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?
Sorry, AC... Gender is not defined by your thoughts.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery. Alternately, have you seen the photos that some trans men have posted--bodybuilders, with no way you could guess from appearance that they were born any different? Yeah, by this law, they have to use the ladies' room.
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
In general terms they rely on the courts to overturn the laws. Then they can go to the bigots that form their base and say "We tried to help Jesus, but those pinko Liberal activist judges interfered!" There'll be a whole lot of whining about activist courts, how none of the Founding Fathers wore dresses, how "family values" are being destroyed, as the bigots donate money to their re-election campaign.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
All that proves is that the dictionary committees have been compromised by politics.
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.
Dunno... let's ask them. 'cause women had little part in producing this cheap-ass, smoke-screen, dog-whistle law (women make up only 22% of the NC legislature, sponsors Dan Bishop and Paul Stam are men, and, of course, the governor is a dick). In fact, this law pre-empts a local Charlotte law that was passed by that city's elected officials... so it looks like all that GOP noise about respectin' the people's will is a load of shite when a state politician sees a tax-free chance to get himself some TV time and name-recognition.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
If you have to ask this question, you are a bigger asshole than you give yourself credit for. Who is supposed to be more comfortable, you or everybody else. Stop being the 1%
Even if they don't, there are stalls in most bathrooms. I see this as an issue so minuscule, it is only worth political discussion.
If the person identifies as male, and looks like a male, but is forced to use a women's restroom, it'll probably create more problems than just letting them use the gender bathroom they identify with.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and beyond that, decades of research have shown gender and sexuality are fluid. Clearly you feel very threatened by someone not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad. Just like racists half a century ago, you're just going to have to get with the times or become a member of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents.
And really, how does any of this harm you? Are you have secret thoughts that are awakened by someone who has a different view of their gender? Do you need to protect your own gender identity by suppressing someone whose identity is different? What are you afraid of?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you think forcing someone in a dress to go in a men's room is some sort of demonstration of freedom? What happens, do you suppose, when the first North Carolina transgender teenager has the s--t beaten out of them by the sons of the neanderthals this law is meant to court? I'll tell you what happens. A Federal civil rights challenge that will see NC taxpayers pay out huge amounts of money. And then the court challenges that see the NC Attorney General defend a law that everyone, in particularly the lawmakers who are courting said neanderthals, knows will fail.
Having a person who is transitioning from male to female, or someone who has in fact completely transitioned, use a women's washroom harms no one, but forcing those people to use the men's washroom very likely will end up compromising those individual's civil liberties.
But that's okay, because your prejudices reign a little longer, until the courts force the whole thing in your face. And then, as a final sign of your ultimate impotence, you can complain about them thar darned liberal judges and their interfering ways!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Peeping toms have been around forever. This is no different than attacking gay men by somehow linking them to pedophiles.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How many women do you think would want some dick next to them in the bathroom regardless of what's in their mind...
How many women considered that a problem before this law was passed? This law was designed to appeal to bigots, not address an actual problem.
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.
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.
The law specifies DNA, but DNA doesn't specify sex. That part where the Bible says male and female he created them... turns out, wrong again Bible.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alice...
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there. XY is male, XX is female. There are a few disorders (note: they are *disorders*) that may cause XX to be male or XY to be female (see that one WNBA player as an example), and there are also issues such as chimerism that can cause sexual ambiguity.
That has little or nothing to do with someone like Bruce Jenner wanting to use the women's room.
Do you have ESP?
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.
Gender identity disorders are strongly linked to schizophrenia. Diagnosis is almost always automatic.
What? This statement has no basis in fact.
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.
Wrong; the law removes the right of local governments to pass any anti-discrimination laws that are broader then the state.
The 'bathroom issue' is a smokescreen and a scare tactic used to hide the usual 'its okay to discriminate against gays because religious freedom' laws that are all the rage in the south these days.
As there are NO state laws protecting -- for instance -- employment or housing with regards to sexual orientation on the state level, and there were local laws, this explicitly removes those local protections.
Federal law is severely lacking in GLBT protections though. Sure, we have marriage equality. That's great for people who've found the person they want to marry, and are willing to take the financial penalty every April that goes along with marriage. That SCOTUS ruling didn't amend the Civil Rights Act or Title 9 protections to include LGBT people though. And even ENDA... itself a very watered-down, insufficiently inclusive, and overall inadequate facsimile of those protections... has been stalled in congress for as long as I can recall.
Imagine all the people...
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
Although both are rare, I'd suggest that gender isn't as binary as some simple-minded people choose to believe it is. There really is such a thing a "in between".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Isn't it?
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
Yes, I'm aware a very small number of people are born with both, but they are so unbelievably few in number that it just isn't a concern.
And generally they should use the mens room.
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.
Severe mental illness is correct.
Modding down honest medical facts because they do not match your world-view is not how a civilized society matures.
It's representative of children holding their hands against their ears while making loud childish noises.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
This isn't a gender issue, it's a sex issue. And for about 99% of human beings our genetic makeup falls distinctly into two categories (two sexes), male and female (we are a sexually dimorphic species). The other 1% have ambiguous sex resulting from genetic errors.
Gender, which is a synonym for sex but has recently taken on new meaning, is that which you imagine yourself to be.
If the bathroom you use does not matter (i.e. a unisex bathroom is fine), then what is the problem with using a same sex bathroom? It shouldn't matter. It can't not matter when you're using a unisex bathroom, but then matter when you're using a same sex bathroom. A transgender couldn't argue that they'd feel uncomfortable being in the appropriate same sex bathroom (instead of their chosen gender bathroom). They've made it abundantly clear that a unisex bathroom is fine and that the opposite sex should be perfectly comfortable with their presence in the opposing sexes same sex bathroom (i.e. it would be hypocritical) - so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
Your description isn't quite correct. What the law does is state the basis for protections of rights in employment and accommodations and make the law consistent across the state.
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
SECTION 3.1. G.S. 143-422.2 reads as rewritten:
" 143-422.2. Legislative declaration.
(a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.
(b) It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the State of the fullest utilization of its capacities for advancement and development, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general.
(c) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law."
There is one other effect. Remember a week or two ago on Slashdot when the hot discussion was the FBI and Apple? The widely endorsed view was that the FBI and the court involved couldn't force Apple to modify its code to bypass the boobytrap it contained because of a Supreme Court precedent that said that code=speech and the general principle that government can't force people to engage in speech against their will. Most of the Slashdot audience was all about free speech then.
With this law it is unlikely that bakers in North Carolina will be forced to engage in speech and creative expression against their will as they have been in some other states by homosexual activists wielding local laws as a club with threats of high fines and other adverse consequences. The funny thing is I seem to recall that lots of people on Slashdot were against free speech in that case and were all in favor of using the law to bash people until they complied against their will in preparing creative materials and speech for use in gay weddings.
I guess freedom depends on how close you are to the 1%. Software engineers among the top 5-3% in income get free speech in the thinking of the Slashdot audience, but blue collar bakers don't. Free speech for me, but not for thee? I don't think that works out well in the long run.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I don't know how narrowminded and naive you have to be to think legally allowing trans-gendered people into women's washrooms is the equivalent of socially allowing anybody to go into any washroom. Oh wait, yes I do. You think men who are looking to rape and harm women were just taking advantage of the fact that the law before didn't specify that you were required to use bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity? Like, "whew, now we can stop this surge of men who've been wandering into bathrooms unimpeded because everybody knows that they might just be trans-gendered?"
"Old man yells at systemd"
Federal law has priority over state law and federal law does protect.....
OK, then, now that we have that cleared up.... Would you please explain what a "Sanctuary City" is, And "Legalized Pot" in number of states (That contradicts Federal Law) is?
The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Slavery was abolished a bit before that. The purpose of the civil rights act was to end segregation.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion - but the people screaming about 'bathroom bills' would be even more horrified if they lost their precious religious right to defy the law any time the voices in their head tell them to.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion
Religion is spelled out as protected in the constitution; this is similar to the rights to your beliefs.
IF you want to say LGBT should be protected as Religion is, then I have no problem with that; It sounds perfectly sensible that THAT, as well as ANY peaceful 1st amendment exercise should have similar protections.
However, Religious beliefs do not exclude you from the law and rules of private institutions in regards to your comings and goings, And businesses don't have to make special accomodations for your religion.
For example: If the company provides free lunches which contain pork; Just because your religion says you cannot eat pork, does not mean you can force them to provide you a special pork-free serving.
Your religion doesn't force businesses to allow your required religious attire, and does not force businesses to let you use a special per-religion bathroom, Unless they choose to do so.
Businesses cannot deny you employment based on your religion; However, your religion cannot just start coming up with willy-nilly demands for them to meet.
What happens if you're in a small town and the grocery store decides to discriminate? Or if all of a particular type of business? Or real-estate people? They could bring back red-lining. The moment it's OK for one business to discriminate, it's OK for all businesses to do it.
As it is, there are many places in this country where people have to drive 100 miles to the closest grocery store.
What happens if the local religiously affiliated hospital decides to discriminate?
If you provide a service to the public, you must accept the public, you cannot discriminate who you serve within reason. (I.e. shirt and shoes required, or nicely dressed in a fancy restaurant). A public facing entity should not be able to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sex or LGBT. If you don't want to serve everyone, don't open a public business.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
It is a new phenomenon,
No, it isn't, considering one of the seminal works about it was written over a century ago. And considering that various types of gender-variant identities have existed in various cultures across the planet for centuries.
proving it artificial:
No it doesn't prove that.
it is a behavior, a choice, and a lifestyle,
No, it isn't. Gender identity isn't a choice...did you choose yours? How one "expresses" that identity...well that's somewhat a choice.
Trans women can't feel comfortable pissing in a men's room because of the high risk of being targeted and attacked there. Don't get it twisted, the only risk to anyone's safety from trans women pissing in any particular location is if you force them to piss with men. Then they will be at risk of being attacked for making some redneck fuck feel uncomfortable in his pants.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm a North Carolina resident.
I don't really care one way or the other about the law personally, though on a loose note I'm against it because its fucking stupid, but I'm happy it kept PayPal out of NC, and hopefully it'll keep Amazon and Facebook away too.
You see, heres the thing, I know that these high tech companies suck ass and do everything they can to be absolutely as little use to the locality they are in and keep all the money for themselves and use the absolute smallest staff they can possibly employ using automation (I write said automation for billing systems) so the benefit to the state from a practical prospective doesn't exist.
It is, in fact a negative when you actual look at the big picture instead of some random battle cry that you've decided is important.
PayPal is a shitty company and a couple hundred employees in one town is effectively NOTHING WORTH EVEN FUCKING TALKING ABOUT TO THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SO FUCK PAYPAL :)
So no, no one is going to give a flying fuck that paypal isn't here except the few politicians who's hands they aren't going to grease now.
You started your argument with the assumption we wanted PayPal in the first place. Your assumptions make you look retarded and wrong.
We're not going to miss the companies who 'aren't going to come to North Carolina' because of this. Those companies bring nothing of value. Data centers are WORTHLESS to a local economy. A couple hundred employees at a call center are MEANINGLESS in a state like this were we can't fucking build homes fast enough to keep people from living in hotels.
So when you're going to use these sorts of arguments ... you should make sure the people you using them against don't think of your reasoning as a plus rather than a minus. SOME OF US can actually think for ourselves and no better than to think PayPal coming is Gods gift to the state, you might want to get a clue yourself and find the ladder off your high horse, the fall isn't going to help your lack of common sense.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Conservative logic:
Gun laws don't work because criminals just ignore laws*.
*Except sexual predators; they'll wait for transgendered bathroom rights to be recognized.
-
BTW, the answer to the question is 0. 0 have been assaulted as a result.
And, clue, it's still a crime, even if person just "claims to be transgendered", because assault is assault.
Which is a far smaller number than the number of transgendered persons who HAVE been assaulted in the bathroom.
No, it's not a public safety issue.
And you're trying to frame it as one just makes you another one of the bigots.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If they really wanted to pass a law about perverts in restrooms, maybe they should start by targeting a population that's been proven to have a much higher incidence rate - Republican Senators.
when paypal pulls out of india where LGBT groups are routinely abused (and not just made to feel uncomfortable because people are mean!!!!) ill believe them
this is a publicity stunt and if they really cared about what they claim they would close up shop in india, china, and other countries with bad human rights abuses.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think you're half right. Some prejudice is irrational, but some is rational. Or at the least it may be rational to great swathes of people, and irrational to a small group.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Or even those words (prejudice and rational/irrational). It may be the custom of a society not to permit a woman to expose her naked breasts in public, it may be against the law for a woman to expose her naked breasts in public as determined by majority vote enforcing the custom, but it is not and will never be rational to have either the custom or the law no matter how many people agree with it. There is, quite literally no harm outside of cultural inventions and taboos and humans expressing unsane behavior in exposing the human breast, male or female to the gaze of other humans. There is no survival or evolutionary advantage to covering it up outside of obvious and irrelevant things like preventing skin cancer if it is sunny and you are fair skinned, staying warm if it is really cold out, avoiding age related droop for a bit longer if you have very large breasts. Many cultures have existed that did not have this cultural taboo, and they did not fail because of it.
Similarly it may be the custom to avoid sharing bathrooms with roughly half of the human race (unless you happen to be related to them in which case it is OK) but it isn't rational. Some customs may be rational enough -- customs that prohibit killing your neighbors if they play loud music late at night have some point to them -- but not this one. First of all, nobody parades around in a public bathroom naked, male or female. Second, there is a strong custom against "looking" at anybody in a public bathroom, male or female, already -- we try to give each other what privacy we can instead of (for men) craning our necks to see how big the penis is of the guy at the next urinal over, and feel uncomfortable if they guy in the next stall invades our space or stares at our junk, no matter how our self-imagined "genders" align.
Third, what is there to see? I literally cannot remember seeing anybody's genitalia in a public bathroom (as a male) in spite of the fact that urinals are basically standup affairs with no real visual barriers. Women use sit-down toilets in regular stalls, and you wouldn't even know a woman was in a men's room unless you watched her going out or coming in. Nobody can see anything "interesting" through a bathroom stall wall, nobody can see through my pants from the backside when I'm standing up at a urinal. You are no more "exposed" than you are walking down the street and visible only from the rear, and are LESS exposed than you are seen from the front any time, and are WAY more exposed to your spouse if you are married as most toilets have no stalls and married people usually share bathrooms without even thinking about it, at least once they are past their honeymoon. Ditto twice over for women: unless you have x-ray vision, you aren't going to see a damned thing "exciting" in a woman's bathroom and if you have x-ray vision, who cares about bathrooms in the first place as there is no privacy no matter what?
Having sex/gender segregated public bathrooms makes ZERO sense, and is (I'm sure) a major additional expense. The only group that it advantages is males, since men's rooms have both urinals and stalls and the latter take up less room and allow for a better match to the frequency of urination vs defecation and thereby allow men in and out with less wait time when the facility is crowded. A double size omnisex public bathrooom with the right balance of urinals and stalls would be cheaper, would functionally reduce female wait time by making the often-idle stalls of a men's room available, and would only slightly increase male wait time. All other sensitivities over the issue are cosmically, incredibly stupid and irrational, even as they are very real and connected to our bizarre cultural rituals and beliefs about sex, court
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.