooms. Let everyone piss in the bushes or in the middle of the street or wherever they want. Because once you choose to live in constant fear because the person next to you might be about to attack you because of the genitals they were born with, it won't take long to realize that ANYONE could be about to attack you, regardless of their genital history. Fear everyone, avoid enclosed spaces, and attack first if anyone approaches you. It's the only way to stay safe.
Yes, except I'm not a man.
Were you born with a penis and YX chromosomes? If yes, then you're a man and always will be.
Were you born with a vagina and XX cromosomes? If yes, then you're a woman and always will be.
You're free to "feel" anything you like, but the rest of us don't have to create a safe space for you to do so.
Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will force this guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
People who do that have to be willing to accept that the world will forever be a challenge for them. Extreme minorities of all types are always in that place, doesn't matter what it is.
The problem for that guy is that if he walks into the ladies room, he'll have the same problem as real men would. If he walks into the men's room, likely no one will know or care.
Likewise, men who have changed into women like Caytlin Jenner likely can use the woman's room unnoticed, law or no law. Frankly she could pass me on the street and I'd probably take no notice, since I don't actually care about such things in general.
I would notice if she walked into the men's room, but since I am a man, I'm not remotely threatened by that. The reverse is not true.
It is simply women that need protecting, they are the fairer sex and a man's job is to create a world safe for women.
And that isn't sexist, I'm physically much stronger than my wife, so my job is to always treat her gently and with respect as the mother of my children and to stand between her and anything that might hurt her.
Some will call that old fashioned, but frankly it worked well for thousands of years, shame so many of you are in a hurry to give that up.
In the technical terminology that's more than twice as old as you (turning 66 this year!), "man" and "woman" are the names of social categories, while "male" and "female" are the names of biological categories. I myself have some disagreements about naming things this way (I would have coined New Latin terms-of-art instead or repurposing common English) precisely because it breeds this exact confusion (and for other reasons related to nonbinary genders), but that's how they got named and there's not much to be done about it by now.
And the need for two sets of terms is very real, and originally had nothing to do with transgender issues. Rather, the distinction was coined because there are some people, intersex people, who are not biologically male or female, but somewhere in between, and yet still get put into one of the social categories of "man" or "woman". In some cases, they are biologically much closer to the sex opposite their gender, but because they were ambiguous at birth and people feel compelled to put them into one of those two boxes they picked one, and picked wrong, and someone who's biologically much closer to female was raised as and identified as and is identified by everyone else as a man, etc.
Technically, your gender per se is that social box that other people put you into; a social property of you, a social status, like a rank or title. By that super pedantic technical standard, only passing transwomen are truly "women" (and likewise transmen); if society sees you as a gender, you are that gender, because gender is nothing but the state of how society sees you. Your gender identity on the other hand is a mental property of you, a mental state, about or regarding that social status: it's what box you would like other people to put you into, relative to the box you were put into at birth. Super pedantically technically, nobody (who knows what they're talking about) claims that "wanting to be a gender makes you that gender"; rather, being seen as a gender makes you that gender, because gender is all about how people see you. But in an effort to not be massive assholes to people, it's generally considered polite to consider people to be in the social category they would like to be considered as, even if that wouldn't be your first assumption.
Which is all a long way of saying: no, a trangendered man is not a woman who wishes she was a man. A transgendered man is a man -- someone considered by society to go in that social category -- who was not considered a boy when he was born. And if you're not an asshole, you'll put people into the imaginary social boxes that they want to be in instead of the imaginary social boxes you want them to be in, and consider a biological female who wants to be considered a man as a man, at which point he is a man... to you. He was already a man to himself. And any argument between you and him over which imaginary social box he belongs in is literally a matter of baseless social opinion, like arguing over whether the new kid is cool or not; it's entirely about nothing more than either accepting or shunning someone, so the only question is whether to be an asshole or not.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
not having a law that regulates which bloody toiled we can or can not use?
I someone sees a man going into a woman's restroom it at least draws attention. The rapists and perverts want it to become so commonplace that it doesn't attract attention and the rapist can express indignation and claim discrimination if anyone questions him.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
found the pervert
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You just cherry picked a fragment to argue instead of reading a statement IN CONTEXT. Read the paragraph just prior to the sentence you plucked to complain about and then read it as a generalization as written. If you have a 7th grade English reading level there is no confusion and you understand simple language flow. You just performed more mental gymnastics this to avoid the facts which disprove your believe.
Do the work, or you are a Troll. Rational and Logical is hard, I doubt you have the fortitude to make it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Punish the people in North Carolina who need a job, because you don't like the politics of their idiot leaders. I wonder how many of those people who could have worked there opposed the bill themselves. I wonder how many are LGBT who don't care about using the bathroom of the gender they were born with. Way to be short-sighted PayPal.
It's honestly none of their business.
They're a payment method, not a surrogate PC enforcer.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Does she have to wait until it is too late to find out?
In the grand scheme of things, it makes zero difference. Your fixation on the specific scenario where your wife has an extra couple seconds to ask the rapist why they're in the washroom is really ridiculous.
You're trying to give him special privilege at the cost of hers.
Your wife's irrational (and I suspect wholly made up by you) fear of being raped by someone in a dress is the only reason she can't feel safe.
You would not be able to tell the difference between a post-op transgender person and a person born with that gender.
You don't really believe this, do you? Trans-women do not look like women, they have male facial features because they _are_ male. Surgery, hormones, cosmestics and clothing do not turn a man into a woman.
What's life like in your decade?
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Hey, go home and take a leak. Or use a bush. Or go to the bathroom that you were born to use.
Think wolf in sheep's clothing. You wouldn't expect a man dressed as a woman to be a threat. It just amazes me how selfish homosexuals and transgender people are, well, until you realize they have a psychological disorder and at that point its just kinda sad that someone let them out of the nut house.
Please cite the case of a homosexual baker being prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake celebrating the graduating class of a gay-to-straight therapy place. THAT would be as wrong as the prosecutions that HAVE occurred of people willing to sell generic products to gays but unwilling to bake cakes that celebrate gay weddings.
WHEN have the normal people of anywhere else gone to San Francisco and demanded the right to go into the gay bath houses and do whatever THEY wanna do in there with total disregard for what the regular patrons want and how uncomfortable that might make them?
You seem to lack the ability to understand the differences between tolerance for who somebody is and forcing other people to accept particular behaviors they find reprehensible and forcing people to endorse things they oppose.
...why they still do business in Malaysia after their Prime Minister compared gays to ISIS....
Hypocrisy much, PayPal?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
No jobs at PayPal? Guess I'll have to fall back on pluckin' my banjo and countin' my toes.
So on top of everything else, she's also a moron. "Lucky you and lucky her" is more accurate than ever.
Citation required - this incident of someone stripping in front of kids, being asked to leave and then nobody doing anything sounds like a total work of badly written fiction. Real people take responsibility and take a duty of care seriously instead of being cartoon strawmen.
It's like ignorance and stupidity is so embedded in them it's a wonder they don't just pucker up and disappear in a giant black hole.
Took my wife to a club in Japan, drinks etc.
Went to the bathroom - saw a row of open urinals and across from there a row of sitdown stalls - with men and women using them. They had doors.
Wife proceeded to bathroom - came back instantly, she could not deal with it, so we had to leave ASAP to go to the hotel.
So it seems to be very unisex. This was in 1982, so things may have changed?
Hmmm, PayPal makes announcement a couple weeks ago knowing there's a strong chance of this legislation passing. After the legislation passes, PayPal easily cries "discrimination" and pulls it's 'plans' to build and hire in North Carolina. The timing is very suspect here, I'd wager the real 'plans' were to instigate backlash to this legislation, not to expand or create jobs anywhere.
Well played PayPal, well played.
When I read this comment, I thought the pool locker room story didn't make a lot of sense. That's because I happen to know a few trans people.
A person born male who is intending to transition to female would be highly unlikely to present himself as obviously male, and then enter a women's locker room as such - anyone who thinks this person was genuinely transgender has no idea what trans people are. The likelihood that he was a 'perv' looking to excite himself over a teenage swim team -- with their moms standing right there ready to beat him to a pulp or call the cops -- is similarly slim to none.
So, Occam's Razor time. What makes sense? Well, there is some speculation that the man was acting as a protestor against the new law, as hoped-for by online activists who have been vocally encouraging men who disagree with trans rights to go into women's locker rooms specifically for that purpose.
The fact that he was dressed in male clothing, that he didn't declare himself transgender, that he specifically cited "that new law allows me to do this", that the pool staff recorded the incident as not seeming to be related to transgender identification, and that the incident has been highly exaggerated in conservative media outlets (see Fox News et al., similarly hysterical over this guy "exposing" himself ... when all he did was change his shirt!) ... to me, this all seems to indicate that the conservative-activist theory is the correct interpretation.
Unfortunately we'll never know, because neither the swim team moms nor the pool staff called the police. If they had, he would have had to perform his "protest" for the men in blue. He probably would have loved every minute of it, as an activist, especially if it got him a little martyrdom in the form of jail time, but it wouldn't really have allowed conservative media trolls to go all trans-perv-sky-is-falling-panic-happy about the whole thing.
Makes ya think, if you're inclined to do so.
Seriously, this is a completely a what the f*ck moment! I personally think this is just an attempt by some women to have unisex restrooms. There are so many pervs out there that make this entire thing point mute. I believe they are just sick and tired of those long ass lines to a women's restroom and want to use ours by making them all unisex. (hey, I don't blame them, I sure as hell would too if I had to go really bad and kept looking at the "no-lines" to the men's restrooms). Just a logical way to see things from another's perspective. I mean come on how in the hell is this even enforceable? If a transgendered person looks like the gender they feel they identify with, is there going to be a designated gender inspector at the door going "Show me the goods, or you're going to jail!"
Do Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously?
Considering that most people that respond will go with the "political correct" response what do we truly know what people think. Censorship is so strong now days you will only see what the media wants you to see... So basically follow along with whatever they want you to think, how dare you think for yourself! Yeah, you misogynist racist bastard! If you want to love and have sex with ath a rock then go for it, how dare us for thinking you odd!
Do Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously?
> The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth,
So, intersex folk need to avoid using any restroom at all in North Carolina. >_>
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Some employers do make special accommodations for religion, and some don't.
When a Muslim flight attendant refused to serve alcohol to passengers, she was relieved of that responsibility.
When Kim Davis refused to put her signature on gay marriage certificates, she was imprisoned.
... when PayPal does business with entire countries in which homosexuality is illegal, even punishable by death. But the media doesn't make us think (words used intentially) in such a way as to make us recognize that and feel anything about it.
Most of our oil/gas comes from a faraway land where homosexuals are publicly executed. Where are all the people who 1) have been made aware (again, intentional words) about this, and 2) are willing to boycott gas, oil, and anything made with them?
It's just not part of the agenda we are conditioned with.
Stay "free thinking", my friends.
WTF! Why is society, in this day and age, still hung up on sexuality?! Get over it already! I don't care who sees me in any state, and I am no longer the young-and-beautiful me. If you cannot handle your natural state, you need serious help. Do NOT include me in your hangups!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Supreme Court held that a law (specifically, a state constitutional amendment) preventing protected status from being granted based on homosexuality or bisexuality was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
While of course you can attempt to distinguish the case, there's no way this survives the appeals process.
The same people who voted these idiots into state legislature also vote for the judges....so, I have my doubts in some cases, not that a judge could not tell the difference, more than in their radical conservative pseudoreligious views they do not want to see a difference, especially with law on their side.