Slashdot Mirror
Porn Giant xHamster Blocks North Carolina Users Who Support Anti-LGBT Law (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Due to the state's law preventing cities from banning discrimination against the LGBT community, popular porn site xHamster.com is blocking some North Carolinians' access to its material. xHamster tweeted on Monday that is was "blacking out access for North Carolina" because of newly passed House Bill 2, which also dictates which public restrooms transgender men and women can use. North Carolina users will be asked if they support the anti-LGBT law. If they support it, their IP address will be blocked from the site. "We blacked out the access to our website because we want to draw the attention of millions of people to patterns of human rights violations," xHamster Cheif Marketing Officer, Alexander D. Hawkins said. He added the company plans to stand their ground in the "fight for equality." xHamster may be one of the most recent businesses to publicly oppose North Carolina's House Bill 2, but they're not alone. PayPal canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and Bruce Springsteen canceled a scheduled show in North Carolina as well.
I checked it out, it asks if you support the law, answer yes and it won't let you into the site. Of course, I was able to delete the cookie and answer I didn't agree with law and it let me in, lol.
Deutsche Bank said today http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article71314817.html that it was freezing plans to add 250 more jobs at its Cary location. Feeling the pressure, NC Gov. McCrory today issued an Executive Order http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article71368717.html#storylink=mainstage to rescind 2 parts of the bill, neither of which is the part concerning gender-specific bathrooms.
Yes. It says that local jurisdictions within NC cannot have broader protections against discrimination (against anyone) than those of the state legislature, which are basically none when it comes to LGBT people. The "trans bathroom issue", which is merely a consequence of that broad legislation, is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Gender is a social property, like a rank or title, or membership in a subculture (nerd, goth, whatever). The biological thing you're thinking of is sex.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Reaffirms the provision in the new law that gives businesses and local governments the right to establish non-discriminatory policies for their own employees.
That sort of thing is usually considered a bad thing when it comes to rights, since "right to establish your own non-discriminatory policy" generally just means "right to discriminate." Much as "right to teach your own version of science" really just means "right to teach something that isn't science and call it science." But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it. (not about bathrooms though)
The word has been redefined into the desired meaning by those who use it in that manner. It is a synonym for sex (anatomical) that was useful for the new concept that it is being used to express.
That said, there is nothing wrong with that, since word redefinition does happen over time. Let's all just not pretend that the dictionary gets to define reality and we'll all be on a lot firmer ground.
The real argument is whether Gender (as defined as meaning one's image of one's self) is a concept that makes sense from a legal, ethical, and health perspective. And the definitions aren't going to help with that, since everyone has decided to use their own.
Because it never happens?
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
I thought Libs were all for science. Where is the science in pretending a dude, with a dick and male chromosomes, is a woman?
Except the experts on things like delusions-- you know, the mental health profession-- has determined that gender dysphoria is not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
Its in the freaking *manual* of the scientific and medical community that's responsible for diagnosing and treating mental health.
The fact that Johns Hopkins no longer performs gender reassignment surgeries because they did enough studying to determine that the surgery does not stop the dysphoria or other self-hate thoughts in a large majority of people might be a clue that there is a consensus among a subset of experts on the subject.
That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.
The data from multiple jurisdictions show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.
And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy would be forced to use the ladies' room.
There are simply men and women
The facts in evidence - starting with chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or chimeras who happen to be about half XY and about half XX, then going on to body-doesn't-match-chromosome situations like a baby who looks like a girl on the outside but is genetically XY or babies born with visually-ambiguous genitalia - prove this statement false.
I haven't even gotten to the people whose "mental gender" mis-matches their external body parts, their genes, or both. I don't have to. All I had to do was demonstrate that the core point of your argument - the claim that "there are simply men and women" - is not true. Once that is proven false, the rest of your statements are no longer logically provably true without help. If you expect the reader to believe they are true, you should replace the now-disproven first sentence with statements that are both true and sufficient to prove the rest of your posting.
Since you asked for a definition of the term man (which I take to include boys), I will give you one. I assume you also want a definition of a woman, which, by the definition I am using, is NOT "any human being who is not a man/boy."
By the way, here's a "minimalist" definition of "man" and "woman" - I say minimalist because I don't think anyone would argue that those who meet this definition are men or women:
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy). These include but are not necessarily limited to genetics (XY, XX for women/girls), internal and external sex-dependent characteristics (testicles/penis, ovaries/vagina/etc.), and, where the person has the capacity to meaningfully assert it, a claim that the person is completely male or completely female.
Any person who lacks any of these things may be neither a man (or boy) nor woman (or girl). This includes those with XXY genes, chimeras with both male-gene and female-gene cells, those with visually ambiguous genitalia, and those whose mental self-concept differs from either their genes, their sex-related appearance (penis or vagina), or both.
This doesn't mean that a person who is lacking in one or more of these things MUST be neither, only that this person MAY be neither. The definition presented is intentionally incomplete in that it doesn't attempt to define such people as either a man (or boy), a woman (or girl), or neither/in-between/both. It doesn't attempt to do so in large part because there isn't a universal agreement about what the definition should be (see intersex and third gender as well as the references in these articles for further discussion).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
That's not the law in North Carolina. Very explicitly not the law. If you had a dick when you were born, use the men's toilet, even if you don't any more. If you had a vagina when you were born, use the women's toilet, even if you have a dick now.
Try to pay attention.
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap. Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.
Such as by attaching a furry tail, whiskers, and retractable claws?
And that's a red herring. You managed to cut out the point where the mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition, not a delusion, not a belief.
Further, the condition is not a mental disease or disorder. Its not something that can be treated with medication or therapy (though therapy and medication are often used to manage the symptoms caused by the condition while the therapist works through the issues to determine if its really gender dysphoria and if surgery or hormone therapy is really needed).
There's no "species dysphoria".
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy).
Ah, thank you! Finally we have something.
This definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example — yet they are referred to as men by everyone.
I don't follow your statement "this definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example."
That is false - to the extent that a gay man is XY, has male body parts, and self-identifies as male, the definition applies. I do acknowledge that some people with XY genes and male body parts who are sexually attracted to men think of themselves as female or something else other than a male (e.g. a "third sex"), and that those in this group who "present themselves to the public" as gay men (as opposed to presenting themselves to the public as a transgender straight woman or as a "third sex") will very likely be thought of as gay men by the general public. However, the definition I am using would not apply to them - they are in that "undefined" group that may or may not be "men." They are in that group because there isn't anything close to a universal agreement on whether they are "men" or not.
Similarly, it would apply to a lesbian who is XX, has female body parts, and who identifies as female.
If you are still sure, you wish to defend it, may I ask, where this definition is from and when did it appear? Because I can not find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal... You did not just invent it, did you?
I did invent it. The wording of your original post "be sure to include your definition" [emphasis original] seemed to invite us to do so. I'm glad you asked the question the way you asked it. The "edge cases" of the definitions of what it means to be a man (or woman) are not universally agreed on. Heck, even the basic definition has changed in the last 75 years - before we knew what DNA was, a baby was a man, a woman, or "in between" based on looks alone. Now we know better: The looks give us a presumptive gender, but if the DNA and the appearance disagree, then that presumption goes away.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, Johns Hopkins stopped performing the surgeries way back in the 1970s (i.e., before this was even a well-studied phenomenon) because one well-known opponent of gender reassignment surgery happened to become the chair of their Dept. of Psychiatry.