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.

Comments

two for T

[fche]

Does the NC law affect any part of LGBTQXYZ other than T?

Re:two for T

[Pfhorrest]

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).

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you are forcing people to shoehorn themselves into a narrowly defined perjorative label that you can agree on before you let them identify themselves at all?

Re:two for T

[serviscope_minor]

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).

Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.

Re:two for T

[mrchaotica]

It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.

And thus we reach the heart of the matter! Keeping the populous fearful and therefore unreasoning is the true purpose of these sorts of laws.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's just trying to make a distinction between gays and transsexuals.

There are some who believe that being gay is perhaps not a good thing, but ultimately a choice or a condition that is more or less not dangerous to themselves or anyone else and is best left alone.

On the other hand, they may at the same time believe that an "orientation" that causes you to hate your own body to the point of taking potentially dangerous hormones and hormone blockers, and removing your own body parts to mimic a sex that you don't anatomically belong to, is the very definition of pathological mental illness. You start to wonder which is actually more invasive or dangerous, attempting to change the mental state or the physical state.

If I am a drug addict, would I prefer that you forced me into rehab or that you cured my poverty by lowering the price and improving the quality of drugs? I think I know what most would pick, despite the fact of their continued dependence and related heath problems.

In any event, NC voters may not want to have to share bathrooms with people they consider mentally ill. Particularly women who do not feel safe in the presence of men in those situations.

Re:two for T

[guises]

According to this article, which was linked by a poster below, that's not true. The governor's executive order, among other things:

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)

Re:two for T

[PopeRatzo]

This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.

To be fair, you gave him the wrong idea when you kept sucking his dick. I mean, the first couple of times, I get it. Mistakes can be made. But the teabagging incident was definitely leading him on a bit.

Re:two for T

[Barny]

Did you ask him nicely to stop? If so, then it wasn't a problem of him being a 'gay guy' but being 'an arsehole'. Arseholes come in many, many alignments and persuasions and permeate our culture. Lets ban THEM from using any bathroom, because the last thing you want to see, in a bathroom, is an arsehole...

Re:two for T

[MightyMartian]

And your experience differs in what respect from some guy continually flirting with a girl in his college class, despite a clear lack of interest on her part? Is unwanted flirting more tolerable because the flirter and flirtee are of different genders? If the behavior crosses the line, harassment laws would apply equally to a same-sex harasser as to a harasser of a different sex.

Re:two for T

[Harlequin80]

And? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I've had girls I'm not interested in and gay guys I'm not interested in flirt with me. Sometimes it can be a bit of fun, sometimes it can be a little annoying, but I've never felt any kind of threat or danger.

Re:two for T

[serviscope_minor]

At the worst they're not exactly dangerous

Seems unlikely. At the worst, I'd assume they're just as dangerous as any other dangerous person.

This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you.

Not really sure what that's got to do with the topic, but OK... unwanted flirting from either gender is intrusive if it goes overboard. But if it's not, flirt back and have some fun.

Re: two for T

[avatar avatar]

"Hating your body enough to do something potentially dangerous" is a fun pejorative category for sweeping assumptions, but it's may be worth considering that it likely constitutes a majority of us when you factor the 50+ years or so of completely unhealthy diets/pills/fads/cleanses/supplements/etc.

Re:two for T

[drinkypoo]

But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it.

For citizens? Or only for employees?

Re:two for T

[kheldan]

I'm sure the very vocal religious types in North Carolina, whether they ever say it out loud or not, likely espouse a general sentiment of 'God hates fags' and would just as soon they all dropped off the face of the Earth for good.

Here's what they ought to do: Pass a law that all public restrooms be single-user and unisex, with a lock on the door. That way it really doesn't matter which plumbing you were born with, or ended up with, nobody has to get all flustered and uncomfortable because of anyone else on either side of the equation. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of some people and their bigotry, but it at least gives them the finger.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a word for what you just described: and that's FUD, which should be familiar to slashdot readers. You probably aren't a trained psychologist. Maybe you are. But I'm fairly certain that you haven't conducted specific studies to whether or not gender dysphoria is a "mental illness" or not since there is no consensus I'm aware of.

The only thing that should matter is whether they present a danger to themselves or others. Themselves... maybe. The jury is still out on whether hormones or body modification are as bad as people say. Others... so far I have yet to hear of a single story where a trans man or woman has assaulted someone in a bathroom (trans men and women are beaten and killed in the bathroom and out in the street and damn near everywhere, but that's besides the point).

To be fair, your last point is quite on point. We did just pass an amendment by popular vote against gay marriage in our state constitution. So we've got that going for us.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's been a thing recently, very trendy to look down your nose at NC. I asked what you asked, then thought 'wow that is a shitty law' then thought about it a bit, then decided (so far) the last thing you really need is every individual city passing their own version of civil rights laws. So I'm back thinking this law makes sense, and if the SJW population thinks a class of people need more protection then the lack of State level protections is the thing they should be wound up over, not this specific law.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of heterosexual guys are not secure enough in their sexuality to do this.

I have seen many a gay guy purposely make bigotted people uncomfortable because its fun. The same thing happens with a female friend of mine. She loves to give one of my friends a long hug because it makes him uncomfortable.

Far too many people are too uptight gotta be comfortable in your own skin especially before you go around judging others.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

That is AWFUL man, I so feel for you. It's too bad you didn't go to university when there were safe spaces so you could have felt more comfortable in your experience!

Re:two for T

[QRDeNameland]

Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.

Especially when you consider that the entire "bathroom mandate" makes zero sense even if you are so terrified.

If a transgender man (born female, identifying as male) uses the men's room, that person will invariably use a stall, and therefore no one will know the person is transgendered. For a transgender woman using the ladies' room, where there are only stalls, same thing....no one' s the wiser.

But when you have a law that says people must use the bathroom of their gender at birth, you are now mandating that people who appear male must use the ladies' room, and that a transgender woman can be standing at the next urinal over. Either y'all are totally comfortable with that, or y'all really ain't thought it through too good.

Re:two for T

[taustin]

While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.

Re:two for T

[taustin]

There is no true purpose to these sorts of law. They are random turds from people with diarrhea, dribbling down their pantlegs are random times.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: two for T

[jsh1972]

Except now those poor frightened cis women will have to share restrooms with masculine, bearded trans men.

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

If it is a government run facility, employees only. If it is a private facility either up the owner or user of the facilities. It also only covers multi person use bathrooms designed to accommodate more than one person at a time.

But there is a specific prohibition on passing laws forcing private entities to allow or require access so the GP is not correct in this.

Re:two for T

[guises]

Everything that we're talking about here refers to, basically, buildings. Buildings run by the state government, buildings run by local governments, and buildings run by private businesses.

Re:two for T

[Jarik C-Bol]

Here's what the real fear is, and why so many people are *for* this law. (i'm not saying its a good argument, but here it is)

"If we allow people who *identify* as the opposing gender from what their anatomy implies, to use the restroom of the gender to which they identify as, it opens the door for any number of creepy dudes to follow a little girl into a womans restroom and eye her through the crack in the stall door, and when the police ask him about it, all he has to do is say "Oh, well I sexually identify myself as a woman, so i'm allowed to be in there."

90% of the cases, that is the argument in their minds.
is it a good argument? maybe, maybe not. To some degree, its a straw-man built to support this legislation, but to some other degree, it is a fairly logical fear.

Now, is mandating that, as you stated, that a man who dresses like a woman, acts like a woman, and looks like a woman must use the mens room the right response? Probably not, but clearly there is some sort of middle ground that must be reached. The problem we are having right now is, one side is saying

"having a man in the woman's rest room makes me uncomfortable"
while the other side is saying:
"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"
Figuring out how to make both groups feel ok is probably impossible, but as it turns out, the universe was not set up for everyone to be comfortable, and our country was set up to make the majority (or whoever has more money) feel comfortable.

My own hairbrained scheme for this is to create a panel, composed of 9 child judges under the age of 10, and show them pictures of people who feel they belong in a different restroom than their birth anatomy dictates. These innocent children young enough to be relatively free of bias, based only on the appearance of the individual, will state their perceived gender of the individual in question, The majority opinion of the panel is used and that will be the restroom that individual may use for the next 6 months, at which time they may re-submit their profile for gender assignment. Child-judges are only allowed to serve for 3 months at a time, as to prevent the development of bias. This program could operate as an in-school program, with parents being able to opt their child out of Judge duty if so desired.
Sure, its a retarded idea, but based on my vast experience watching the Fine Brothers: Kids React(not my tm, don't sue me) episodes on Youtube, I believe you would get an honest, innocent, and fair answer each time.

Re:two for T

[JDAustin]

The argument is not much of a straw man when when it already happens.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02...

Re:two for T

[Plus1Entropy]

The science is showing us that the relationships between sex, gender, psychological identity, and physical nature are very complicated. That's why there is a push to abandon the 2 bathrooms for 2 genders thing, it's way oversimplified.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a number of gay friends and work colleagues , NONE of them have ever "hit on me".
  I am also sure that your fear of gays meant that because he was gay, ANY conversation was an attempt to flirt with you.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Canada has already seen transgender rapist Christopher Hambrook use his 'female' claim to get access to women's shelters and restrooms, where he has raped two more women.

The University of Toronto, under the same law, has had to roll back its gender neutral policy because of "transgender women" that took advantage of it to watch women in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Washington state recently arrest several "transgender women" that did the same thing, disturbing hateful ciswomen that didn't want to be ogled.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a cis man. It has absolutely nothing to do with trans women. But hey, congrats on being retarded enough to use ONE case of someone being a douche, distorting the details, and then using that to justify discrimination of millions of Americans.

Re:two for T

[kwbauer]

"I have seen many a gay guy purposely make bigotted people uncomfortable because its fun." So a gay male bullying a straight male is "fun" and to be encouraged? And that attitude is evidence a double-standard in exactly what way?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Ratzo, you just committed libel - congratulations on proving, yet again, that SJWs are hypocrites.

Re:two for T

[AthanasiusKircher]

But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it. (not about bathrooms though)

Umm, I don't see how you get that. From the very next sentence after you quoted from your own link:

The order doesnâ(TM)t change the provisions of HB2 that prohibit cities and counties from adopting broader anti-discrimination ordinances than state law, which doesnâ(TM)t include sexual orientation or gender identity protections.

Re:two for T

[Aighearach]

Wow, imagine how an attractive woman would feel trying to take a college computer class, with like... over half the class trying to flirt with her all the time, even when she's asking a technical question.

It is pretty freakin' harmless for a gay guy to flirt with you, or me, because gay people are a small minority, so the total amount of unwanted flirting is really small. Even if you have a pretty face, like I do, and tend to attract some attention.

Even if I go to a gay bar and have a drink, and sit alone, I won't receive nearly the level of obnoxious flirting that a woman with average looks receives just trying to take a programming class.

And all it takes to avoid flirting in the restroom: avoid eye contact.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear? I don't know what fear you're talking about. Uncertainty? Well there are a lot of people who are uncertain about the reality of the situation, with good reason. Doubt? I see you have none. Other people do, despite your attempt at invalidating it because it is not socially acceptable to hold that opinion.

And I'm sorry, do you always quote specific studies in your comments on the positions you take? This is a comment board, not a scientific journal. If you want to insist on papers, then you should at least start by quoting some yourself to set an example.

Self-harm and the desire for self-harm is more than enough reason for concern from a mental health professional in just about every other situation. While you can certainly argue that their transition activities are done under the observation of medical professionals, that doesn't mean that this situation is one where that was the best outcome. They are merely not going to die of septic shock when they attempt their own modifications or overdose when they attempt to self medicate. Those situations, in and of themselves, are not treatment, but rather maintenance or worse, enabling.

However, just because you can find a doctor to do something, does not mean that the principle of least harm was satisfied. In the past, they used to apply therapy to people who were gay which is certainly not least harm and was rightly shown to not be least harm. Now, they're more than willing to cut off your genitalia to satisfy another position that suits their own views of what is forward thinking. And as you noted, there's no consensus on the situation, but that does not appear to have stopped anyone from deciding that elective surgery and drug use to suppress healthy body function is now the best course of action.

I don't really expect my position to be popular or even accepted by most these days, but I think that going the entire direction on a course of treatment to considerably modify someone's anatomy and hormonal balance for a condition that no one will even consider treating in any other matter is poor practice.

And regarding the law, whether transgendered people have assaulted someone in a bathroom is ultimately not the point. There is some consideration that a women's room is for women. Transgendered "women" are not women and never will be. If we are going to simply drop consideration of the reality of that situation, we should probably just start having unisex bathrooms. You can certainly argue that having two bathrooms for different sexes is exclusionary and so we should stop pretending that this is going to be a "safe place" for women if you're letting men into the bathroom with them.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple. Mandatory expedition of the "transformation", to be performed with a rusty spoon.

Re:two for T

[dywolf]

or with any guy or gal who can't take a hint.

Re:two for T

[losfromla]

Millions? Do the T's really number in the millions?

Re:two for T

[kwbauer]

Hey now, don't be bringing up actual, real-life stuff. This is all just an academic thought experiment and then we pass laws.

That the leftists don't actually have enough imagination to perform thought experiments is beside the point.

Re:two for T

[tnk1]

I think that's probably the best solution for this, but will be hard to manage in existing multi-stall occupant bathrooms.

Re:two for T

[kwbauer]

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.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

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.

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

If you were found dead and dismembered in a ditch or more appropriate several ditches, how would science classify you sex in attempts to identify you. .

Distorting the details indeed.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"

No, not exactly. Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety. It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. "I don't have a rebuttal so I'll just call you a hypocrite."

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

It wasn't like that. It was just this guy that kept saying and doing some weird ass shit, and at first I didn't even know he was gay. I kind of guessed because of his lisp, but some other people I hung out with at the time told me afterwards, in addition to pointing to the fact that he was flirting which I hadn't picked up on. For example he kept telling me he was in the Air Force, and my response was to the effect of "ok...that's nice...I guess?" One of his friends told me that was total bullshit, and he just said it because I was obviously fresh off of active duty at the time, that he was hoping to find common ground to chat with.

To be honest, I don't pick up very well when girls flirt with me either; it usually takes somebody else to point it out to me. This guy was basically just some dude that was really annoying, hence I mentioned the name Richard Simmons.

Re:two for T

[guises]

They changed the story. The line that I quoted above was in the story when I linked to it, now it's something different.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

To be fair, you gave him the wrong idea when you kept sucking his dick. I mean, the first couple of times, I get it. Mistakes can be made. But the teabagging incident was definitely leading him on a bit.

Nice fantasy you have of me I guess, but no.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

I didn't realize it at the time either, rather his friends (some of whom were my friends as well) had told me so.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:two for T

[PopeRatzo]

https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

Wait a minute, did you just cite your own comment? That takes a fair amount of panache, almost flamboyance.

I think I'm starting to get why the gay guy kept hitting on you. I mean, besides the fact that you kept putting bofa his nuts in your mouth.

Re:two for T

[kheldan]

Well the better alternative is for people to not be ignorant jackasses about things like this in the first place but we see that's a non-starter, so we're left with less than perfect solutions.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you're wrong. Science says that sex and gender are the same. Anything else is a mental delusion.

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

How about the American College of Pediatricians?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The science is showing us that the relationships between sex, gender, psychological identity, and physical nature are very complicated. That's why there is a push to abandon the 2 bathrooms for 2 genders thing, it's way oversimplified.

The science is very simple: do you have a dick or not? If so, use the facility that's equipped for people with dicks. If not, use the facility that's equipped for people without dicks.

To hell with gender. I don't give a crap about whether a person thinks they're a man, a woman, a dog, or a teapot. It's a free country; believe whatever the hell you want. That doesn't require anyone to take your belief seriously, though.

Re:two for T

[EzInKy]

Had a dick at birth, but don't have one now. Which toilet do I pee in now?

Re:two for T

[taustin]

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.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

"populace", not "populous".

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in the army (or air force/navy), boys and girls flirt with you all the time... WTH are you doing here? This place is for mom's basement guys.

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

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?

Not quite certain what your point is, Your supposed liberal result of allowing transgenders in womens room is a pervy male, who identifies as male, Not a transgender.

Pervy males have done this kind of pervy stuff for years and years.

http://wkrn.com/2016/03/10/pol...

http://www.marshfieldnewsheral...

http://komonews.com/archive/po...

Here's a good one - a man hiding in a septic tank so he could watch women do their thing. Jeebuz! http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/man...

Point is you are using the conept of people only going into restrooms to have sex. Stop that! A transgender woman is almost certainly just going into the restroom, and just using it. And if she is going into the bathroom to look to have sex - what of lesbians? They are probably more interested in the other people's lady parts.

And if you check out the dates, these perv guys were dressing as women to work their pervy magic a while back, before even supreme court rulings on gay marriage or gender equity. Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...

And she's probably going to just do her business and leave. If she wanted to engage in sexy time in a bathroom (yuk) she'd probably go in the men's room.

psst - I think she likes guys.

Re:two for T

[rossz]

So a woman who is concerned about sharing a bathroom with someone with a penis has a brain taken over by fear? How about, for example, middle school girls? That's an age where they are very mixed up about a lot of things and can be quit frail. Are they supposed to share the locker room shower with a penis because otherwise they are closed minded bigots?

I do not support the NC law, but those arguing against it are ignoring the rights of too many people in their zeal. To put it simply, your rights end where they stomp on my rights. The transgender bathroom situation is definitely entering into some tricky territory.

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.

Creepy, huh. A lot of women have that issue with guys as well. Some people are just creepy.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in NC when you have gender reassignment surgery your birth certificate is amended to the new gender, so you would use the new bathroom.

Re:two for T

[rossz]

No he wouldn't. NC law allows the birth certificate to be updated post-op to reflect the new gender.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose a change to the naming of the rooms.

If you have a penis then you go to the penis room.

If you have a vagina then you go to the vagina room.

If you have both or none then you go to the family room.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the very vocal religious types in North Carolina, whether they ever say it out loud or not, likely espouse a general sentiment of 'God hates fags' and would just as soon they all dropped off the face of the Earth for good.

So, not only are you a super smartass fucking know-it-all, you read minds too! DAYUUM!

Re:two for T

[Yaztromo]

Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.

So in other words, the same feeling pretty much every woman you've ever tried to talk to has felt?

Yaz

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

I have a number of gay friends and work colleagues , NONE of them have ever "hit on me".

An interesting topic. I have a number of gay friends, mostly people who you wouldn't immediately figure to be gay, and a few flamboyant ones. Normally I find the flamboyant ones a little annoying - in the same way girly girls annoy me.

But none have hit on me, and all understand my gender prefs - and much without even discussing it. We just sit around and talk, maybe enjoy a beer. Watch some Television sports or something.

But one thing I can tell everyone is that there are a lot more gays than the small percentage that usd to be quoted.

I wonder though, why those who are outraged at the idea of say, Janet Mock going into a restroom with women, aren't all that whiny about using a urinal beside someone who might enjoy having sex with them.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite response was from a black man in a CNN article who suggested a compromise involving separate, unisex bathrooms--you know, like the colored bathrooms of yesteryear. Fucking North Carolina. They'll smile to your face while burning a cross behind you.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

There are negative biases in every population, but can they be used to statistically affirm or reject a hypothesis? I wish someone would do the actual research before passing asinine laws.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...

Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.

Putting that aside, they could walk into a ladies room and no one would care unless they told them, but they've had enough work that it wouldn't cause a problem because they're not obviously men jammed into a dress. That's not, however, even close to the norm and you know it. If that was the average man who is trying to look like a woman, then I doubt anyone would care. That's not the case. You don't make the law for the ones who manage to get reconstructed into reasonable looking facsimiles of females.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Women, real ones, and presumably trans ones, spend a fair amount of time out of the stalls. You know, touching up make up and all of that. They're not just sitting in the stalls and then scooting out. And all it takes is for some rather masculine looking "woman" to be seen at any point in there to cause a problem.

Now, yeah, on the other side, sure I doubt I'd know a former female from some other guy in the bathroom. But then I wash up and GTFO. More to the point, a female in the men's room isn't going to threaten me very much. That's just not the case on the other side.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Estimates range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 2000 people (this is a really hard number to come up with a solid amount) are some level of transgender (and not all transgender people will commit to hormone replacement therapy). Estimates for people with some form of disorder of sex development (includes trans people and a variety of related things [ie. intersex, etc.]) are approximately 1 in 100. There are 350+ million Americans, so if you take 1% of that, then yes absolutely it will effect more than a million people.

However, another thing to keep in mind is that the bill doesn't just target transgendered people, but everyone in the LGBTQI crowd.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Female. Because I am female. Legally and medically. I'm very passable so visually it would be obvious. My hormone levels are basically perfect (ok, so my estrogen level is very slightly higher than the average woman, and my testosterone levels are lower). All of my identification states female, and the state recognizes me as such. You'd be hard-pressed to call me a man.

Re:two for T

[fahrbot-bot]

... y'all really ain't thought it through too good.

The law was written in North Carolina, so, ya ...

Re:two for T

[fahrbot-bot]

While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.

Post-ops can get their birth certificates changed to match the new physical gender. (apologies if phrased inappropriately)

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...

Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.

No - she's had the complete changeover She has no tallywhacker.

Putting that aside, they could walk into a ladies room and no one would care unless they told them, but they've had enough work that it wouldn't cause a problem because they're not obviously men jammed into a dress. That's not, however, even close to the norm and you know it. If that was the average man who is trying to look like a woman, then I doubt anyone would care. That's not the case. You don't make the law for the ones who manage to get reconstructed into reasonable looking facsimiles of females.

But dear sir, I'm not making the argument, the people who are moritifed and believe that men are suddenly going to go harass women in bathrooms and then claim they identify as women is what they and probably you are so fearful of.

And as for getting beat up in bathrooms, and your horror, just imagine what gays and transgenders go through. I doubt they'd have much sympathy for the stramen of the fearful.

MOck might be killed for going into a men's room, and you brush it off like so what? Welcome to not only being consumed by fear, but pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the thing you linked? I don't think you read it.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Half? Try all.

165 guys and 5 women in my first year electronics engineering. When the super hot admin lady would stop by, there'd be whistles and oooohhs and awwws. I felt pretty embarrassed for her.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to my world.

Except I'm not male. And they're not gay.

Re:two for T

[myowntrueself]

Does the NC law affect any part of LGBTQXYZ other than T?

I think it affects everyone of any gender persuasion.

For one thing, you have people who are women who earnestly believe they are men and have had cosmetic surgery and medications to give them the appearance of men. They may be bearded, have gruff voices and if anyone saw them using the womens washroom there'd be an uproar. Yet that is the washroom they are legally obligated to use.

You also have people who are men who earnestly believe they are women etc, and who really do look passably like women. If anyone saw them using the mens washroom there'd be raised eyebrows, not sure about uproar, but in some quarters they may be putting themselves in some danger by doing so.

Then you have people who are men who earnestly believe they are women and haven't quite had the full cosmetic surgery and the medications haven't had full effect and anyone who looked at the might be forgiven for believing them to be men in drag. If they used the mens washroom that could cause some puzzlement but if they used the womens washroom there could be a bit of an uproar.

In my opinion, these people should look at themselves in all honesty and say "Which gender do I really come across as?" and use the appropriate washroom. That should be the basis of the law, not actual gender, not the persons inner feeling or belief in which gender they identify as but WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SEE.

And thats the thing that really strikes me about this whole kerfuffle; the transgender community come across as horrifically selfish and self-centered. They don't give a fuck about anyone elses feelings, they seem to believe they are the only people whose feelings matter and thus their gender dysmorphia issues are being forced on everyone else as a gigantic, earth-shaking issue.

To these people I'd have to say "Get a grip, think about other people for a change. You aren't an island. Use whichever washroom isn't going to attract attention. And stop being attention whores."

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Richard Simmons and he is a class act that would use the men's restroom. Please try to leave him out of this stupid conversation.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

Wait a minute, did you just cite your own comment? That takes a fair amount of panache, almost flamboyance.

Social justice warriors such as yourself have a way of projecting their own insecurities upon everybody around them as if they are the only normal one in a given conversation, hence why politicians make a career out of canned responses. While I don't have any canned responses, my first response is valid, even towards your rather vivid sexual fantasies about me. And, since you obviously keep pushing the issue in spite of my obvious lack of interest, let me make it clear: I have no interest in you, please go away, Richard Simmons.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! Just imagine this happens to you constantly, just about every where you go... and you can begin to empathize with just about every woman who ever lived.. or a male living in Key West.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Had a dick at birth, but don't have one now. Which toilet do I pee in now?

Without wanting to endorse OP's position, what they wrote was "If you have a dick, use the men's toilet." Since you don't have one, on OP's criterion (in contradistinction to the NC law which I believe goes by whether you had one at birth), you don't (have to) use the men's toilet. In fact in context I think we can OP to mean "If and only if you have a dick, use the men's toilet," in which case OP would have you use whatever toilet (or toilets) are not classified as men's toilets. But that was obvious, no?

The problem (with OP's position) arises if you have a dick, but are in various other ways (clothing, body shape, etc.) presenting as a woman. Does OP seriously want that person to use the men's toilets? And if so, is it because he (I presume) is hoping to score some quick and nasty toilet sex with a pre-op transwoman?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.

Oh I bet you would! Dream on perv!

Re:two for T

[yuriklastalov]

Nah bruh, you're just too uptight. Like, loosen up. It's cool, it's the current year and you're a privileged whiner. It's not a double standard because they're just venting against their aggressors. Vigilante Social Justice man, get with it.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a social justice warrior?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Please elaborate on how you can be "forced" to use a men's bathroom, in lieu of a unisex (in this area, often denoted as a "family" restroom with icons for both genders and baby-changing facilities within) one.

I think much of the resistance you may encounter to the notion is that many simply would not agree this is an issue of "force" at all. For even commonplace things like encountering a very poorly-maintained restroom, I'll simply go elsewhere, or "wait". Even if, under extreme circumstances, that meant going home. Inconvenient, yes. Uncomfortable, potentially. But you are explicitly claiming your your safety is placed at risk by "force", and relatively speaking, being uncomfortable (insofar as it is the result for others) is irrelevant. Please explain how this "force" happens, and in its application you are compelled to risk your safety.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you agree that post-op folks can use the right restroom. You'll get the rest of the way someday.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. Take it as the compliment it was and let it go. Gay guys used to hit on me in bars all the time. I would sometimes buy em a drink and have a good conversation, making sure they I knew I was straight up front, just as I would if it was a woman I wasn't interested in. This isn't rocket science.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, what would you consider yourself to be if you had a DNA test and discovered that you have a Y chromosome? Or found out that the hospital had snipped you as an infant?

Re:two for T

[Jesus_666]

"If we allow people who *identify* as the opposing gender from what their anatomy implies, to use the restroom of the gender to which they identify as, it opens the door for any number of creepy dudes to follow a little girl into a womans restroom and eye her through the crack in the stall door, and when the police ask him about it, all he has to do is say "Oh, well I sexually identify myself as a woman, so i'm allowed to be in there."

Of course it would help if Americans stopped building restrooms where everyone can see everything. If there is a crack in the stall door that allows you to see anything but the occupant's feet you're doing it wrong.

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

If you were born female, you genetic markers in your dna will identify you as such. If you were born male and warped your appearance, it is just an unscientific fantasy thinking otherwise. Personally I don't know you and don't care. Just as I don't care that people are Muslim or Jewish or Christian or pastafarian or shinto or evangelical atheist.

Re:two for T

[lister king of smeg]

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).

Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.

Most fears I have heard have not been about actual transsexuals but about ass-hole pervs claiming to be so they can go into the other to harrass women.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Science says that sex and gender are the same.

Muddled headed nonsense. The entire point of the concept of gender as opposed to sex, is to differentiate the biological fact (sex) from cultural and lived experience (gender). To quote from the very link you supplied (but lacked the requisite literacy to comprehend), " 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."
http://www.acpeds.org/the-coll...

Anything else is a mental delusion.

YOU really are something else.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were born female, you genetic markers in your dna will identify you as such.

Which "genetic markers?" What if you were born an XY woman? Are you a geneticist with a speciality in human sex differentiation or are you just sumbmass?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You just replied to a joke as if it were a serious post - congratulations on proving, yet again, that Neo-Nazis are humourless bores.

Re:two for T

[Barsteward]

because someone has a speech impediment of a lisp, they are gay? interesting conclusion

Re:two for T

[oobayly]

"This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience."

That's not because he's gay, it's because he's an asshole. Now you know how women feel when some dickhead keeps coming on to them even after being told no. Put simply, some people are assholes, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, colour or creed.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably closer to 1 in 75. However there is a lot of context required to get to those numbers:
- There are people who identify as male or female and refuse the trans* label
- There are people who identify as "bigender" or basically refuse to subscribe to a gender label
- There are people who identify as gay men or lesbian women, who are OK with being such, but really would rather transition should the medical means become less dangerous.
- And of course there are people who identify as the gender not indicated on their birth certificate and generally do everything as the gender they feel they are, but have more fear of dying on the table so they won't medically transition (more common with transmen.)
- When you live in "red states" that actively look to murder GLBT people, transpeople tend to stay stealth.

What you see over time, especially in the last 10 years is that more transgender people are coming out as it becomes safer to do so.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a social justice warrior?

They are like boogeymen ... except only those with a deep commitment to social injustice worry about them being under their beds.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The Y chromosome isn't what makes someone a man, it's the activation of the SRY chromosome that "usually does", The SRY gene can sometimes be found on the X chromosome too but is inactive. It's the inactivation of the X chromosome that creates male babies.

Wikipedia:
"SRY is a quickly evolving gene and its regulation has been difficult to study because sex determination is not a highly conserved phenomenon within the animal kingdom"

Also:
http://news.yale.edu/2016/03/30/sex-baby-ancient-virus-makes-call

"Xiao and the Yale team discovered a novel mechanism by which the early embryo turns off this virus on the X chromosome, which ultimately determines the sex of an organism. If the level of this molecular marker is normal, X chromosomes remain active, and females and males will be born at an equal ratio. If this marker is overrepresented, X chromosomes will be silenced, and males will be born twice as often as females."

So in a sense, males are born when the only "X" chromosome is disabled, not when the Y chromosome is present.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"

No, not exactly. Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety. It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.

And what about the safety of women who fear they will be assaulted by men in their restroom claiming to be transgender?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

"transwomen" I belive the correct term is "men in womens clothing".

Re:two for T

[stealth_finger]

WTF is cis?

Re:two for T

[AmiMoJo]

Unless protections for trans people are universal, they aren't really protections. Imagine being trans and not knowing what your rights are if you visit a random town or even an individual shop. What if the town where you lived decided that you had to use the wrong bathroom?

It's got to be universal.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

Practically all of it.
But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter- the whole point of that long (and growing) acronymn is for all these groups to stand together and fight together in solidarity. If you harm one group in there, you get all the others fighting back.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

Ever seen what happens when a trans-women walks into the bathroom "equipped for people with dicks" ?

They tend to end up bleeding... or dead.

The single biggest reason not to force them to do that is because it kills them. There's no reason to fear them in the other bathroom but THEY have every reason to fear going into the one you want to force on them.
The fear that drives this is utterly unfounded as well - there has literally never, ever been a single case of a man raping a woman who dressed as woman - it is borderline impossible for it to happen. The kind of men who rape women, would consider it demeaning to look like one. Male-on-female rape is largely an act of sexual dominance driven by a desperate desire to prove a fragile masculinity... putting on a dress would defy the very purpose of the crime. It's never happened and probably will never happen.
And even if you're telling the truth about yourself, that was the reasoning of most people who supported this: to protect people from a non-existent threat by taking one of the most vulnerable and highest-risk-of-assault-and-murder groups and putting them at greater risk.

A person's choice should not be limited between "get arrested" or "get killed".

Re:two for T

[AmiMoJo]

Science would do a toxicology report and notice that you were either on hormones or fully transitioned, and a medical examiner would identify that person as a transsexual. That's a good thing because once your government records have been changed to reflect your reassigned gender they will need to search for the correct one.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

And now you're just proving your ignorance of genetics. Most trans people who have had DNA tests done - had genuine genetic differences and were not XY or XX. There are least 12 known other combinations of those chromosomes only 2 of which are externally visible (the two types of hermaphrodites) - the rest look male or female outside, but have real biological differences inside (including neurological). XXY for example looks female, can bear children, and would be indistinguishable from XY without a DNA test - yet most XXY women are trans and the rest overwhelmingly identify as lesbian.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

According to these assholes - the problem is the dick you had is apparently the human and you're the part that got cut off from it and ought to be incinerated for public safety... or something like that.

Take heart... I think the time may be near when bigot-bashing will be acceptable to the degree gay-bashing was not long ago. The culture war is over, we won. Too bad there are still these idiots around, they remind me those Japanese soldiers in the caves refusing to believe world war 2 was over 2 decades later.

Eventually - old age will rid us of the last of them - in the meantime, all the good people are standing with you and offering our protection from the remnants of their idiocy.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

So you were so utterly unaffected by his flirting you didn't even know it was happening till other people told you ?

Look, if he was harassing you - then you had a legitimate reason to complain, if his flirting didn't even register with you then you suffered no harm and have no cause for any response - let alone to justify laws that target the vast majority of other LBTGI people whom you've never even met for something they've never done.

Just how homophobic do you have to be to feel threatened by one gay person who flirted with you when you didn't even KNOW he was flirting with you at the time? A simple "I'm not interested" would probably had been all it took to reject him, exactly like you would do to a woman who was flirting with you if you weren't interested. So why do you think his orientation justifies anything at all ?

Remember - homophobia is not a fear of gay people, per se, it's a fear of being gay. Only latent homosexuals are capable of being homophobic.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

They are usually over privileged white people that have a desire to right the wrongs of the world, but no actual spine to make any real difference.

They would have loved to been alive during the civil rights movement, by alas they missed out.

So now they get offended by micro aggressions and call everyone racist that don't agree with them.

A bunch of over sensitive rich privileged little shits who don't want to put in any effort.

Btw, I have enough native American blood to tell any of you SJW lot to go fuck yourselves, and get the fuck off my ancestor's land, that's my privilege.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a rapist here who went around in a hijab. Worker quite well for him.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as it becomes safer but more as it becomes trendy.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded?
"The gays" often adopt a more feminine style of speech, this can sometimes include a lisp.

Which, to be honest, is a micro aggression against people with actual speech impediments. They should be shammed in public for their toxic behavior!

Re:two for T

[AmiMoJo]

Statistically most paedophiles are men, and many of them are gay. So to prevent the kind of abuse people are worrying about we would have to ban adult males from bathrooms used by boys too.

Re:two for T

[cardpuncher]

Or of course you could just abolish toilet gender apartheid. It wasn't that long ago that equivalent arguments were being deployed in favour of the racial segregation of the same facilities.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

The best solution is probably the one already taken by a few cities - mandate only unisex bathrooms. It's expensive, but it solves the problem - and it also means all the bathrooms get stalls. I'm a cisgender mostly-heterosexual male and even I hate the damn urinals... who the hell thought men would like to stand in a row and pee? No wonder nearly a third of men have shy bladders.

Unisex bathrooms solve the problem once and for all - one bathroom for people, with private stalls for doing your private business. What you do or do not have between your legs, what you're wearing and whether you "pass" or not simply no longer features into the conversation.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

XY is male...

Re:two for T

[AmiMoJo]

This is similar to the argument used against discussing homosexuality with kids. i.e. that it will confuse them. If you simply explain it to them it won't confuse them at all, they will just accept it as the way things are.

Also, how do you think gay boys handle school locker rooms? Surrounded by other naked boys, might even have a crush on one of them... In fact, since about 1 in 20 people is gay there was probably at least one in the locker room with you when you were a kid. It's never been a major problem.

Re:two for T

[goose-incarnated]

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).

Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.

Nice strawman there. Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms. Whether or not their fear is legitimate, your assertion that they are afraid of transgender women is ridiculous.

Re:two for T

[righteousness]

there has literally never, ever been a single case of a man raping a woman who dressed as woman

I admit that I can't cite a real life case, but I distinctly remember a Criminal Minds episode where this does happen. Sure, it's fiction, but I suppose if someone can think of a plausible scenario where this sort of thing can happen, is it such a big leap to think that it can happen in real life?

Re:two for T

[evilbessie]

I read an excellent explanation of why we should have some pause with trans rights, at least some of the ideas presented by the radical feminist view made sense to me. I don't think discrimination is cool and the NC law seems like a terrible idea for everyone. But if the discussion around trans rights is that one must accept wholly that "transwomen are women" and the implication that women have vaginas and men have penises being offensive, then it's not really a useful discussion. The bit which made me remember that as always people are awful was that some transwomen insist that their penises are in fact female. http://thenewbacklash.blogspot...

Are changing rooms considered bathrooms, I think in most cases they would be. I don't have an answer but to dismiss any concern about it as unnecessary misses the fact that male violence continues to be a significant issue in society. That transwomen are threatened (much as women are) by male violence perhaps we should stop that, then there wouldn't be an issue. That blog expresses things better than I, and shows that in any argument you get awful people who misuse things for abusive reasons. There should be room for discussion and not defining anyone who doesn't agree as a hater.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

innocent children young enough to be relatively free of bias

Children at that age are totally under the control of their parents' bias. The whole idea of a binary gender caste system, and the idea that gender is evident, are cultural and learned. At that age I had never consciously met a gender-ambiguous person. I was full of cultural bullshit. I would probably have judged people's gender by their hairstyles.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I thought there was a movement growing inside LGB to split from the T, actually. So why are they so upset?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Urinals only - got it.

Re:two for T

[Raenex]

Nobody forces you to dress up a like a woman. Transgenders are less than 1% of the population insisting that the rest of the 99% accommodate them.

Re:two for T

[serviscope_minor]

I think you replied to the wrong post. Your comment seems somewhat unrelated to mine.

Re: two for T

[silentcoder]

I said borderline impossible. Its certainly within the realm of things not actually prohibited by the known laws of physics but so is timetravel and a zombie appocalypse. Both are more likely than this scenario though. Hell a zombie appocalypse is more scientiffically plausible than god is !

Re: two for T

[Barsteward]

You obviously have a problem reading the previous post and understanding my comment on it.
""The gays" often adopt a more feminine style of speech, this can sometimes include a lisp." - thats just as crap an observation as the the one about all people with a lisp being gay.

Re:two for T

[Megol]

So people with both a dick and cunt (to continue your use of vulgar language rather than the proper one) should always be treated as men? Even when they are physically and mentally women, can be mothers and one have to do a close examination to realize that the larger than normal clitoris is actually a penis?
--
The science is that external sexual characteristics isn't what determines the gender of the brain - the one thing that makes humans different from other animals. This have been backed up by several studies that shows that people that considers themselves transgender also have similar brain structures as the gender they identify with. Before any hormone treatment etc. BTW.

Re:two for T

[serviscope_minor]

your assertion that they are afraid of transgender women is ridiculous.

You know when I said you are a very silly person and so it's not surprising you get very silly replies [from PopeRatzo] and you accused me of just throwing around insults?

Well, this pretty much proves my point.

Go read the thread. There are people who wanted ALL transwomen banned from men's bathrooms, not just men who were claiming to be women for reasons of pervery.

By the way, an argument is only a straw man if I made it up. It's not a strawman if someone else came up with it and I'm attacking the argument. The fact that it happened and you don't like it does not make it a straw man either.

So, I stand by my assertion that you are a very silly person.

Re:two for T

[Megol]

In this case the inverse of trans, more generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:two for T

[goose-incarnated]

There is something really strange with your reading comprehension. Is English not your primary language? FWIW, I wrote:

Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms.

You then present this as a counter-argument:

There are people who wanted ALL transwomen banned from men's bathrooms, not just men who were claiming to be women for reasons of pervery.

Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.

So, I stand by my assertion that you are a very silly person.

What a wit you possess. Your parents must be very proud.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now any number of creepy dudes can follow a little boy into a men's restroom and eye him through the crack in the stall door

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

We had this transwoman that used to sit in h*s car and mastrubate outside of our school. Would he be allowed in the school today by claiming to be a transkid?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

"transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's right to safety." FTFY.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine for a moment the kind of shit that would erupt if these trans women used a female restroom.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Many places do not have a family restroom. While they may be common in large facilities, they are not so common in places like restaurants, bars, and smaller venues.

The ability to access a public washroom is a matter of public health, not of convenience. And when I say "force", I mean that if I used the ladies' room in NC, I would be breaking the law and could be forcibly removed and told to use the men's.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

The women's safety is not at risk, as all the data show.

Basically, you're asking me to put myself in real danger in order to avoid other people being made uncomfortable because of ungrounded fear.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

A democracy respects the rights of all minorities. The numbers are not relevant.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

No, thats a lie. All of the evidence shows that when transgender people are given the right to use facilities corresponding to their gender expression, no-one's safety is compromised.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Yes, we do touch up our makeup and hair. But guess what? We tend to be fully-dressed when doing that... so what's the big deal?

Re:two for T

[fgouget]

At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.

So schools and universities should be segregated per gender so that girls can attend without being harassed by guys who don't know when to let go? Oh! Sorry. It wouldn't help with your rare but so much more important special case!

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

First of all, how do you know he's "post-op"?

Secondly, how do you know he was born in NC and not in a jurisdiction that doesn't permit modification to the birth certificate?

Re:two for T

[DarkOx]

Stop lying! The law says you use the bathroom your identification indicates. That does not mean birth certificate and it does not say so. If you have state ID, drivers license, passport, etc. That says you are one sex or the other you use the associated bathroom.

So someone who has completed sex reassignment certainly can use the bathroom associated with their current sex.

Opponents of this law are being extremely disingenuous! They have for years insisted that sex and gender are not the same. Okay fine bathrooms and a whole host of other things like medical coverage are very sensibly segregated by sex. They are so for reasons of safety, propriety, and practicality. They are however segregated by SEX not gender. So being transgender does not pose any problem at all. Use the damn bathroom that corresponds to your sex! it actually is equal treatment to say everyone uses the facility that matches their sex regardless of gender.

However for the last 30 years we have been feed this idea that sex and gender are only correlated but not strictly tied. Well if that is true than "transgender" individuals can't exist, because your sex does not define your gender. If you have female sex organs and want penis that does not make you transgender, it makes you just someone with body image issue, no different from a fat person wishing they were thinner. Alternatively it means you a delusional you can't accept the reality that is in front of you. You are in fact a girl and the correct solution is for you to get the psychiatric care you need, not for the rest of us to pretend along with you.

Re:two for T

[serviscope_minor]

Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms.

So? Some people expressed a desire to prevent ALL (including genuine) transwomen from entering the bathroom.

Another clue for the logical fallacy impaired: it's not a straw man if I'm addressing a different argument from the one you personally would address.

Re:two for T

[rtkluttz]

Absolutely not this. I live in NC. I know my own wishes intimately and I've spoken to lots of other people about this. I'm talking about ordinary people, not the policy makers. Most of us in NC honestly had no idea that bathroom privacy issues weren't ALREADY protected with common sense law. Now keep in mind... in this particular strict usage of "common sense", I mean common sense from the point of view of the traditional/historical context. Charlotte forced peoples hands with an over broad ordinance, if Charlotte would have left well enough alone everyone would have been happy and moved on with their life and used the bathroom of their choice with nothing being said. But as written, the Charlotte ordinance gave anyone the ability to choose a sex as they see fit and use the bathroom of their choice with no legal protections if someone abused it. No one targeted legitimate LGBT people. Only the dipshits who would claim "attack helicopter" status on a whim to get thrills. The liberal media has spun this into the shit storm it has become. Basically we didn't know that you weren't ALREADY required to use the bathroom of your birth sex. Everyone used the bathroom of their choice and no one abused it. But by Charlotte trying to remove ANY protection requiring people to use a certain bathroom, they made people stand up and demand some sort of common sense protection against perverts. In THIS use of common sense, I define common sense as what I believe the majority of normal people in NC have reasoned out and that is this: Males in male bathrooms and females in female bathrooms and we really hate that transgender is a grey area, but since someone decided to make a law out of it, and since it is impossible to look into someones brain and tell if they are legitimate transgender or a "woman for the day" just to get thrills, then the law must err on the side of safety and protection.

Re:two for T

[dave420]

The science shows us that it's not as simple as you assume it is. You not knowing about something and then using your ignorance to attack others only ends up making you look silly, and has no effect on those you are attacking.

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

So you come up with very rare situations and magically forget that dna can tell you the sex of a person? Obviously they would be looking at more than chromosomes if trying to determine your identity but even physical differences should be enough to identify a sex if enough parts are found.

Re:two for T

[houghi]

OK, generalize this a bit

Imagine if one day you met a person, and the person kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with q person that keeps trying to flirt with you.

Or do you think this does not happen to men, because it happend to me. And not so much flited with as being Ãshed and a tongue down my throat while I did not wanted it. (At least not from her)
OTOH I was very welcome in a gay bar, without being gay and was not flirted with as soon as they knew I was not gay. When someone came on to me, others said, 'not him' and they stopped right away and had a non-fliting conversation with me.

I was there with friends and why not? They come to 'straight' places as well. Now lesbian places was a bit different as they looked more hostile towards me, but still, no issues:

To be fair: in one gay bar I was I did not feel very good as one kept making rude comments towards me. As I was in 'their' place I said I wanted to leave and when I explained why, they beat the guy to pulp. They rather had a straigt person they would not be able to fuck than a gay person who fucked it all up.

It is almost as if gay and straight persons are all people and regardless of their gender preference can be assholes or great and wonderfull. Who knew? (Oh, wait, I did.)

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Europe, there are many places where everyone uses the same bathrooms -- at the same time.
The difference is that they're not force fed bullshit by puritan religious assholes from birth, so they're not irrational bigots.

Re:two for T

[Raenex]

There's no right for 1% to put themselves in a dangerous situation and then claim it's the obligation of the 99% to adjust so that isn't dangerous.

Re:two for T

[dave420]

And you apparently have no sense of humour, and a bunch of issues surrounding homosexuality.

Re:two for T

[DarkOx]

Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.

And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed. Everything else poses a serious enforcement and adjudication problem. Majority rule with minority rights. You have a right to use a rest room that corresponds to your sex, the majority has decided that is how the system will work. If that makes you uncomfortable to bad.

Re:two for T

[dave420]

Way to miss the point - it's a gay guy "harassing" a homophobe simply by being in their presence.

Re:two for T

[dave420]

Because of his lisp? Do you live in the 50s, where these ridiculous stereotypes are not considered laughably outdated and inaccurate? Your bizarre stance on the modern world makes a lot more sense now, as it appears you are stuck in the past. It must be really scary to realise that people will point out the lazy reasoning you frequently use to judge people.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you.

Seems you don't know the protocol: If someone you dislike flirts with you, tell them in no uncertain terms to stop it NOW. (Name calling, grave threats, displaying weapons and disgusting language is optional, but certainly allowed in such cases. Depends on how annoying the person is.) When this fails, the next proper step is violence. Hit & kick till annoying behaviour stops. If the guy is bigger, just knock him out cold with something heavy from behind - or learn some martial arts tricks.

No sympathy for the annoying. There are plenty of nice ways to go about flirting. If they fail, flirt with someone else then. Or die stupidly trying. Note that the protocol is gender neutral for both parts so it works for all.

Re:two for T

[goose-incarnated]

Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.

And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed.

I respectfully disagree. I proposed unisex bathrooms and I feel that *that* is more reasonable than your proposal above. If that doesn't fly, then how about this: the line should be "Does this person pass as a Male in appearance" or "Does this person pass as a Female in appearance". Having it any other way means that sooner or later you are going to ask to inspect someone's genitals; an activity which is (or should be) abhorrent for obvious reasons.

That second proposal means that safety of women in the bathroom will be, at the very least, no worse than it is now (for those who were worried about that), and that the majority will not feel uncomfortable.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok...now I'm confused. Isn't the whole argument against the #NotAllMen movement about penalizing all men because there are (in the grand scheme of things) a few bad apples that irreversibly tarnish the reputation of the whole? You know, paraphrasing your exact argument: Being retarded enough to using a [few] cases of someone being a douche, distorting the details, and then using that to justify the discrimination of millions of [men].

Also...Can you tell me how in the hell is anyone supposed to tell the difference between a Cis man and a Trans woman until it's too late? I think there might need to be a #NotAllMenDressedLikeWomen type tag created just for building awareness that it's reasonable for not all men dressed like a woman need to get our hackles standing on end.

Re:two for T

[ganjadude]

you are twisting what peoples fears are, people are not in fear of transwomen, people are in fear of men, using this loophole to go peeping. which has already happened http://www.mrctv.org/blog/univ... . if you are going to argue what others are worried about, please get it right

Re:two for T

[ganjadude]

and your point? i mean unless you are going to have someone checking these trannys to make sure they actually are trannys and not just dudes trying to get their rocks off, how do you keep this from happening?

a war on women? yeah this is it and its being pushed by those who scream about womens rights. where are womens rights to use the bathroom in peace???

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse.

Certainly a problem - so fight that problem then, instead of demanding access to women's rooms. Assault is already illegal, all you have to demand is enforcing. Until that is achieved, you have the option of gender-neutral clothing that many "ordinary/biological women" uses too - so shouldn't really be a problem to wear for a transperson. Fight for your right to not be assaulted - or give up and move somewhere nicer. (The whole world is not like that.) Don't push your problem onto other women.

Re:two for T

[ganjadude]

apparently it means "normal"

Re:two for T

[ganjadude]

the law goes by whats on your birth certificate

in NC you can get your sex changed on your BC, so no, the NC law isnt actually even doing what they are bitching about

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

We had this transwoman that used to sit in h*s car and mastrubate outside of our school. Would he be allowed in the school today by claiming to be a transkid?

Probably as likely as anyone else caught rubbing one out in a school parking lot - which is going to be arrest and probably counseling.

You act like being transgendered is the cause - or the effect - of the person's pervyness.

Rest assured that there are plenty of heterosexual males who choke their woman loving little chickens in parking lots. Seems like several every year are caught in my hometown. The police have to be plenty embarrassed to have that arrest.

And who knows why those people do that? Maybe almost getting caught gives them a thrill or something. But it has nothing to do with sexual identity, or gender.

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

Why would you say a dna test was needed but claim I'm the ignorant one when the question was about trying to identify you? Do you know of some way to determine identify from chromosomes?

Re:two for T

[mrchaotica]

Damn, I should have caught that.

Re:two for T

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It was just this guy that kept saying and doing some weird ass shit...
... This guy was basically just some dude that was really annoying

There is the problem it wouldn't have mattered if he was straight or queer as a 3 dollar bill. I'm sure we've all see the weird creepy guy at the bar that tries to hit on every gal that come in the door, or remembers the stereotypical dumb ugly fat drunk chick from college that showed up at all the parties. Point is gay vs non gay has nothing to do with it and maybe you should have been more assertive, god known I have told people to shut their fucking pie hole and never talk to me.

Re:two for T

[mrchaotica]

No, you really don't get it. The more they can rile up their base with this sort of bullshit, the less people pay attention to the graft and corruption -- and even if they do notice, the less likely they are to care.

Take Jim-bob, bigoted voter: "Well, the Republican incumbent funneled $2M in state funds to his cousin last term, but at least he's against them goddamn gays that threaten my fragile masculinity so I'll vote for him anyway."

Re:two for T

[Dr. Evil]

"...believe that men are suddenly going to go harass women in bathrooms and then claim they identify as women is what they and probably you are so fearful of."

Agreed... however...

Some people are just fucked up. I knew a guy who was a perv. He'd come on to the women and didn't know when enough was enough. Anyway... one day he says "you know... I'm a woman now", shows up wearing dresses, but still comes on to the women and doesn't know when enough was enough. It was bad enough that the women used the handicapped bathroom when she was anywhere near the lady's room. I was sexually attacked by her when she was pumped full of hormones in her second puberty (imagine a 30 year old man with the horomones of a 12 year old girl)... the teasing and punches scale to full-on-assault.

She's since had the surgery, calmed the hell down and is a reasonably adjusted person. Everyone who's got no "tallywacker" now, at one point was a non-passable guy-in-a-dress, and may even have been an asshole towards women.

Assholes who sexually harass women then follow them into the bathroom should be charged with sexual harassment. Regardless of gender. Can you stop them from going into the bathroom? No. All the more reason to charge them with sexual harassment. Does this mean all trans people are perverts? No. All the more reason to charge them with sexual harassment.

The onus is on women too to say "seriously, I get that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body, I've already told my friends what you're doing, I can't stop you from following me into the bathroom, but get the fuck away from me or I'm calling 911"

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Forcing a timid and confused trans woman into the men's room because some assholes don't know when to stop, is not the answer.

I'm pointing out that we're not only talking about well-adjusted post-op passable women. We're talking about non-passable pre-op trans people, about people who've chosen a more fluid gender identity who might mix it up from day to day (and keep their tallywacker status their own private business). We're talking about perverts who sexually harass people too, because perverts use the bathroom too and just because somebody's a lecherous asshole, we can't pass judgement on the unbelievably of their claims to a confused sexual identity.

I think we should imagine the strawmen here, because that's what we're permitting.

All that said. My opinion? we should use the sexual harassment laws and not question people's gender identity.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're just so damn fugly, not even the gays would come down to your mother's basement to flirt with ya.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

May I suggest Iron Sky as the next movie for you to watch about such a thought up situation?

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

'Science' says nothing of the sort. Your link is not a link to 'science'; it's a link to the opinions of a few MDs who wrote an article. Specifically, it's MDs who belong to this organisation, which is an association of like-minded pediatricians, not an academic body.

Point 2 in their article is particularly ignorant and misleading, especially in light of the 'John/Joan' case that fairly conclusively showed that gender identity has a great many biological components, and is not simply behavioural or socially-instilled.

In short, there is nothing scientific about the article you state, and actually (after analysis) serves as a good example of how the idea of biological sex and gender identity are one and the same is incorrect and harmful.

Please look again with a critical eye. And thank you for posting it - I will inquire of every pediatrician I come across now whether they are a member of this "College" before they get anywhere near any children in my care.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

He likely wasn't post-op, because the procedure for trans men leaves a lot to be desired. Getting an artificial penis that can't get hard just gets in the way when one wants to use the silicone one.

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

No it doesn't, which is why NC passed this law. Sometimes democracies respect the wishes of the majority over the so-called "rights" of minorities which aren't actually rights.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there. You couched it as safety going one direction but as comfort going the other direction. Well played.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a cisgender mostly-heterosexual male and even I hate the damn urinals... who the hell thought men would like to stand in a row and pee?

So you think that you are representative of how the world should view urinals? I'm all for unisex restrooms which eliminates the silly argument, but urinals are a great solution to water usage and other things and don't pose a problem for most of the world.

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

Dang they didn't do much research. A quick googling found https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

Statistically most paedophiles are men, and many of them are gay.

I find that hard to believe. If anything it's more likely that gay pedophiles have more access to young boys than straight pedophiles have access to young girls. For instance it's not uncommon for a male sports coach to be in the locker room, to be around the boys showering, etc... I've never heard of a male coach hanging out in the girls' locker room and watching them shower.

So to prevent the kind of abuse people are worrying about we would have to ban adult males from bathrooms used by boys too.

Guess what, that happens. A lot of schools have separate bathrooms for adults. Same with locker rooms again... at least around here, the YMCA has separate locker rooms and showers for adults, kids, and private family rooms as well. Kids under a certain age have to go to the adult locker room and they must be accompanied by a parent.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, these people should look at themselves in all honesty and say "Which gender do I really come across as?" and use the appropriate washroom.

Most do exactly that. Though they tend to be more critical about their own looks, and notice the little things that make them look male, even though nobody else notices those things.

The result being that they keep thinking they come across as male until they've been called "ma'am" so many times that it can't be a fluke anymore.

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

Secondly, how do you know he was born in NC and not in a jurisdiction that doesn't permit modification to the birth certificate?

He/she should take up that issue with the state that he's from, not blame other states.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Look, transitioning in many cases the the appropriate and life-saving treatment for people with gender dysphoria. It's not a choice.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Life Site News is a virulently right-wing Evangelical site. And your example is the same as the earlier Daily Caller example: It was a stunt done by a guy specifically to protest protections for transgender people. Further, although the guy was an asshole for doing it, no-one's safety was compromised.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

1) A trans-woman in the women's bathroom is not a threat to anyone's safety.
2) A man pretending to be a woman might be a threat to safety.

The law will change this to:
1) Trans-women in the men's bathroom have their safety threatened by ignorant men
2) Men pretending to be women will carry on causing trouble in women's bathrooms as they won't magically stop harassing women because it's now against another law.

Once you correctly differentiate between trans-women and men pretending to be women the flaws in this law are readily apparent.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Even if I wear gender-neutral clothing, which I do mostly - my daily outfit of choice is jeans + t-shirt - I look like a woman. It's not something I can control.

Furthermore, I don't see why I need to cater to people's irrational fears. If there were actually evidence that these non-discrimination ordinances cause problems, maybe I'd be more sympathetic. But there's no evidence whatsoever.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Yes, I did couch it that way because that's exactly how it is.

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

I agree that consistency is good. The NC law makes it more consistent, not less.

What if the town where you lived decided that you had to use the wrong bathroom?

If that's what they've decided, then it's not the wrong bathroom is it.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

The best solution is the one adopted where I live (Ontario, Canada). In this jurisdiction of over 13 million people, we've had gender identity and gender expression as protected against discrimination for almost 4 years. And since the protection was added in June 2012, there simply have not been problems. Nobody is upset, nobody has abused the rules, and it's just a total non-issue.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety.

Those things are already outlawed. Additional laws are unnecessary and actually take away others' freedom to run their business as they see fit.

You complain about being forced to use the restroom that agrees with the gender you were born with, but are perfectly content forcing others to run their business how you want them to run it, even if it goes against their beliefs or religion. No one is forcing you to visit their business. However, you would still like to force them to your will. Your choice to visit a particular private business absolutely does not trump the freedom of a private business to run their business as they see fit. They own the business, not you. It's their freedom, not yours.

It is this sort of selfish, tyrannical, disrespectful behavior that will continue and deepen the divide between the small minority that is the trans/gay community and the rest of society.

It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.

When we already have laws "protecting" everyone's safety from harassment and assault, which you claim isn't protection enough, how is another law going to protect you? The law is just words on a piece of paper. It's not like a body guard or a gun that can actually prevent such crimes.

If you fear harassment due to your lifestyle choices, you should invest in real protection, not words on a piece of paper that have never protected anyone and, in this case, only serve to take others' freedom away. If your choices put you at risk, that's your problem to navigate, not the rest of society.

Further, I fail to see how harassment is limited to bathrooms. If someone wants to harass you over how you represent your gender, they can and will do that anywhere. This seems more about trans-people forcing their lifestyle on others and sticking it to straighty than any kind of real protection.

Any time you feel the need to trample someone else's freedom in order to further your cause, it's time to rethink your cause and yourself.

Re:two for T

[bkr1_2k]

Marty McFly went back in time. Sure it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".

Arnold Schwarzenegger had a fistfight while flying a Hawker Harrier (I think), with a person hanging onto the nose of said Harrier. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".

Neo was "the one" in a simulated reality where computers controlled the world after an armageddon-like war between computers and humans. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".

Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) saved the President and first son from a North Korean take-over of the white house intended to force a nuclear war. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".

See the problem with your argument? There's plenty that happens in fiction that simply isn't real and would never (or at least have such astronomical odds as to be comical) happen in real life.

More importantly, is it reasonable to restrict the rights of ANYONE based upon the possibility that less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the population (which is 1/3 of the trans population-- an insanel large percentage of trans people to consider likely to act in such ways) are going to be a problem?

As for non-trans people dressing up in order to cause problems, we already have laws against that behavior that don't restrict the rights of anyone else. Why do we need more?

Re: two for T

[Fwipp]

Those are trans men.

Re:two for T

[Merk42]

Nerds get swirlies from bullies in high school. The nerds should go to a bathroom they feel comfortable in. They can't even go into the bathroom of the opposite sex!
A nerd's choice should not be limited between "get arrested", "get swirlied" or "shit their pants".

Re: two for T

[Fwipp]

Only if you were born in NC, and it's not an automatic process either way.

Some states do not ever allow you to amend your birth certificate. Some states allow you to amend your birth certificate without surgery. (And the rules depends on who issued the birth certificate, not what state you currently live in).

Re:two for T

[bkr1_2k]

How the hell did this get modded "interesting"? People deal with getting hit on all the time. Gay people, straight people, men, women, most of the world's population get hit on at some point. Take it as a compliment, tell the person you're not interested (if you aren't) and move on. How is your experience any different than any girl you've tried to chat up in class? What is the slightest bit interesting about being hit on my someone?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The women's safety is not at risk, as all the data show. [mic.com]

Your data show that there is no data on trans people attacking women in bathrooms. However, as you know, that's not actually the concern here. The concern is straight sexual predators hiding behind trans laws to assault women in restrooms. Nice try. Your dishonesty won't win you any converts.

Basically, you're asking me to put myself in real danger in order to avoid other people being made uncomfortable because of ungrounded fear.

I'm asking you to not put yourself in danger, period. With exception to kidnapping, no one is forcing you to visit a private business where you might feel in danger. That's your choice to make or not make. Again, you're just not being honest.

You and your freedom isn't more equal or worth more than your fellow citizen. Once you and yours learn that, maybe we can make some real progress in this area.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Additional laws are unnecessary...

No, laws are necessary. If they weren't, we wouldn't need any civil rights legislation.

...how is another law going to protect you?

In two ways: (1) it's much less risky for a person to use the washroom corresponding to his or her general appearance than the one that doesn't correspond, and (2) the law ensures that people who run establishments and their employees fully understand their responsibilities. There are many instances of transgender people being hassled by security guards who don't know any better.

If you fear harassment due to your lifestyle choices...

If you think being transgender is a "lifestyle choice", you obviously understand nothing about it. It's no more a lifestyle choice than your gender identity or sexual orientation is.

Any time you feel the need to trample someone else's freedom in order to further your cause

How am I trampling someone else's freedom? I present as a woman. Women in public washrooms don't react to me at all (well, OK, one time someone did. She said she really liked my necklace.) So whose freedom am I trampling?

Re:two for T

[Grishnakh]

No, you really don't get it. The more they can rile up their base with this sort of bullshit, the less people pay attention to the graft and corruption -- and even if they do notice, the less likely they are to care.

Exactly. But what's interesting is that the exact same thing is happening on the Democratic side too. Hillary's supporters don't care about all her blatant corruption. The difference is that I can't quite figure out how the Dems have riled up their base to ignore this stuff the way the Reps have with all this anti-gay BS.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

No, he should take issue with North Carolina for passing stupid and harmful legislation. Further, it is not the business of any government (or anyone else, for that matter) to dictate what medical procedures someone should or should not have.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

I do support separate single-use washrooms. Not for transgender people, but for anyone who is paranoid about encountering a transgender person in the washroom. Let the irrationally-fearful people request special accommodation.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Asshole pervs can already dress up as women, and if they're convincing enough, they won't be challenged.

Furthermore, is it right to say: "Oh sorry, we cannot grant you civil rights because criminals might abuse that." Apply this thinking to gun laws ("We can't allow you to carry a gun because criminals might abuse that right.") and see how the NC Republicans react.

Re: two for T

[Fwipp]

I'll just ask everyone around me what gender they perceive me as before I enter the bathroom, then? "Hey y'all, sorry to interrupt your meal, could I get your attention please? I need to use the bathroom and I just need a show of hands - men's or women's?"

I just hope the people already in the bathroom agree with the people outside, so that they don't holler at me when I walk in.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

A handful of cases, out of more than ten thousand sexual assaults in Ontario per year. And U of T may have stopped having gender-neutral bathrooms, but their bathrooms are still for male-identified and female-identified people. They have to be, because that is the law on Ontario.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

So, it's common sense for this guy, a transgender man, to be forced to use the ladies' room?

Re: two for T

[Fwipp]

TERFs intentionally generalize violence committed by cis men to "violence committed by males", insist that trans women are male, and make the unfounded conclusion that trans women are as likely to commit violence against cis women as cis men are.

Sexual violence (by men) doesn't come from the penis - it comes from the social conditioning that men are taught, particularly the conflation of violence with masculinity, male dominance, and male sexuality.

Re: two for T

[dskoll]

The American College of Pediatricians is a right-wing shill group with perhaps 200 members. The real pediatricians' organization in the United States is the American Academy of Pediatricians, with around 60,000 members and which supports transition as an appropriate intervention for transgender people.

Re:two for T

[kheldan]

Oh my, I see the ignorant bigots of Slashdot have decided to use their moderation points. What's the matter, truth hurt too much?

Re:two for T

[dave420]

Convenience of argument.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy. This tired old argument. I mean, it's great that you passed your highschool science class with a C and all, but if you're going to try to use some vaguely remembered info from then to make a scientific point, you might want to make sure that science actually has your back first.

1) You're confusing sex and gender
2) You're asserting that sex is defined by chromosomes; while a good indicator, this does not work in many cases
3) You're not taking into account the other 99.9999% of the picture and instead focusing on something ridiculous, for which there are known medically accepted and scientifically-backed disorders which will, in fact, result in chromosomes not matching expected either sex or gender.

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

Re: two for T

[evilbessie]

Right, that same social conditioning that transwomen had, you know the whole having grown up with a penis thing, large percentages of transpeople never do any hormone therapy let alone other options, so you should account for these, a transwoman who has no hormone therapy is a man except by self classification, you seem to want to gloss over this. However pointing out that socialisation is the cause of violence isn't the best foundation for your argument about transwomen (who will have had male socialisation) not exhibiting same violence tendencies as men.

Also not 'cis', no need for a classification of everybody who is not trans, I do not have a label for being not-diabetic or not-anorexic, women/men and transwomen/transmen does perfectly well. Being as vaginas (and penises/prostates) are a thing which medically needs to be looked after and the incubator/inseminator is a useful division, from a medical point of view.

The whole notion of masculinity and it's very narrowly defined ideas is more of an issue, as is male violence.

Just in case you were wondering I am male born with a penis and have questioned myself much over the years, that blog helped me see a different opinions on this. I can see merit in radical feminism, that beyond has penis/has vagina (and associated issues with those) gender really shouldn't mean anything, you want to wander round in a dress, it shouldn't be limited to those who have vaginas, want to go get shot at in war, shouldn't require a penis.

Conflating the social construct of gender with the biologic reality of gender is not helpful for society. It harms both women and men by making us fit into boxes.

And I would remind you that as always people are awful.

Re:two for T

[Raenex]

I reject that there is no choice. People put up with all kinds of bullshit they don't like about their life or restraints on their desires. For example, if somebody is attracted to children that doesn't mean they are free to act on their impulses.

Also, I wonder if you've seen the video The Transgender: Normalizing MENTAL ILLNESS, and what you think of the arguments it makes.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You declared that female markers would be found. I showed you that this is somewhere between "maybe not" and extremely unlikely.

Re: two for T

[silentcoder]

Fair point. But when has "it worked great in Canada" ever convinced Amercans to try anything? If it ever worked America would have at least one off: universal healthcare, gun control or nice people.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

They would look at your DNA?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

"Share the locker room shower with a penis"

Yeah, I would say they are taken by fear. Not that it's wrong, I would be afraid of a giant penis too.

Oh we're not talking about that? We're talking about people who might happen to have a penis? That complicates things... I guess my question is why the fuck is everyone so afraid of a penis anyway...

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

No they do not and it does not. Talk about fear mongering.... and IF CIS-men are champing at the bit to kill men in a dresses there is no helping it. They are allowed in the girls bathroom too. They would just kill them there instead.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Dysphoria is only one small subset of gender reassignment surgery. The majority are either physiological malformations or chromosomal disorders.

Re: two for T

[valdezjuan]

Transgender != dude in a wig and a bra. There seems to be a handful of reported cases where someone is a sexual predator and claims to be transgender at a later date. None of this addresses the problem associated with same sex predators from attacking & molesting children in bathrooms and shelters. Since we are doing this for the children after all...oh wait, there are already laws against rape, secretly recording people, molesting children, etc.. As a victim of molestation myself, I can tell you that I don't think, nor treat, all woman as sex offenders. Just like I don't judge entire groups of people based on the actions of a few. So I can't see any reason I would treat transgendered men/woman any different.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I like your idea with the children judges. maybe we have a hit TV show on our hands,..

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Additional laws are unnecessary...

No, laws are necessary. If they weren't, we wouldn't need any civil rights legislation.

I very clearly said "additional" laws are unnecessary. I never said laws, in general, are unnecessary. More dishonesty.

Regarding civil rights legislation, much of it was unnecessary as well -- even beyond unnecessary -- as it forced private businesses to operate a certain way and encroached on the freedom of citizens to run their private business as they see fit. So-called anti-discrimination laws, don't eliminate discrimination. Instead, they simply shift who's being discriminated against and make the government, and the people represented by the government, into the discriminators.

...how is another law going to protect you?

(1) it's much less risky for a person to use the washroom corresponding to his or her general appearance than the one that doesn't correspond

We need not legislate your comfort. Again, if someone actually lays hands on you, we have laws for that.

(2) the law ensures that people who run establishments and their employees fully understand their responsibilities. There are many instances of transgender people being hassled by security guards who don't know any better.

In a free society, their responsibilities are largely defined by them. It's their business -- their rules.

If they only allow people in bathrooms that agree with their biological gender, that's their choice. If they only allow people in bathrooms that agree with their appeared gender, that's their choice. If they provide only gender nuetral bathrooms or some gender neutral bathrooms, that's their choice. If they provide no bathrooms, that's their choice.

Notice a common theme here? Their business, their rules, their choice.

If you think being transgender is a "lifestyle choice", you obviously understand nothing about it. It's no more a lifestyle choice than your gender identity or sexual orientation is.

I didn't say that. Try not to put words in my mouth. Regardless of what anyone thinks about whether being trans or gender-confused is a lifestyle choice (I tend to respectfully think it's a mental disorder), how trans people act and present themselves in society is what I primarily meant by "lifestyle choices". One can be trans, but not advertise it to the rest of society. I'm not saying all trans people have to live this way, but if you fear harassment for being trans, you must have the courage and means to face your fear.

As I suggested before, you should invest in protection if you feel in danger. The risk you claim isn't limited to the bathroom, which is where your logic on this point breaks down.

Any time you feel the need to trample someone else's freedom in order to further your cause

How am I trampling someone else's freedom?

Here it is again for you:

You complain about being forced to use the restroom that agrees with the gender you were born with, but are perfectly content forcing others to run their business how you want them to run it, even if it goes against their beliefs or religion. No one is forcing you to visit their business. However, you would still like to force them to your will. Your choice to visit a particular private business absolutely does not trump the freedom of a private business to run their business as they see fit. They own the business, not you. It's their freedom, not yours.

I present as a woman. . . . in public washrooms . . . whose freedom am I trampling?

You trample your fellow citizens' freedom when, through government, you force them to run their private business how you want them to run it. Provided you use others' property as they've asked you to u

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Arseholes come in many, many alignments and persuasions and permeate our culture. Lets ban THEM from using any bathroom, because the last thing you want to see, in a bathroom, is an arsehole...

You're right but if you ban assholes then you would be banning the assholes that voted this bill in. Then where would the politicians go?

Yes if your going to place a ban on people then let's do ban assholes. The world then would be a better place an laws like this would never come to vote.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

According to North Carolina they are women and so have to use the women's restroom. Clearly must be no such thing as "trans", God made 2 genders Man and Woman says right there in the bible.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell are you supposed to police this at all?? "Stop right there! You look a bit masculine, ma'am, so I'm going to have to administer a genital inspection. Lose those panties and lets see what you got!".

The whole law is idiotic and quite frankly embarrassing.

Re:two for T

[Grishnakh]

I disagree: that's doing it wrong too. Why should you be able to easily see the feet of the person sitting in a stall? Who came up with that utterly stupid idea anyway? Does it really save that much money to not extend the partition all the way to the floor?

But yeah, those gaps in the doors are stupid too.

Instead of passing laws about who can go in which bathroom, the NC legislature should pass a law banning shitty bathroom partitions. I'd be all in favor of that. And make it retroactive too: require ALL public bathrooms to install proper partitions within 3 months, or face heavy fines. It was their own stupid idea to install those cheap-ass partitions, so no, they don't deserve a break or to be "grandfathered". Fuck 'em. As a bonus, this would spur a lot of economic activity and support for blue-collar workers, as it'd force countless businesses to have to hire people to redo their bathrooms in very short order. Imagine the huge rates construction crews could charge for this, with the giant demand.

Re: two for T

[fche]

"Once you correctly differentiate ..."

Operationally, how does one do that?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen that video, and the arguments are pretty easy to put down ->

* Does being blind negatively affect your ability to function in society? Yes
* Does living as a cat negatively affect your ability to function in society? Yes
* Does living as a 6 year old negatively affect your ability to function in society? Yes
* Does living as a woman negatively affect your ability to function in society? No

How can something that doesn't negatively affect your ability to function in society be a mental illness? (well, one impediment to normal live trans people suffer are laws like this!)

The statistics the video quotes are also extremely dishonest, they compare post-op transsexual suicide rates to the general population, ignoring the high pre-op transsexual suicide rate (I've had trouble tracking down figures but one study suggests pre-op suicide rate as slightly higher than post-op).

Ultimately sexual reassignment surgery may be over-prescribed (wouldn't be the first medical procedure to be) but most of the video is just plain bull.

Re:two for T

[lactose99]

You mean the fact that now no NC municipality can raise the minimum wage above the state-mandated $7.25?

Re: two for T

[KenHansen]

The fear that drives this is utterly unfounded as well - there has literally never, ever been a single case of a man raping a woman who dressed as woman - it is borderline impossible for it to happen.

Right, a man has never raped a woman dressed as a woman...

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that your solution is to show penises to children. I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to say it in a painfully blunt way :).

I think you did a nice job of explaining the opposing viewpoints and not just dismissing one whole side as bigots or crazies.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey if the majority wanted to bring back segregated schools and restaurants would that be a-ok too? "Get to the back of the bus, blackie!"

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah he's right, I have pictures.

Re: two for T

[KenHansen]

It makes no sense to change gender/sex on birth certificate - the birth certificate is a record of you at birth - do people go back and amend their birth certificates to reflect their new weight or height? I think this birth certificate issue is a non-issue - are ther bathroom attendants that are requiring people using a bathroom to prove their sex/gender with a birth certificate?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

As a reluctant Democratic voter, it's only because the Republicans are worse. I consider not doing things to rile up the base to be better than riling up the base.

I generally vote third party in Presidential elections anyway, because my state is not a swing state.

Re:two for T

[Scroatzilla]

Here's more info on that guy, Paul R. McHugh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Seems that his research frequently nicely supports a religious-right agenda.

Re: two for T

[KenHansen]

Ever seen what happens when a trans-women walks into the bathroom "equipped for people with dicks" ? They tend to end up bleeding... or dead.

What?! If I'm at a sporting event in the men's room and someone walks in that "presents" as a male, no one need know or care what they actually have between their legs - it's a non-issue. Same for the women's room - if someone walks in and "presents" as a female, no one cares. However, if someone that "presents" as a male walks into the ladies room, the women will flee, complain, perhaps physically assault the man as a defensive measure - same in the men's room if someone that "presents" as a female walks in. I don't know what deranged fantasy-world where you live in where the men's bathrooms are littered with the rotting corpses of dead transgendered people, but here in the real-world people don't get killed for entering the 'wrong' bathroom.

Re:two for T

[Jesus_666]

The floor and ceiling gaps actually have a function. Firstly, they allow for better airflow, which is obviously a good thing in a public restroom. Secondly, the floor gaps in particular allow toilet paper to be passed around without having to open the door.

As for your law: Principally yes but I'd give them more time to avoid the construction companies getting too swamped. You could write a three month deadline into the law and advertise your bill a few months before it's signed into law. That might work.

Re:two for T

[The-Ixian]

I think this is the solution as well.

I mean, think of the portal toilet you see at construction sites or wherever. They are not gender/sex specific but nobody is up in arms about those because they are private.

If bathrooms are built with privacy in mind instead of the stupid permeable walls in gender/sex specific bathrooms, then the problem solves itself.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with your penis? Just grow up a little. Boys have a penis, girls a vagina. That's the nature. Boy and girls may be naked without issue in the same room, even sleep in the same bed. Only a perverted brain think otherwise. In many country that's just like that and this normal. Nothing wrong about sharing a sauna, or an hot spring.

We are just animals. Never forget that. Clever one sometimes, but just animals. Being naked is in our nature.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. You deserve it. You and your ill are desperately trying to tear society down so you can jack off in a dress and demand respect for it, and convince little kids to mutilate their genitals too. Tranny should be committed is asylums, not encouraged to live out their idiocy with legal protection.

Re:two for T

[david_thornley]

Actually, transgenders are a small minority who just want to be left alone to do their own business, just like everyone else, and who don't want to be at considerable risk of being physically and possibly sexually assaulted if they have to pee. When "allowing them to exist harmlessly and safely" is called "accommodation", we've got problems.

Re:two for T

[david_thornley]

Are you saying I should have to have my birth certificate on me if I have to pee?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. You either have a Y chromosome or you don't. Label the two doors accordingly. In practice that might prove a difficult distinction to enforce so have two room "Penis" and "No Penis"

Re: two for T

[sumdumass]

I said it would be found in their dna. I was very specific. Are you suggesting that chromosomes is inside the dna?

Re:two for T

[sumdumass]

Wow. . Where to start.
Sex is synonymous with gender - especially in this informal context. You certainly were not confused.

No, I am not saying sex is defined by chromosomes. I'm saying sex or gender can be derived from DNA and no amount of surgery or hormones will change that. Go ahead and check, I specifically pointed to DNA.

Finally, again you are arguing Apple while the argument is about cars.The 99.9 whatever you want to think is completely irrelevant.

Re:two for T

[EndlessNameless]

"Going to the restroom" isn't an inherently dangerous situation. Rapists, peepers, and bigots make it that way---women, children, and trans people are not the assholes here.

Maybe we should just switch to unisex bathrooms and be done with it. It works for other places in the world.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a special right for me to use the washroom that pretty much everyone who glances at me will agree is the correct one to use.

Take you're own advice and be done with it then:

. . . can already dress up as women, and if they're convincing enough, they won't be challenged.

Problem solved right?

Furthermore, is it right to say: "Oh sorry, we cannot grant you civil rights because criminals might abuse that."

No, it's not right to say that. Of course, that's not what's being said either. Instead, they are saying business owners should have the right to provide whatever bathroom services they want to provide because it's their business. Try to keep it straight.

This is the classic strawman presented with this "argument". If I can't tell you how to run your business, you've violated by civil rights. If I can't (INSERT DEMAND HERE), you've violated my civil rights. (INSERT DEMAND HERE) should be a human right. And on, and on, and on. It get's to be where you've made a joke out what actual human and civil rights should be. That's the left for you, though.

Apply this thinking to gun laws ("We can't allow you to carry a gun because criminals might abuse that right.") and see how the NC Republicans react.

I'm glad to hear you are pro-gun. Not enough of your persuasion are. Good for you! Now maybe you can defend yourself from the endless bathroom harassers that you apparently encounter.

Re:two for T

[Grishnakh]

I live in a swing state. I'm so disgusted by Hillary (and her supporters) that I'm going to vote for Trump if the race is between her and him.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, it is not the business of any government (or anyone else, for that matter) to dictate what medical procedures someone should or should not have.

Really? But, it's perfectly fine for the government to tell a business owner how to run their business? You must love Obamacare for this, by the way.

I love it. Now all of the sudden you are a libertarian. Liberals have only one guiding principle -- selfishness. If it benefits them in the situation, they are for it. If it doesn't, they are against it. Freedom and fellow-citizens be damned.

Re:two for T

[Grishnakh]

Secondly, the floor gaps in particular allow toilet paper to be passed around without having to open the door.

WTF? Who actually does this? Most decent restrooms these days have the toilet paper locked up in a dispenser anyway.

For my law, I'd first consult with the construction companies to make sure they don't get too swamped, but I do like the idea of them charging very high rates because of the huge demand and the likely need for long overtime hours. If construction workers have to work their asses off until midnight every night for a few months, but they get paid enough to take a 3-month vacation to Europe, send their kids to college, and pay their mortgages off on all the money they make, that sounds great to me. If all the businesses don't like it because it's going to cost a fortune, they can buy themselves some power tools and put their useless managers and executives to work doing it themselves, otherwise too bad: they shouldn't have been cheap-asses.

And airflow can be fixed with fans and vents: put some vents in at the floor (which pass air, but can't be seen through because of baffling) and put some exhaust fans in. Too many public restrooms don't have adequate ventilation anyway, and those gaps don't make up for it.

Re:two for T

[SJester]

"literally never, ever been a single case of a man raping a woman who dressed as woman" Just noting that you probably meant "case of a man raping a woman while dressed as a woman" or "a man, dressed as a woman, raping a woman." Can't think of a better way to parse it, but as you have it now I thought it meant "a woman dressed as a woman."

Re:two for T

[bhiestand]

No, you really don't get it. The more they can rile up their base with this sort of bullshit, the less people pay attention to the graft and corruption -- and even if they do notice, the less likely they are to care.

Exactly. But what's interesting is that the exact same thing is happening on the Democratic side too. Hillary's supporters don't care about all her blatant corruption. The difference is that I can't quite figure out how the Dems have riled up their base to ignore this stuff the way the Reps have with all this anti-gay BS.

AC already answered this but: point towards the Republicans and label more progressive candidates as "unelectable".

I'd prefer an honest politician, like Warren or Sanders. I'll swallow most of my values and vote for Hillary because she's the lesser of two evils by an order of magnitude. Just like I'd take G W Bush over Hitler.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you are, but for those of us in California USA, the water consumption difference is pretty substantial. I would rather have urinals.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.

Not a problem. They would just have Jesus cure them of the gay.

Re:two for T

[EvilAlphonso]

What do you think of the other riders in HB2?

Rider 1: no local ordinance can increase the minimum wage above the state level. (part 2 of HB2)

Rider 2: you are no longer allowed to sue in a NC court for discrimination-related matters. (part 3 of HB2)

Re:two for T

[obscuro]

Millions? Do the T's really number in the millions?

The New York Times had an article about the difficulties of estimating the number of transgender people. The estimate they came up with from various studies was 700,000 people in the US (between .2% and .3% of the population). NYT 700,000 Transgender Article.

As a point of comparison, there are 1.8 million Muslim adults in the US (and 2.75 million people - lots of kids). I quote the adult population because it was easy to find and the transgender population is pretty much all adult. There are 5.3 million jews in the US.

Compare that to 14 million asians, 38 million black people, 55 million latinos, and 256 million caucasians.

2 or 3 people per thousand is a pretty small minority but it's not infinitesimal. Assuming the NYT decided to tell the truth (not a guarantee), every major retailer in the US interacts with several transgender people per day. That's enough people to form a minority class that merit some special protections.

While the American SJW industry thrives on blowing things out of proportion, this is not an issue that is so rare that it hardly exists. Whether its a large enough issues to change our expectations of who we'll encounter in a public bathroom is a question that isn't so simple if you look at raw demographics. It get's clearer when you look at other factors.

Transgender people face a remarkable level of violence compared to other populations. That fact alone demands a certain amount of urgency. If allowing them to use a bathroom consistent with their appearance can reduce violent encounters for this minority, it seems like a relatively small sacrifice. Of course, I'm a college educated, urban, non-practicing Catholic, cis-gendered, white collar dude from California. If I was the test for these kinds of things they'd sell weed at Walgreens.

Re:two for T

[silentcoder]

I realized the ambiguity later on, but it was unintentional - and I would hope that, in the context, it would be obvious which meaning was intended. I don't think anybody would claim that women could avoid being raped by dressing as women.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

The link I posted referred to any and all problems with the ordinances, including non-transgender people pretending to be transgender. Did you miss some of the quotes from officials in states with transgender protection laws?

"No problems since passage of 2011 law." - Las Vegas Police Department

"Has not resulted in increased sexual assault". - William Hoshiijo, Executive Director of Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

"No factual bases for sexual assault fears." - Amy Snierson, executive director of Maine Human RIghts Commission

Sexual assaults stemming from law "Not even remotely a problem" - John Elder, Minneapolis police spokesman.

no one is forcing you to visit a private business where you might feel in danger

Exactly the argument recycled by previous generations opposing civil rights, though with a different targeted vulnerable group.

You and your freedom isn't more equal or worth more than your fellow citizen

Precisely. But my right to safety is more important than other people's right to comfort which is what this ultimately boils down to.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Pedophiles harm other people. So society has no choice but to stop them from acting on their impulses.

The fact that I live as a woman harms absolutely no-one.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

There are a lot of silly things in your reply; I don't have time to address them all. But I think the basic point boils down to this:

You trample your fellow citizens' freedom when, through government, you force them to run their private business how you want them to run it.

There is no absolute right to run a private business however you like. Once you start a business that caters to the public, you are subject to non-discrimination rules. That's how our society works. If you don't like it, you're free not to start a business, or you're free to move somewhere without any civil rights legislation, though curiously... those places are typically correlated with highly unfavorable business environments.

With respect to other's beliefs, you write you must respect the differing opinions and beliefs others hold as if they were your own which is clearly nonsensical. There are people out there who think that I should be killed because I'm transgender, and they sincerely hold this belief. That is not a belief worthy of respect.

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

But, it's perfectly fine for the government to tell a business owner how to run their business?

Yes, clearly it is.

The government has absolutely no right to tell a private person: "You can't be racist."

The government has an absolute right to tell a business owner: "You cannot discriminate on the basis of race."

Re:two for T

[dskoll]

Problem solved right?

No, not at all. In NC, I still risk being outed and seen as a lawbreaker. And just because I'm very lucky and come across as female, that doesn't mean other transgender women shouldn't have the same rights. "Oh sorry, you can't have the same rights because you look funny."

The whole thing about "running a business" is nonsensical. Businesses are not people and they have to obey non-discrimination laws; our society has obviously decided that the social good of non-discrimination laws outweighs the rights of business owners to do whatever they want.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The link I posted referred to any and all problems with the ordinances, including non-transgender people pretending to be transgender. Did you miss some of the quotes from officials in states with transgender protection laws?

First, you and the article claimed there is data/statistics about how no trans people have attacked women in restrooms. I simply wanted to point out that isn't the concern. Not to mention, maybe the reason there are no stats is because no one is tracking them.

Second, most of the quotes are from advocacy groups friendly to the trans/gay cause rather than law enforcement. Without comparing the laws and quotes they are referring to, the quotes are completely out of context and, therefore, mostly useless.

Third, despite the false claim in your article that "there are zero reported cases of this happening", the Charlotte Observer disagrees, as they have indeed found some cases. See below.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article70255967.html

Regardless, this should be the property owners' choice, not the government's.

no one is forcing you to visit a private business where you might feel in danger

Exactly the argument recycled by previous generations opposing civil rights, though with a different targeted vulnerable group.

Yes, freedom is a timeless concept. Unfortunately, so is tyranny.

You and your freedom isn't more equal or worth more than your fellow citizen

Precisely. But my right to safety is more important than other people's right to comfort which is what this ultimately boils down to.

What it actually boils down to is you have no right to anything on another person's property. It's their property, not yours. You predictably and willfully continue to ignore this devastating point.

Again, if you feel unsafe somewhere, you should simply not put yourself in that position. Either bring protection or avoid the danger. If a business you frequent makes you feel unsafe or doesn't seem to cater to your needs, simply stop frequenting that business. That's how freedom works.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that the very use of Germanic words is vulgar, whilst those derived from language of Romance-speaking invaders is fine?

How very Roman of you.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you didn't stop. Why did you whistle, Leon?

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Your preference would be to find yourself standing at a urinal, cock in hand while a pre op trangender person fixes her make up in the mirror behind you? Just because she hasn't had the work done yet?

I'm a very liberal person and am very against this law, but I would still find that situation uncomfortable.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

In an Ebola outbreak, pretty much everyone will disagree with that.

Re:two for T

[Grishnakh]

I'll elect Trump over Hillary, because again, I'd take GW Bush over Hitler.

Re:two for T

[Ol Olsoc]

pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.

Not a problem. They would just have Jesus cure them of the gay.

Poe! Actually, I'm pretty sure you are being sarcastic, but some folks would give that answer.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bull pussy! Being gay isn't a trend or a phase you'll grow out of. You're still stuck in the 1800s. Did you pray your gay away today?

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

And you just keep doubling down on the dumbass as usually. Does your bigotry make you sleep better at night?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

So stop murdering the trannies you psychopath!

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In fact if you counted up all the trannies in the world you wouldn't hit a mil.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever seen what happens when a trans-women walks into the bathroom "equipped for people with dicks" ? They tend to end up bleeding... or dead.

Worst. Counterargument. Ever.

You're literally saying that the only reason trans-women are safe in the women's bathroom is because women are unable or unwilling to defend themselves from an unwanted intruder. That's an argument for more women carrying pepper spray or being armed more than anything else.

Re:two for T

[LinuxIsGarbage]

In my opinion, these people should look at themselves in all honesty and say "Which gender do I really come across as?" and use the appropriate washroom. That should be the basis of the law, not actual gender, not the persons inner feeling or belief in which gender they identify as but WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SEE.

And thats the thing that really strikes me about this whole kerfuffle; the transgender community come across as horrifically selfish and self-centered. They don't give a fuck about anyone elses feelings, they seem to believe they are the only people whose feelings matter and thus their gender dysmorphia issues are being forced on everyone else as a gigantic, earth-shaking issue.

To these people I'd have to say "Get a grip, think about other people for a change. You aren't an island. Use whichever washroom isn't going to attract attention. And stop being attention whores."

The problem is the transition isn't overnight. It won't be one day you obviously look like a man, and the next day you obviously look like a woman.

As it is, without any laws, bathroom usage usually causes a lot of internal anxiety to transmen and transwomen, particularly early in the process. Usually to the point that finding unisex bathrooms, or waiting to go at home are preferred options.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, a man has never raped a woman dressed as a woman...

I don't think what is being discussed there has been "a woman dressed as a woman" who has been raped (obviously there have been), but whether male rapists dress as women.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

[I]f someone that "presents" as a male walks into the ladies room, the women will flee, complain, perhaps physically assault the man as a defensive measure - same in the men's room if someone that "presents" as a female walks in.

So if a transwoman is made to use a men's toilet, because still has a dick, she is liable to be assaulted (as a "defensive measure"). That's what OP said!

I put it to you that the high frequency with which transwomen are subject to violence occasioning bodily harm and death (even outside men's toilets) is hardly ever the result of defence.

Re:two for T

[Raenex]

You are the one making claims of danger, not me.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You're literally saying that the only reason trans-women are safe in the women's bathroom is because women are unable or unwilling to defend themselves from an unwanted intruder.

No they are not "literally" saying that. They are not even saying (or writing) it non-literally. Very clearly, they are saying that because so many men beat the fuck out of transwomen, a transwoman would be placed in peril were she required to use a male toilet. Nothing at all to do with what women do in womens toilets.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem ( with OP's position ) arises if you have a dick, but are in various other ways (clothing, body shape, etc.) presenting as a woman. [Emphasis added for those in a perceptually compromised state of mind]

the law goes by whats on your birth certificate in NC you can get your sex changed on your BC

Oh, I thought you had to be post-op to get that done. But it's beside the point in any case.

so no, the NC law isnt actually even doing what they are bitching about

You stayed off the ganja long enought to work that one out? Gr8! I was answering somone who asked, somewhat foolishly I thought, who claims she used to have a dick but no longer does, where she would go under a scheme proposed by AC above, to wit "if you have a dick, use the men's toilet". Very bloody obviously I was not bitching about what NC law is doing.

Re:two for T

[rtkluttz]

If every one had left it the way it was, I would have had no opinion on it and wouldn't have had to even know it. But by Charlotte forcing everyones hand with an overbroad law, then yes, if there is an overbroad law then it needs to err on the side of caution.

Re: two for T

[sumdumass]

When science and reality makes someone a bigot, I suggest the problem is elsewhere. Perhaps it is with you or this unscientific fantasy of mutilated bodies in order to pretend to change sex.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

Probably because his version of yaoi is lame and not funny like how they did it on South Park.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

Point is gay vs non gay has nothing to do with it and maybe you should have been more assertive, god known I have told people to shut their fucking pie hole and never talk to me.

Why? I prefer to have an easy going attitude towards anybody I meet in person, that way when they cross the line there's no question who is at fault. I used to do things your way, and it doesn't do you any long term favors.

Re:two for T

[ArmoredDragon]

Look, if he was harassing you - then you had a legitimate reason to complain

I didn't complain to anybody, essentially how it played out is I just ignored him. I think the social justice warriors grossly misinterpreted the narrative I painted in that post. The message was to say that they aren't inherently dangerous, rather the worst they can do is be very annoying. I'm sure you've probably seen Richard Simmons on TV before -- That's basically as bad as it gets. Most of the time though, you won't even know they're there.

But, of course, social justice warriors can't have that. If I did anything less than go all Craig X Tweek on this guy, then it's because I'm obviously homophobic and I should not have been allowed to graduate because I'm just not PC enough.

Re:two for T

[dave420]

You might not be the best person to have this discussion, as you seem prone to making sweeping generalisations based on the scantest of evidence. "The leftists"? You can speak for all their intentions and imaginations? No. You can't. I wonder what other logical nonsense you entertain when attempting to understand the world around you... It must be terrifying.

Re:two for T

[Alien among you]

Let those mentally ill people use whatever bathroom they want....

in Bellview or Arkham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: two for T

[righteousness]

http://www.manchestereveningne...

Now I'm waiting for you to provide a link to that zombie apocalypse.

Re: two for T

[silentcoder]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

There are numerous similar fungi that affect various animals. One over time replaces all the cells of an infected tarantula's body yet keeps going. Its at least within the realm of possibility that one could evolve that infects mamals, kills the brain and controls the body to spread itself. Highly unlikely... but plausible.

Re:two for T

[myowntrueself]

The problem is the transition isn't overnight. It won't be one day you obviously look like a man, and the next day you obviously look like a woman.

As it is, without any laws, bathroom usage usually causes a lot of internal anxiety to transmen and transwomen, particularly early in the process. Usually to the point that finding unisex bathrooms, or waiting to go at home are preferred options.

I can understand that. Early in the process they just look like transvestites. I mean, look at Jenner. Ok in still photos with lots of work he looks female but when you see him move its all elbows and shoulders and totally looks like a guy.

I sympathise with the washroom issue but at the same time forcing this down the throats of other people also isn't cool so wtf does society do? I guess add new washrooms "gender indeterminate" or something.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure the only thing keeping creepy men who want to follow little girls into the bathroom is the letter of the law...

Re: two for T

[righteousness]

So you're saying that a zombie apocalypse is highly unlikely, but plausible? So it has not happened yet. But, I've shown that a man raping a woman who dressed as woman HAS happened. So you were wrong to say that a zombie apocalypse is more likely than that rape scenario.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

No one should have to accomodate other people neuroses. If you're a man, you're a man. If you're not, you're not. Don't avoid responsibility for your actions. If you choose to be a man who pretends to be a woman, you're still a man. Vice versa.

Re: two for T

[silentcoder]

According to the link you shared that was a transvestite. It's clear from the article that the guilty person has been out as transgender for a long time.

Ergo - this rapist was not a man, it was in no way related to the supposed threat you're using it as an example off. This was a rape by a transgender person - which, in fact, would make it an example of lesbian rape.

Now I'm sure some transgender people can be rapists, they are far more likely to be rape victims - but it's obviously possible - you get assholes in every gender and sex, but it does absolutely nothing to support the baseless fears that was used to justify horrifying injustice of a law.

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of places are you going to, where people are routinely assaulted in bathrooms?

Re:two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll elect Trump over Hillary, because again, I'd take GW Bush over Hitler.

Huh? Hitler wasn't a woman.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have a problem reading the previous post and understanding my comment on it.

No they have a problem distinguishing superimplication from subimplication. Mind you logical thought is one of the very first things that go once someone has on of their phobias triggered.

Re:two for T

[stdarg]

Yes. Self-segregation occurs very often already. Also there are already gender segregated schools.

Why do you think segregation is bad?

Re:two for T

[Jarik C-Bol]

I never said that, I said based on their outward appearance, only the most pedantic interpretation of that phrase concludes it results in nudity. The common use interpretation would be the appearance they present to the public normally. Now, if their normal, going to the grocery store appearance involves an exposed penis, then they already have a problem.

Re:two for T

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I am pretty easy going too but sometimes there are those few people who just can't stop being ass holes and need to hear that. I've told that to probably 5 or 6 people in my life so it isn't like it is a regular occurrence but sometimes it is justified. This is probably also about the number of fights I have gotten in to as well but they were never with the people I told to shut their pie hole and I never did start a fight. Some people need to be told to shut up and some people need to have their asses kicked but the vast majority of people need neither.

Re: two for T

[righteousness]

It is clear from the article that the rapist was a transvestite, i.e. a man dressed as a woman, not a transgender. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong and move on?

Re:two for T

[Bathroom Humor]

I think teaching kids not to be immediately terrified of the genitals of other humans is probably a better choice in this situation. Sometimes it makes sense for a middle school kid of be afraid of a particular naked person, but putting such an enormous taboo on sex and the human body in every instance does not help anybody except people with a puritan mindset.

Re: two for T

[Fwipp]

Protip: The reason you're uncomfortable with being labeled "cis" is likely because you're transer than you think. Most cis people don't spend much time wondering if they're trans. http://amitransgender.com/

Re: two for T

[silentcoder]

The article is using an out-of-date terminology that you are choosing to assign a meaning to that it doesn't have and never had. There is no such thing as a transvestite. It was an incorrect term when it was first coined and there is nobody it reasonably applies to.
Straight men with a fetish for female clothing ? Not a pathology, nothing wrong with it, doesn't need a term.
Male genitaled people who are actually women ? That would be transgender.

There is no such thing as a transvestite.

So the question becomes - which of the two groups that word was previously used for applies to THIS scenario ? Upon reading the article - transgender seems by far the most likely (cross-dressing men generally tend to keep their hobby secret and rarely go public with it - just like most other fetishists).

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is no such thing as a transvestite.

I have it on good authority that they exist on the planet of Transsexual, in the galaxy of Transylvania.

And some of them are sweet!

Re:two for T

[NotAPK]

Most amazing 1st world toilets I ever used, were down at the beach in Los Angeles (sorry, I can't recall which one, all I remember was that there was a long pier) and the men's stalls were cut down half way. Yup, everyone shitting was all out in the open, it was amazing, and made me feel like I was in a small village in south-east Asia. Unbelievable!

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

You've failed to account for people with XX chromosomes that were born intersex and assigned male sex at birth. And what about XXY? Do they use the XX or XY bathroom? How about XXYY? All actual things that affect actual people.

Funnily enough, all the bathrooms in my house are unisex and it hasn't caused the world to end.

Re: two for T

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS. Go and talk to a developmental biologist who specialises in sex development and you'll soon find out how wrong you are. Phenotype and karyotype cannot be predicted with 100% certainty from genotype, particularly once you get away from simple XX/XY states.

Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone from NC care to confirm this?
No business imposes a "blackout" on customers. I'll believe their claim, only if verified.

Re:Confirmed?

[cdsparrow]

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.

Re:Confirmed?

[Pfhorrest]

Interesting. So is the summary merely incorrect about the IP-blocking, or did someone from the site themselves put out incorrect info?

Re:Confirmed?

[Qzukk]

Eh, it'd be more interesting if you answered yes and it locked you into a version of the site that only had videos of a married couple having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation (not even a money shot at the end).

Re:Confirmed?

[Oligonicella]

As the law doesn't prohibit sex *not* for procreation nor specifies a specific position, your argument doesn't count. Besides, Wifey is hot.

Re:Confirmed?

[QRDeNameland]

IMHO, it would be way more appropriate to let in the people who answer "yes", but then only show them tranny porn.

Re:Confirmed?

[Pseudonym]

I checked it out [...]

Hey, man, I know must have been hard for you, but thanks for taking one for the team!

Re:Confirmed?

[taustin]

And end with the childbirth video, followed by bible school for the young child, explaining that he'll burn in hell if he ever touches a boobie he's not married to.

Re:Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"lol" isn't punctuation and using it as such makes one look like a retard.

In fact, using it anywhere at all makes one look like a moron - at best.

Re:Confirmed?

[Ryanrule]

Now imagine the average nc porn viewer. Or dont, thats nasty. But they are not figuring that out.

Re:Confirmed?

[Cramer]

Or his own wiener. (or anyone else's for that matter -- except in cases of emergency, or by a licensed medical practitioner as part of a necessary medical procedure... and even then you must wear gloves and repeat aloud, "OMG, this is icky.")

Re:Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law doesn't prohibit any kind of sex, but it defines people with crazy religious beliefs including the cited ones as a class deserving of more protection than the people these discriminate against. So I think GP has a point. But make sure people are not watching these videos for gratification (or even self-abuse!) but only to learn what to do in their wedding night.

Re:Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a trap!

Re:Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:Confirmed?

[ganjadude]

i think it would be even funnier is it brought you to a page of nothing but tranny sex

Re:Confirmed?

[thegarbz]

Eh, it'd be more interesting if you answered yes and it locked you into a version of the site that only had videos of a married couple having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation (not even a money shot at the end).

Funny enough that is an option you can specify when searching by narrowing down the options on the left hand side of the screen.

Or so someone told me.

Re:Confirmed?

[Anonymous Coward]

for the purpose of procreation (not even a money shot at the end).

Now there's a contradiction. How do we know the purpose is procreation without the video proof of the right kind of deep reposition?

Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

being tolerant of intolerance is intolerant.

Re: Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Being tolerant of people of NC is being intolerant.

Re: Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

But those xians will never admit that people that are intolerant of them are actually being tolerant.

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like being for the death penalty because murdering people is OK when "we" do it?

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why it almost always comes out that the hard-right freaks who push this garbage enjoy a little cabana-boy buggery. They're not hypocritical, they're just tolerant.

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at the very least they dream of being split in half by Bailey Jay.

Re: Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Anyone that doesn't fight to stop their kind is intolerant.

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at the very least they dream of being split in half by Bailey Jay.

I can think of way worse ways to go than choking on Bailey's monster. Let's be honest, anybody here who says he wouldn't hit that is a liar.

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Just like how Americans should have just been "tolerant" of Jim Crow laws.

Re:Good, because

[Anonymous Coward]

All compassion is discrimination.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

GOP senators from North Carolina endorse the Tor project as a means for "promoting democratic values", criticizing FBI for raids of privacy activists.

Fuck LGBT bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat my shit, you disgusting freaks. Actually, you probably would enjoy that...

Two birds one stone.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the legislators would have already blocked the site if they could. I bet they will view this as a two birds one stone solution.

In more recent news....

[TimHunter]

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.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

How can any company do business and maintain reasonable working conditions while obeying the transgender bathroom laws? I mean, they are forcing hormonally male persons into the female bathroom. How comfortable will the females be with some muscled hunk scouring their room?

And when they tell such a person "sorry, we cannot possibly hire you since you were born as a female", they'll get slapped right and left with federal discrimination laws.

I mean, there really is no sane way out except to stop doing business in NC. Independent of what your own LGBT stance might be or whether you have one.

Re:In more recent news....

[MightyMartian]

I suspect the legislation is destined for a very short life. I suspect a number of NC politicians are beginning the slow process of realizing that NC is not the sum total of the universe, and that they don't sit in a vacuum where they get to do anything they want.

And really, if this corporate pressure is enough to see the bill trounced, it may very well save the state from the real embarrassment of having Federal courts throw the law out on a challenge.

Re:In more recent news....

[ffkom]

If only Deutsche Bank was so picky about whom to do business with when it's about VIPs from totalitarian countries, companies evading taxes etc. - but no, they only follow some en vogue PC rules when it's about people's freedom to use either toilet booth. It would be funny if it didn't shed a light on how absolutely insignificant discussions are blown up to create the illusion that "companies care about people's opinion", while they of course do not in the least.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

They are probably leaving NC not because of the law but because of the cost. NC is a local "offshore" for many finance firms. Ie. Secondary locations

Corps are just using this as an excuse to leave/cut costs and move operations to to tertiary locations like India or other cheaper offshore places like Argentina, etc.

Please, get real as if DB really cared so much to halt their plans in NC out of protest.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they threat both PC and non-PC totalitarians equally. The lesson here is the powerful will side with the powerful and laugh all the way to their bank

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Deutsche Bank was so picky about whom to do business with ....

Only Americans would think hiring an employee is just "doing business with" for the company

European companies would probably think that by hiring someone, that employee is now part of the company (very much in the sense of the word "company" meant), and Deutsche Bank probably don't want any more bigots in their, you know, company.

Re:In more recent news....

[sumdumass]

The law doesn't cover employees facilities. Just public accessible restrooms design to accommodate more than one person at a time. It also allows entities to make accommodations at their choice.

Re:In more recent news....

[Burz]

Its not just freedom to use "either" toilet: Its freedom to use ANY restroom without being challenged for ID for people who do not look either masculine or feminine "enough". Being suspected of having the wrong gender because of how your features are interpreted is not terribly unlike being suspected of being gay/lesbian in an office or school or military that bans them... Plenty of straight people also wind up being harassed and discriminated against.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, the segments objected to and modified due to Deutsche Bank's actions relate to discrimination protections separate from the sensationalist issue being used in the news media to gain attention.

Re:In more recent news....

[monkeyxpress]

If only Deutsche Bank was so picky about whom to do business with when it's about VIPs from totalitarian countries, companies evading taxes etc. - but no, they only follow some en vogue PC rules when it's about people's freedom to use either toilet booth. It would be funny if it didn't shed a light on how absolutely insignificant discussions are blown up to create the illusion that "companies care about people's opinion", while they of course do not in the least.

I'd be happy if they were just more picky about investing in truckloads of terrible derivatives. It is looking increasingly likely that DB is (rather ironically for Greece) going to be the bad apple that collapses the eurozone.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course they were down sizing and moving to new smaller facilities at the main raleigh office before this happened so its really convenient that it's happening now isn't it.

So good job, try to claim something as being caused by this ... when this started well after they already were doing the movie ... totally related ... not just a bullshit bunch of political agendizing on theirs or your part or anything.

Re:In more recent news....

[Anonymous Coward]

They decided to hire people in NC, and that may include LGBT people. To punish their own employees for enacting a law in a place much freer than others in which they do business - and do not get involved in civil rights - is breathtakingly selective.

It's the 21st century, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want treat people like you're stuck in 20th century politics, perhaps you should go back to living in the 20th century.

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Pfhorrest]

I think this is the first time I've yet heard the 20th century referred to as some backward bygone era, rather than more-or-less the present.

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[PCM2]

And yet the 1920s really were a pretty long time ago.

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

There was some Star Trek (IV?) involving time travel where McCoy told some other crew member "we cannot leave Chekhov (?) in the hands of 20th century medicine". There were some other niceties, like Scotty sitting in front of a MacIntosh and repeatedly saying "Computer? ... Computer?" until somebody hands him the mouse and he goes "oh yes, thank you.", holds up the mouse to his mouth and continues "Computer? ... Computer?".

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

A century is a long time. During the 20th century in the US:
-Women were not able to vote
-Segregation was a thing
-People of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and put in concentration camps
-Children didn't go to schools they worked in dangerous factories

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[PopeRatzo]

I think this is the first time I've yet heard the 20th century referred to as some backward bygone era, rather than more-or-less the present.

I get it. I'm an old man living in the past, too.

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the first time I've yet heard the 20th century referred to as some backward bygone era, rather than more-or-less the present.

There are people out there driving cars who were not even born in that century

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Pfhorrest]

So that's why traffic has gotten so bad lately, we're letting babies drive cars now!

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[serviscope_minor]

The 1900s were even longer ago!

Re: It's the 21st century, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your post. Do you have a time machine to share? Otherwise your suggestion is impossible.

Re:It's the 21st century, folks

[Empiric]

I've really tried finding out from progressives how long exactly the expiration date for something being true is, so I'll know when something that was true is no longer true, because old.

Seems like a specific time duration is hard to get an answer to. I'm starting to suspect there are other factors involved in whether something is true or not.

Porn and Beer

[Tablizer]

Just take away beer now also, and then you'll have a real impact.

unintended consequences

[turkeydance]

in this case, it worked out. at least one porn site blocked voluntarily.

Re:unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

If the porn site actually had half a clue, it would already know that full nude pornography has been illegal in North Carolina for about 100 years.

Lets just stop pretending that porn sites actually give a fuck about the law.

If anything they just admitted to operating an illegal business in the state of NC.

Re:unintended consequences

[ripvlan]

Seems they could figure this out automatically by tracking what people...uh...watch.

Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't nearly the enitre porn industry been built on exploitive practices? Is their industry all of the sudden the pillar of equality? Last I heard, women got paid many x more than men? Granted, it's one of the few industries where women are paid more than men for their service.... Otherwise, great growth hack hamsterx!

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to add that my captcha are you human word was "miscarry"... the irony!

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This crossed my mind, too. Built on scamming porn from the copyright holders, all of a sudden they are a paragon of rights.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[tomhath]

I'm not going to xhamster to verify it, but I expect they have way more worse stuff than real porn. Upskirt? Bathroom cams?

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[arth1]

I'm not going to xhamster to verify it, but I expect they have way more worse stuff than real porn.

They certainly do have worse stuff.
Malware-infecting ads, for one thing. Combined with pop-unders.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[serviscope_minor]

In today's lesson you learn that things are usually neither perfectly good nor pure evil. The world consists of many shades of grey. Sometimes bad people do good things and good people do bad things. Just because someone you don't like says something doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[GuB-42]

What LGBT and porn have in common is that they are both sexual taboos.
The porn industry probably thinks that breaking the LGBT taboo will help break the porn taboo, which is good for business.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[taustin]

Hasn't nearly the enitre porn industry been built on exploitive practices?

Yes, but they'll cheerfully exploit everybody, including the goat.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[GuB-42]

I checked for you then.
They have upskirt and bathroom cams but most of it is just regular porn, probably uploaded in complete disregard of copyrights.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[sumdumass]

Or they figure that the types of people who would be against this law are the types they could make money from and know that the claim would generate tons of free publicity and advertising for the site. Not that this would change anything you said.

Re:Porn Industry is suddenly the pillar of eqality

[tnk1]

No, they're probably 100% evil. That doesn't mean they can't have good PR, right?

Ironic

[ArylAkamov]

...That the legislation's opponents cannot fathom why anyone would want their right to not associate affirmed by the law, meanwhile protesting the bill by threatening to pull business out of North Carolina. Just a little ironic.

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

The "right not to associate" is not some sort of absolute principle. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 have already created that precedent. You can't defend refusing to serve black clientele at your business by proclaiming "That's my right to freedom of association". What is happening now is LGBT individuals are being afforded the same rights and protections as other minorities. And what's your problem with that?

Re:Ironic

[ArylAkamov]

I have no problem with it, I just find it amusing.

Seems like a pretty simple fix though: Vote with your money.

Or, alternatively, welcome LGBT-etc. to your store and corner the market. Eventually your discriminating competitors will go out of business.

I would much rather see businesses that would discriminate (if given the chance) go out of business instead of being forced to serve everybody. Eventually they will not exist anymore.

Re:Ironic

[serviscope_minor]

Eventually your discriminating competitors will go out of business.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument based on the axiom that the free market is infallible.

Re:Ironic

[ArylAkamov]

Infallible? Nah. A totally free market has plenty of flaws. But I think it works pretty well here. Hell, it's already working, and I know if I lived there I would not shop at places that discriminated against others.

Re: Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

I've come to the conclusion that all the NC legislature needed to do was call the bill a measure to create Safe Spaces in restrooms and then the SJWs would flock to defend them.

Re:Ironic

[tnk1]

Well, that only works if the number of LGBT and supporters is enough to drastically shift the balance against the business which acts against the group in question. Otherwise, they will go, "Good, all the gays and their supporters have left, and when this blows over, we could probably just do a sale and get a quarter of the non-gay supporters back too."

So, I suspect that a boycott like that in NC is probably not a dire threat. And the xHamster situation is more a statement than anything else. After all, I doubt that anyone going to the porn site to begin with has much in the way of scruples about how they reconcile their public opinions with their porn viewing habits. They'll all just say that they are totally against the law to get to the porn, or they'll go to the host of other porn sites out there.

There is such a thing as a minority that does not have significant amount of power to affect change through direct action like that. Not sure what the numbers are like in NC.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I was born white male and I am not middle aged. I associate myself as a preteen girl mentally and physically. Why can't I use the girls bathroom? I am a minority because I feel that way but... it is the way I feel. Anyone questioning me or my presence or desired presence to use the girls bathroom SHOULD check themselves because I should be afforded the same rights and protections as others.

Do I have to get surgery for people to take me seriously? What if I can't afford it right now? Only the rich males that associate themselves as little girls get the privilege? Shouldn't I legally be able to have sex with a with a 15 year old boy? Do you feel my condition is a joke?

Where do YOU draw the line of what is acceptable and are you understanding of others may not draw it in the same place? What makes YOUR line a defacto standard and correct and everyone else wrong?

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

"Vote with your money" didn't fix segregation. The Supreme Court and the National Guard did. In other words, left to its own devices, it appears that Jim Crow would have kept on going for years, largely because African-Americans were a minority, disadvantaged economically, politically and judicially. Arguing that the free market would have fixed it is like arguing that an army of talking penguins would have fixed it.

Re:Ironic

[wisnoskij]

So then you agree that what xHamster is doing is outright illegal, then? That they simply do not have the right to choose who they allow as their clientèle?

Re:Ironic

[MightyMartian]

You draw the line as you do with anything, with even handed reasonableness. Since a judge is going to quickly determine that you're a liar, and your actions within the women's washroom will be as a leering pervert, it doesn't even matter if you are really a woman. You will likely end up in some heap of trouble.

Unisex washrooms have been around in some jurisdictions for years and there has been no evidence of large numbers of perverts claiming they're mentally preteen girls using the shared bathrooms as a place to commit sex crimes. I'd happily go for unisex washrooms where urinals were as private as toilets, and since the primary bodily functions for men and women are largely the same, with only relatively small differences in plumbing between the bladder and the urethra, public washrooms will be what they always have been, a place you want to do your business as quickly in as possible and then get the hell out of.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a pretty simple fix though: Vote with your money.

There's a new serial killer in town. But, there's a simple fix. Vote with your money. That'll fix things.

Re:Ironic

[diamondmagic]

Be careful with the "precedent" defense: Jim Crow laws created completely the opposite precedent, that the state can mandate discrimination against certain classes of people.

This whole thread is about what the law should be, not what the law currently is.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

So what about the minority of rapists? What about their rights?

Yes, thats a ridiculous example, but it leads to the actual point:

Where do you draw the line?

When modern medicine is no longer following this bullshit idea that gender re-assignment is the right thing to do, and that maybe pretending that you're the opposite sex doesnt' actually solve your fucking problem .... MAYBE JUST FUCKING MAYBE it comes somewhere before this.

But hey ... why let science and facts cloud your way. You're just another trendy asshole who think's its special that your crusading for something you don't even understand because you think you're showing everyoen else how you're standing up for someone else.

The reality of it is, you're doing them a disservice by continuing to pretend this is an acceptable behavior.

The only time the medical profession actually approved this is when a gay man was leading the AMA. Prior to that, this would have been fucking ludicris. THE INSTANT HE LEFT studies started showing up that proved that you aren't actually fucking helping anyone by pretending a man is a woman or a woman is a man and they STILL FUCKING HATE THEMSELVES AFTER THE CHANGE.

LGBT people may have different sexual preferences, but thats not the actual 'problem'. Thats the symptom.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote with your money

Look at the previous thread about Amazon and Trump. When liberals try to vote with their money and make noise about it, that's PC commie nazi tyranny. They can't even play the game the way you tell them to without being the worst people ever. Telling them to vote with their money is disingenuous if you're going to call them monsters when they try it.

Re:Ironic

[ganjadude]

no one should have special rights over others

Re:Ironic

[ganjadude]

voting with your money means not doing business with X because of Y

what they are doing at amazon is not quite the same, they are trying to force amazon to not do business with others because they dont like a guy. its not the same

Re:Ironic

[Radiophobic]

They have every right to determine geographic regions that access different parts of their website. They need to be able to do this, for reasons beyond simple protest.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that modern PC intersectional third wave feminism is all about segregation.

We have to get rid of jazz and rock and roll and go back to our respective cultures. Stringed instruments and pianos are only for whites, bongo drums for the niggers.

Re:Ironic

[david_thornley]

There are a list of things xHamster may not legally use as a basis for discrimination, such as race. State of residence does not make a protected class.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

So YOUR line is insensitive to who I identify with mentally. Strange how that works and shows everyone has limits to what they will tolerate and that others will judge them fiercely if those limits are different from theirs. I understand though, you feel YOUR limits are right and others are wrong. Bottom line is I am treated differently and not able to be treated fairly because of people like you. You assume my "mental condition" and who I relate to mentally is something sexual related.

I bet you sit back and think you are right and your line IS correct. That is what almost everyone thought 50+ years ago with blacks and woman. Take the variable out it. All people should be able to feel comfortable regardless of what you feel is right and wrong with no limits.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion. People may privately pretend to be a man, woman, dog, batman or whatever, but forcibly imposing their imaginary identity on other people isn't right.

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

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.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

What about marking doors "xx" and "xy"?

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

incorrect. Gender isn't something you can just decide is going to be different, not without serious medical intervention. Call yourself whatever you want, but the FACT remains that you are one, or the other.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Which door does the XY-but-physically-female-due-to-androgen-insensitivity person go through, then?

Re: Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

You going to invent and then provide every bathroom with an on-the-fly sex chromosome tester?

And even if you do: are you going to tell the woman with AIS that she has to use the men's room?

What about that guy with Kleinfelter's, which room will your magic chromosometer let him into?

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't.

The behaviors and artifacts we associate with gender are associated mainly by cultural construct (and most of those associations are bullshit). However there are several practical biological definitions of gender that are useful which shouldn't be thrown out.

Redefining gender as a voluntary thing is a pretty stupid patch for the actual problem which is that artifacts and behaviors that shouldn't be gendered often are (like bathrooms, clothing, and role as a parent).

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Do XXY and XYY people have to shit in the gutter, then?

Re:Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion.

OK, pop quiz: If this woman rubs your leg, will your "biological fact" pop a boner, or what?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

You think she should be forced to use the men's bathroom at the Wilco-Hess #315 Truck Stop outside of Asheboro, North Carolina? It might cause a riot.

Re: Ridiculous

[arth1]

What about marking doors "xx" and "xy"?

Well, for one thing, around 1.5-2 of 1000 people have XXY, XYY or XXYY.

But what about someone born as a female and then having surgery and testosterone treatments so they have both a penis and a beard? They should be allowed access to the ladies' room, while someone who's gone the other way and don't have a penis but does have breasts should not be allowed?

Personally, I wish we could get rid of the Victorian segregation and go back to common lavatories that are for all. That used to be the standard before Calvinism became widespread enough to turn defecation and urination into a sexual thing. (The first public separate facilities appeared in 1739, and didn't become common until almost a century later.)

Re:Ridiculous

[harrkev]

The funny thing is that a business is denying service to some customers as their way of saying that denying service to some customers is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Logic at its finest.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

don't use strawman arguments. both examples are so few and far between it's statistically unlikely any particular restroom will ever see someone with a syndrome that affects them in such a way. The VAST majority of people are one or the other.. it's a simple biological fact despite you wishing it otherwise...

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

You missed the point completely. You are talking about a thing called sex, not a thing called gender. There are sex-change operations, but not gender-change operations. Sex is that biological thing having to do with what genitals you have and such. Gender is a social thing, different from biological sex, in the same way that, say, ethnicity (social) is different from race (biological).

(Although both race and sex themselves are not as nicely compartmentalized as you'd probably like to think of them, either).

Re:Ridiculous

[Harlequin80]

So do we need to have separate areas for xxx, xxxx, xyy, xxy and all the other mosaic chromosomal. Or what about Pinki Pramanik. Which toilet should she use?

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

You're talking about sex again. There are practical biological definitions of sex that shouldn't be thrown out. There are arbitrary social constructs that are arbitrarily associated with sex. But those arbitrary social constructs though? Those are what the word "gender" refers to. Not to the same thing as sex.

Re: Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

You don't even know what a straw man argument is.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god you're pretty.

Re:Ridiculous

[serviscope_minor]

And what do you do for the occasional chimera? I propose mushing them up into a goo and feeding the result through a flow cytometer. Then you can divert the cells to the appropriate restroom.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, go look up any of the following ts porn actresses, and I defy you to tell me that you'd clock any one of them. If they were walking down the street towards you in a plain old pair of jeans and gave you a smile, you'd be floating all day.

Thais Schiavanato.
Kalena Rios.
Renata Araujo.
Sascha Hevyn.
Nicole Charming.
Jane Marie.
Sienna Grace.
Bianca Freire.
Foxxy.
Danielle Fox.
Natassia Dream.
Ellery Sweet.
Gia Itzel Star.
Miriam Rivera.
Madison Montag.

Re:Ridiculous

[tnk1]

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.

Re: Ridiculous

[MightyMartian]

But it isn't a simple biological fact. There is decades of research on gender dysmorphia. You may not like what that research has to say, but you are not free to just simply invent your own "facts" to win the argument.

What you're writing is qualitatively the same as all those bigots in the Jim Crown era who insisted black men had to be kept away from white women because of the animalistic lust that could occur. This is just another example of a bigot trying to justify their bigotry through oversimplification and just out and out invention. And really, who the fuck is harmed by this? If a trans woman goes into a woman's washroom, who is harmed, as compared to the potential harm that a trans woman could suffer by being made to go into a men's washroom?

For chrissakes, many jurisdictions have had unisex washrooms for years, with few if any problems.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you be willing to limit the use of the bathrooms to only those who have such conditions?

Until then, the position of the side of the transsexuals is that all transsexuals or intersexed or whatever get to choose no matter how typical their chromosomal makeup is.

And if someone can pass as female entering the ladies room, they're not going to make a lady uncomfortable, so having to go to the chromosomal level for detection would not be necessary. They are breaking the law technically, but they are also not inflicting the harm. If they were intending to inflict that sort of harm, and had gone to the level of being "passable", then they'd now be up for assault or whatever harassment crime there was.

This is ultimately about comfort for people out there, and if you think there is a reason for different sex bathrooms, then you can't ignore the fact that such a law could easily put a male dressed as a female who is not passable in a ladies room and create considerable discomfort for some of them.

Re: Ridiculous

[tnk1]

That would probably end this debate. I don't see a good way of doing so otherwise. Everyone gets their own stall, although it would be annoying to now have to share a bathroom with women because the lines will be ungodly long at the bar.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fucking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

Re:Ridiculous

[eepok]

Warning, you may be conversing with someone who has been confused by the bleeding edge of LGBTQ+ activism vocabulary. According to the latest *opinion*, "it's all gender". No scientist will accept that, but that's the line that's being pushed. Some assert that sex is "assigned" at birth just as gender is assigned by the people raising a child. Ya, I know. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Ridiculous

[bongey]

SJW Rule 1023:When your argument is bat-shit crazy just re-define the meanings of the words thus winning the argument.
Gender== Sex , Using John Money 's failed definition of sex and gender shouldn't be the groundwork of your definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Gender isn't something you can just decide is going to be different

Exactly. But you've failed to realize that gender isn't something you can just decide is going to be different.

Re:Ridiculous

[OhPlz]

Just like marriage. No one knows what the fuck it means anymore because anything other than everything is "discrimination"!

This society is so screwed.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

says the guy who used a fallacious argument I didn't mention to start with... oh wait, that would be a strawman. I'm done with you, you obviously aren't smart enough to comprehend a simple Biological science fact.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

What about marking doors "xx" and "xy"?

Well, for one thing, around 1.5-2 of 1000 people have XXY, XYY or XXYY.

Grasping at straws much? Society doesn't and should not be compelled to make adaptations for the rare exceptions. Maybe we should also require special low toilets for the midgets and special high toilets for the 8ft giant NBA all-stars? How many exceptions would you like to cover? Who will pay the bill for all the special hardware and alternative equipment for the 0.001% that need them (never mind the 0.0000001% that might actually show up at a given restroom and need it.

what about someone born as a female and then having surgery and testosterone treatments so they have both a penis and a beard? They should be allowed access to the ladies' room, while someone who's gone the other way and don't have a penis but does have breasts should not be allowed?

Personally, I wish we could get rid of the Victorian segregation and go back to common lavatories that are for all. That used to be the standard before Calvinism became widespread enough to turn defecation and urination into a sexual thing. (The first public separate facilities appeared in 1739, and didn't become common until almost a century later.)

Sure, and in Roman times, people (well the poorer folks anyway) sat at public potty seats without even a partition between them. Just one big long row of bench seats with holes in them.

However, social customs change. This custom will change if that is what people want but you can't force it on them.

My suggestion? offer one large common bathroom for all and then several smaller single person bathrooms for the shy (also for those who want to change their infant children's diapers in private).

As an interim solution, continue the status quo (gents and ladies) and offer one or two single person unisex bathrooms for say every 20 gender specific stalls.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, This is ego. Wanting to apply a label to yourself and getting upset when others question or deny that label. Our culture is a very ego-centric place, with the vast majority wrapping the self and ego tightly together. I'm not a buddhist, but I do like the logic of the ego and self. I doubt I will ever shed my ego, but I do feel it is having less influence and impact on my life over time and allowing for greater happiness and genuine conversations.

Re:Ridiculous

[riverat1]

Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion. People may privately pretend to be a man, woman, dog, batman or whatever, but forcibly imposing their imaginary identity on other people isn't right.

What about the 1-2% of people who are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics? Those who have been called hermaphrodites although I guess the proper terminology for humans nowadays is intersex. They have to be accommodated too.

Re:Ridiculous

[hey!]

Perhaps to sharpen your point: there are two concepts here, one of which is biological and the other of which is social. It doesn't matter how you label each of these concepts, the important question is which is relevant in any particular situation (e.g. which bathroom to use).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolutely false, but what can you expect someone that went to school in North Carolina?

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

Re:Ridiculous

[bongey]

The scientific, medical and courts have all ruled that gender and sex are the same thing.Only liberals, SJW and people with mental disorders believe they are different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Society doesn't and should not be compelled to make adaptations for the rare exceptions.

Society does and should.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

My dog has wings; others call it a duck, but I call it a dog. I bet you still refuse to see the flaw of your reasoning.

Re:Ridiculous

[110010001000]

Gender and sex are the same thing. Sometimes people are born with genders and sexes that they don't feel comfortable with. But that doesn't change that gender and sex are the same thing.

Re:Ridiculous

[Livius]

What counts as gender and what counts as sex, and which matters in which context, is what people are disagreeing about.

And using labels to shout at people instead of engaging in some much-needed dialogue is not helping.

Re:Ridiculous

[Aighearach]

Race is not biological either. It is a social construct. Genetic studies show that there is a different geographic distribution for each trait; there are not geographic biological groupings that amount to what is called "race." The lines are in completely different places than where the "races" start and stop.

Ethnicity can be either 100% social, or 100% genetic, depending on the ethnicity and context.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. So presumably you would have no problem with a law that:

1) required labeling of washrooms by the genitalia a person has (or doesn't)...eg. "Penises Only" & "Vaginas Only"
2) Required people to use the respective bathroom for which rhey have at least one such organ (covers the 10 or so hermaphrodites in the world).

You certainly can't argue it's "gender discrimation" since in your mind gender is just a social construct and this is purely a biological definition.

Feel free to now argue your self in to a knot that this is still somehow discrimatory against Transgender people.

Re:Ridiculous

[greysondn]

That's not quite true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's neither the same thing (precisely) nor is it a disorder (inherently) so much as a condition.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuals are doing the same thing as heterosexuals. Polygamists can't marry, right? Singles are out too. Yet the same justification applies, it's discrimination, is it not? So once every possible combination is accounted for, what is marriage then? It's everything and it's nothing. Why even have it? It's very easy to make a comment like yours but it's not so easy to actually address the topic. If your "genuine" conversation is pointless banter like what you just posted then it's not very genuine at all. Bliss may be happiness but society can only take so much of it.

 

Re:Ridiculous

[greysondn]

Things that humans are generally born as:
- Male
- Female
- Intersex/Hermaphrodite
- "Null"

Things that no human has ever - on record - been born as:
- Attack helicopter

I hope you understand why your argument is bullshit.

Re: Ridiculous

[Aighearach]

You're using "strawman" to mean, "an argument I already said I think is wrong." That isn't what it means.

And, who cares what the average is? The exceptions or problems are exactly what you look at to see if something makes sense. The whole issue is about less-common-than-average situations.

The lack of comprehension is on your part; you're hand-waving and claiming that biology only allows your conclusions, but actually biology doesn't tell us anything about which restroom to use. Which restroom do other apes use? Oh... right.

You're not only saying that some people don't matter, you seem to believe that because some people have rare conditions that they actually don't exist. That's not a strawman, but it is incorrect.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, they look like women. Do they have a vagina that I can do anything with? And no, I don't mean a surgically created hole between their legs where their dick used to be.

I'm sure that if you did enough work on anyone, they could look like a woman. Fuck, there are people that cartoon characters give a woody to. If that's your test for being female, you need a new one.

Re: Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

I actually would still have a problem with that, because I don't think bathrooms should be segregated at all in the first place, but that would indeed be better (if only very slightly) than what this law is mandating.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

Maybe read what actual scientists have to say about it.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

He just fucking said it. On record. Your argument sort of falls apart. If you think I can't turn up crazy people who will say they identify as foxes or wolves or the opposite gender or another race or disabled (when they're not) or Napoleon or Jesus or whatever then you just be pretty new.

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

I'm not sure if you're talking to me, or talking to other people about me.

In either case, I'd like to see an example of someone claiming "it's all gender" because I don't think I've ever heard that. I've heard "it's all sex", like the person I was responding to seems to believe (and since gender is socially constructed, literally imaginary, there's some small merit to that position so long as you're not making other errors in the process), but not the other way around.

The issue of assigning sex at birth is still a thing even making the distinction between sex and gender, because intersex people often have their biological sex surgically adjusted to match one of the two main sexes at birth. In the same way that a transgender person may get sexual reassignment surgery (a sex change), those surgical adjustments at birth are (re)assigning the baby's sex to match the gender that's been assigned to them.

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

I do actually have objections to the terminology that Money coined, precisely because it causes exactly this confusion, but the two concepts he coined the terms for do actually need to be kept separate. I just wish he'd have coined some New Latin terms of art instead of repurposing existing English words, and I have some suggestions for better terms myself, but those are unlikely to catch on and Money's terminology is entrenched in all the literature about the topic now so that seems like kind of a hopeless battle to fight.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You answered your own question. XY. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

The issues with race that you point out are what I meant to briefly gloss with my parenthetical comment at the end of my post; just to flag that I'm aware of them, without going into them too much and detracting from the main point.

What I was getting at is that, e.g. someone ethnically Hispanic could be every bit as much white (genetically of European ancestry) as someone ethnically Anglo-American; their race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is the same, but their ethnicity is different.

Re: Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

Pediatricians are not scientists, and a position statement of one professional organization of pediatricians is not a scientific result, and besides all that, that position statement does not claim that gender is the same thing as sex, which is all I was disputing; it claims that sex is some ways more important than gender and that some practices regarding sex and gender are harmful, some of which I can agree with.

Re: Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

In fact, the second point of your own link asserts exactly what I was saying:

Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

Emphasis mine. Contrast the first anon (not sure if you're the same one) that I was replying to:

Gender is a biological fact

Thanks for making my point for me, even if you had to do it by way of recognized hate group pushing a political agenda under the guise of medical neutrality.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense. You can't win an argument by changing a definition. You probably should be made aware that you can't win an argument by refusing to accept a definition either.

Re:Ridiculous

[MightyMartian]

I'm impressed with how quickly you moved the goal posts. Yes, they have a vagina and a clitoris, constructed to be sure, but then again, there are women out there that for a number of reasons have had to have genital reconstruction. As to whether you could do anything with it, that's a question only you can answer. My feeling is that women, whatever their original gender identity, probably aren't keen for you to do anything with their genitals.

Re: Ridiculous

[MightyMartian]

Don't you see how not letting some fine upstanding God-fearing American deny someone in a wheel chair access is tyranny!!!!

Re:Ridiculous

[MightyMartian]

Marriage; a civil and conjugal union between two people.

There, now you know what marriage is.,

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Society doesn't and should not be compelled to make adaptations for the rare exceptions.

What the fuck? That's just completely wrong on every level.

Maybe we should also require special low toilets for the midgets and special high toilets for the 8ft giant NBA all-stars?

a) 8ft NBA all-stars are much rarer than trans people and people with XXY etc., and b) there are special low toilets basically everywhere, for children, so what are you even talking about?

This custom will change if that is what people want but you can't force it on them.

North Carolina is forcing the custom upon Charlotte.

My suggestion? offer one large common bathroom for all and then several smaller single person bathrooms for the shy (also for those who want to change their infant children's diapers in private).

As an interim solution, continue the status quo (gents and ladies) and offer one or two single person unisex bathrooms for say every 20 gender specific stalls.

I agree here, but it's kind of weird because your suggestion matches the previous guy's wish that you seemed to dislike.

What I really don't get is people act like there's an invisible force field preventing bad guys from entering women's washrooms, and that will disappear the day transwomen get to go into women's washrooms.

(They're already mostly going into the washroom that matches their perceived gender. Usually, you don't notice.).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean it has a different meaning than "Two consenting adults forming a legal contract which influences laws such as inheritance, tax and child custody?"

Who knew?

Re: Ridiculous

[greysondn]

Riiiiiiight, but the law isn't about those people. It's about transgenders. Don't move the goalposts.

Re:Ridiculous

[AmiMoJo]

Sex isn't binary though. In a population as large as NC there are going to be thousands of people whose biology can be considered one thing by one test and another by a different test.

Re: Ridiculous

[BeeArt]

Looks like we're going to need a regexp doorsign. or more toilets.

Re:Ridiculous

[houghi]

Not sure if it is the case where you live, but where I live (Belgium) it is pretty clear what marriage is. It is strictly described by law and it comes down to two people signig a contract at the city hall in presence of witnesses.
This results in certain rights and obligations. We also have liffing offcially together and living unofficially together. Each with rights and obligations different from the other. Other arrangements exist as well.

So it is pretty clear what it means by law. Now what it means by religion or whatever is up to you and/or your religion. You are free to follow that and many do.

Next to the official marriga at the city hall, many marry ALSO for the church or whatever way they seect. This is however noÃt binding by law and is more a cerimony. How serious you take that is up to you. For some this is more important than the legal one.

And yes, two men and two women can get married legally. But it is limited to two people and you can get only married once at the same time.

Again, the law makes it pretty clear what marriage means.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The biological thing is 'sex', and restrooms are usually allocated for persons of a particular 'sex'. Disagree? Well, use the unisex room that has extra space for a wheelchair then.

'Gender roles' are an outdated concept - and those believing in 'gender roles' are narrow minded. This includes people with a 1950 mindset, as well as any trans person that thinks they need to dress or behave a certain way based on 'the gender they identify with'. Because 'identifying with some gender' is an obsolete concept, in a world where men & women has the same opportunities.

A woman can be a submarine captain or a fighter pilot. She don't have to be a nurse or hold other 'traditionally female jobs'. Men & women can dress in whatever way they like too. they can pursue any hobby they like - nothing is tied to their sex. Women don't have to wear a dress all the time - neither do a trans person. A trans person may 'want to be identified as female' but there is no particular 'female identity' in modern society so drop that idea - or you're bigoted.

By all means, wear a pink dress in public if you like that. You may even look good that way! It won't make you a woman though - having a cunt is what makes you a woman. Having a cock is what makes you a man. To kill the idea of 'changing you gender on identity papers', lets replace the man/woman word with a crotch photo. No doubt then, that the classification into this or that 'sex' is only a means of physical identification - there is no connection to 'the way you think, feel, or live your life'

"No particular female identity' also means that a lot of real women does not identify with whatever you think is feminine.

Re:Ridiculous

[ganjadude]

wiki???? come on now

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if you're XXY? Or have androgen insensitivity syndrome?

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you discriminate against polygamists.

Re:Ridiculous

[ripvlan]

I seem to remember that the pairing of X-Y chromosomes has something to do with it. I also recall a college class that we were shown photos of naked people who had obvious physical characteristics of "male" or "female." ---- but their X-Y were opposite. Technically the person with the penis was female.

So it ain't as easy as it seems. It was also something I squirreled away in my brain (this was 30 years ago) - and when transgender became "a thing" (talking about critical mass in the media) - as hard as it is for me to comprehend this may not be "a choice" for some. They aren't choosing this - it is the way they are.

The law is trying to define what Science already has - I'm not sure why. To what end?

Could there be real fraud by people who use existing laws to make claims? Outlaw that. The legal system has tried several times to define people & moral values and each time has failed. Definition of a person for purposes of counting in census & Purchase of Alcohol come to mind.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

brb going to marry my 13 year old daughter.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that they may not have a "choice" no more than anyone else with a mental illness has a choice.

Not having a choice about something might cause some "reasonable" accommodation, but it seems like the accommodation to this delusion is that we just give into the delusion and then make everyone else's lives twist around it. It's like someone deciding they are a dog and now I have to deal with them shitting in my yard because we've decided their mental illness needs to be accepted at face value.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, you sound so cute. One day, you'll study biology in school.

Re:Ridiculous

[Aighearach]

Sure, and while minor errors don't refute the main thrust of an argument, they do detract somewhat and make it more difficult to analyze.

In the case of Hispanics, it is a language-based ethnicity, true. In the case of the Ainu, it is genetic.

Race, as far as biological ancestry goes, is not the same in the case of Hispanics, unless you reject the biological basis for race. Which you would, if you studied it; the Cline Maps don't even line up when you're only mapping skin color, but as soon as you add in more than one gene, you have different distribution maps for each gene. The clumpiness of genetic distribution claimed by race is a complete farce; it is a blatant lie. It is just a social concept, based on a single trait that is not representative of geographic distribution of human genetic material.

Just a couple hundred years ago it would not have been presumed that somebody with pale skin who is a mix of Spaniard and Mayan would be the same race as somebody from SE England. Spaniards and Saxons the same race?! What? Only in modern times, which hints at the idiocy of it even without the maps or anthropological study. Now somebody might say, they're both "white" and they might even both be Hispanic. But the reasons for calling them "white" have to do only with their skin color + social conventions, not with the genetic group packages claimed by the concept of "race."

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Marriage - yes, even gay marriage - still has a very definite meaning: it means a legal union between two individuals. There are all kinds of rules around that. The union has to involve consenting adult humans, and the rights and responsibilities of each are pretty clearly defined in law. The term marriage didn't suddenly become meaningless because one of the legal restrictions was removed.

And how the heck did your comment get rated insightful? There is no insight there.

Re:Ridiculous

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

You seriously can't tell the difference between "intolerance towards X" and "intolerance towards intolerance"?

Are you also against financial penalties for thieves, because that would be theft?

Re:Ridiculous

[harrkev]

Yes, I can. Intolerance towards people's religious beliefs is becoming more and more common.

Re:Ridiculous

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

How, exactly?

From what I can see, the intolerance towards "beliefs" only starts when those beliefs start affecting other people. People have every right to believe gay people are sinful and going to hell. But they shouldn't have a right to fire someone just because they're gay.

Note the difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating an action. Yes, a lot of actions are informed by religious beliefs and are no longer being tolerated. But that's exactly as it should be. Religion should not have an adverse effect on anyone not of that religion.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone with an XX chromosome (including those with additional chromosomes) is a chimera because of the way that X-inactivation works in the blastocyst of all placental mammals. In every cell in early pregnancy (at least) one X chromosome is inactivated randomly and cells that descend from those early cells use only the non-inactivated X chromosome.

The randomness of the selection is quite good (the process is approximately thermal) which leads to a variety of outcomes including some pretty significantly coarse-graining of the X-cell chimerism. This can produce strikingly visible results when the X chromosomes encode for different pigment-related proteins; in cats this is how tortoiseshell coats arise in cats with two X chromosomes, and there are human piebaldisms that are also visible to the unaided eye. (To the aided eye, the chimerism is often strikingly visible in the skin of human women).

I wonder how this affects your attitude towards "occasional" chimeras, since the occasion is essentially every single human with more than one X chromosome, or roughly half the population of all humans at any given moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Ridiculous

[harrkev]

But they shouldn't have a right to fire someone just because they're gay.

They should if it is a church or a religious school doing the hiring. In that case, a person's faith is a PART of what makes them qualified. Leading a lifestyle that goes directly against the faith seems like a good reason to me. The same goes not just for homosexuality, but adultery, habitual drunkard, or anything else of the kind.

The law does NOT allow mass discrimination. Your belief in general should NOT stop you from shopping at grocery stores or getting your car fixed. But to work for religious organizations? Yeah, that matters. To force people to be involved in a wedding that they religiously disagree with? That too.

Religion should not have an adverse effect on anyone not of that religion.

Should the same go for atheism? Punishing people for not believing in the lack of a God? Yeah, it works that way too.

Re:Ridiculous

[Pfhorrest]

Sure, but nobody in this subthread said it was.

Re:Ridiculous

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Can you point me to some examples? Religious schools tend to be private institutions, so aren't beholden to non-discrimination clauses. Same goes for churches. No one has ever been forced to lend the weight of their religion to a marriage. Can you point to a case where a private institute has been forced to go against their religious beliefs?

People who own public companies like bakeries do not have the right to discriminate when selling wedding cakes. People who work for the public government do not have the right to discriminate when deciding who gets a marriage license. For those people, their religion prevents them from providing protected classes the same rights granted to everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, their religion has started affecting others, and that's where their rights stop.

And no, no one can be punished for believing in God, or lacking a "belief in the lack of a god". But again, once their beliefs lead to actions that affect others, all bets are off.

Re:Ridiculous

[harrkev]

OK. One thing that we can agree on -- the government. In that we are united. There was that lady who refused to issue marriage licenses because of her faith. Fine. However, since her faith kept her from doing her job, she should quit.

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The one to the gas chamber.

Re:Ridiculous

[david_thornley]

Your first sentence is a flat-out lie. Gender dysphoria is indeed a disorder, but it can be treated as either a problem of the mind or a problem of the body, since the problem is that they don't match. The body is easier to change, and that's why treatment concentrates there.

Re:Ridiculous

[tnk1]

A little different. A dog was never a synonym for duck.

Using a synonym of an existing word to convey a different understanding of the original is a lot different from simply mislabeling two different things as one thing.

No one disputes that there is a difference between men and women anatomically. What they are trying to convey is the notion that maleness or femaleness has a mental or environmental component by using a similar word in a new way.

That is not to suggest that notion is correct, or helpful, but if you're going to attack the concept, you need to attack the idea behind it and not ignore it.

For instance, you can say that you believe the ideas that they call "gender" are bogus and do not represent a real thing. That will then, hopefully, lead the argument down the path of evaluating some evidence, or at the very least, a real understanding of the root cause of the argument. You're never going to convince the already-convinced that they are wrong by simply saying that you refuse their redefinition. Everyone knows what gender used to mean. I think we all care more about what people are trying to make it mean *now*.

Re:Ridiculous

[eepok]

Here's one thing being pushed around my campus: http://www.transstudent.org/ge...

"Sex Assigned at Birth: The assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another sex based on a combination of anatomy, hormones, chromosomes. It is important we don’t simply use “sex” because of the vagueness of the definition of sex and its place in transphobia. Chromosomes are frequently used to determine sex from prenatal karyotyping (although not as often as genitalia). Chromosomes do not determine genitalia."

http://www.autostraddle.com/it...

Re:Ridiculous

[bongey]

1)Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ Dr. Paul R. McHugh http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...
2)High Court of Australia judgment unanimously ruled that gender was not a social construction.

Re:Ridiculous

[greysondn]

Feel free to pull open the referenced entry in the DSM in a research library.

It's 2016, it's time to realize that wikipedia is a great starting place to gather sources at the very least. And it's also time to grow up and do your own research if you don't agree with mine.

As it is, I don't have the copy of the DSM-IV TR that I usually defer to, and I don't even think I have a copy of the DSM V within my reach anywhere nearby. So I'm sorry I can't wrap it in a nice and neat package.

Re:Ridiculous

[david_thornley]

Okay, so there's one psychiatrist that agrees with you. That's not what psychiatrists in general think. Nor are courts of some random country considered authorities on psychiatry.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to see the logical fallacy in you summing up their response as fact?

Re:Ridiculous

[bongey]

Wrong again, it is still listed psychology disorder.It is no different than someone believing they are thetan. http://apps.who.int/classifica...

Re:Ridiculous

[bongey]

Oh and yes it is still in the DSM , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . Changing the name did not change whether it was a disorder.

Re:Ridiculous

[david_thornley]

Of course it's a disorder. I'm not claiming it isn't.

What I'm claiming is that, since it means that the mind and body are not of the same sex/gender, it can be viewed as a mental disorder or a physical disorder. The current therapy is to make them match, and it's a lot easier to change the body with surgery and hormones than to change the mind.

Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choice, and there should be laws to protect people
who engage in activities and/or relationships that are not harmful to other people.

Love and self should not be legislated.

However, the bathroom situation is out of control; use the restroom that matches
your biological fact, not what your lifestyle choice dictates.

Re:Choice...

[Pfhorrest]

I'm sure the ciswomen in the women's room will have no problem with the burly bearded transman coming into their restroom, once he unzips his pants and shows them the vagina he was born with.

And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.

Re:Choice...

[PopeRatzo]

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choice,

When someone starts a comment that way, you know it's the windup for something really homophobic.

You can find it filed directly under, "I've got nothing against black people..."

Re:Choice...

[MightyMartian]

Out of control in what respect? Do you have some evidence of a large number of issues with trans people using the washroom of the gender they identify with?

Think about this very fucking hard. You have a pre-op trans woman; she's dressed like a woman, she's going to be acting like a woman, and you want to force her to use a men's washroom. What do you suppose is going to happen?

Re:Choice...

[LynnwoodRooster]

And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.

You mean like this?

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of control in what respect?

Cis people facing harassment, physical violence, and death from trans people, for using the wrong bathroom.
Alternative snark: the situation is getting dangerously close to GP having to actually prove they're not a hypocritical asshole. It's so impolite for these people to ask for legal protections and rights; isn't it enough that GP says they're supportive?

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious, have you actually met any trans people? Unless that man was burly as a she, they won't be burly as a he. And that chick in the sexy miniskirt and crop top won't be all that sexy by the typical male definition, the barrel chest and complete lack of hips kind of kills that.

My best friend from high school is now a trans woman. It makes her happy, so whatever. But lets be blunt here, she's had all the surgeries, but she's not fooling anybody. She looks like a dude dressed up as a girl. The feet are too big, the hands are too big, the chest to wide, the hips too small, the head shaped wrong, and oddly, the voice too high, it sounds like a dude doing a falsetto, because that's exactly what she's doing. There's a lot more different in the male and female body than the genitals and the chest.

Re:Choice...

[nightfire-unique]

Even better is for everyone to grow the fuck up.

Unisex bathrooms. Stalls on one side, urinals on the other. Either sex intimidates or persistently harasses someone of either sex, throw 'em in jail.

Let the rest of the self-conscious prudish folks suffer until they don't.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

A voice of reason. There is hope. Kudos.

The culture of being scared of every single thing needs to stop. As a species, we need to get past that stage.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not against anyone's lifestyle choice, but 1+1 = 2.

There you go, your entire +5 insightful post rendered meaningless by a single reply.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

...

When you throw out thoughts like that without hearing them out because you don't agree with the part that someone is trying to explain ...

It just makes you look stupid and prejudice.

Look up what that word means ... hint: Pre-judge

You are doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE AGAINST, just picking a different place to be a prejudice asshole.

How's it feel to be an ignorant hypocrite?

Re:Choice...

[houghi]

As a man, I would hate it if women would start using MY restroom. Have you seen the queues at the ladies? I now can get in, piss and/or shit and get out. Then I would have to wait AND wash my hands.
Hello NO!

Re:Choice...

[Jawnn]

...use the restroom that matches your biological fact, not what your lifestyle choice dictates.

You demonstrate a remarkable, if all too common, ignorance of gender identity issues. In other words (which you are more likely to understand), you are an ignorant asshole.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nothing against black people. I really like elephants and celery - but for completely different purposes. I remember that when I was in kindergarten we would wait for the bus, chanting: the bus, the BUS, the BEE YOU ESS! Sometimes I wear pants.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the ciswomen in the women's room will have no problem with the burly bearded transman coming into their restroom, once he unzips his pants and shows them the vagina he was born with.

And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.

Your point holds true in a normal restroom where stalls are used and no one would know if a person is cis or trans. But here is something else to consider. Does your example hold true in locker rooms and showers? There have been real cases in which cis women have encountered trans women with male genitalia in shower rooms at gyms and felt uncomfortable enough about it to complain to the business. In a normal restroom, in which stalls are used, the "transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick" that you mentioned probably wouldn't appear to be much different from a cis woman in similar attire. However, in a shower room, the differences are more obvious.

Re:Choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a biological male thinks, acts, and dresses like a woman, then I prefer see that man in the men's washroom than the women's. What problem are you imagining?

It's just a popup

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

>When users with a North Carolina IP address visit the website they will be asked if they support the anti-LGBT law, xHamster Chief Marketing Officer, Alexander D. Hawkins, said in an email. If they choose in the affirmative they will be blocked from the site, he said.

It's just a yes/no popup, similar to many publishers' subscription nag popups. If you click "no I don't support the law," you can use the site as normal.

Oh NO!

[kaatochacha]

A porn site I've never heard of is standing up for "decency". I'm not sure it's possible for me to care less.

Re:Oh NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's what I tell my wife too.

Re:Oh NO!

[PopeRatzo]

A porn site I've never heard of...

We're all friends here. You don't have to pretend with us.

Re: Oh NO!

[TimMD909]

Some of us are loyal to our sources of filth. I never heard of the site either. Don't judge us until you've wanked a mile in our socks.

Re: Oh NO!

[PopeRatzo]

Don't judge us until you've wanked a mile in our socks.

Well, you've got me there. Honestly, I haven't heard about xHamster before this, either. And why someone would want to visit a site that has hamster porn is beyond me. Oh well, different strokes, as they say.

XX and XY

[Anonymous Coward]

I identify as a "you folks are batshit nuts" kinda XY.

What you wish for

[Livius]

I confess to not being well versed in North Carolina law, but for we all know this law might prove to be the lesser of two evils.

So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[mark-t]

.... if you are discriminating against those who are discriminating against someone else?

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[taustin]

It's legal to discriminate against anyone not part of a protected class, such as race, religion, political creed, etc. (Never mind this is explicitly intended to discriminate on the basis of religion, which has been illegal for over 50 years).

You can, for instance, discriminate against someone for wearing blue socks, and it's perfectly legal. So long as those socks aren't a religious requirement.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[mark-t]

Right, but that's not the issue here. They are discriminating based on a belief .

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[taustin]

A religious belief. Which has been illegal for 50 years. Period. Been to the Supreme Court, upheld ever time. It is 100% the issue. Enacting religious prejudice as law.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[diamondmagic]

It's not (just) people who are "discriminating"... they're discriminating against an entire geographical area (or perhaps more technically accurate, an entire group of ISPs and their customers, fact of which only makes this even more inexplicable).

Imagine if we did this to Mexico, Russia, or the Middle East; the accusations of racism would never stop. But these are American citizens by and large, so this can only be democracy at work.

The mental lapse here is absolutely astounding.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[mark-t]

Right... Which is what xHamster is doing... they are discriminating based on the beliefs of those that support that law.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[abies]

Discrimination based on religion is very much allowed and real.
Try getting a job as a teacher in catholic school, while being outspoken atheist.
Try getting a job as a butcher in Halal/Kosher shop not being of proper religion.
Try becoming US president, being an atheist (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx).
People putting religious signs illegally in public places are getting away with it, but people trying to remove them are being charged with offending 'religious feelings'.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like a disciplinary action. Public spanking in the land of the free.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[cdrudge]

Technically, they are probably more discriminating based on beliefs of all those that don't support the law. Or maybe those that are hypocrites that find LGBT getting married, using restrooms, existing, etc so offensive but don't mind watching porn of them online.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's called jail.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are discriminating on the basis of geography. The ban also affects people in North Carolina who opposed the bill.

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Science Foundation opposed the connection of the Iranian national higher education and research network (IRNET) in 1993 to a partner of the NSF in Europe. The fight was pretty ugly politically, and Iran connected anyway, while the European national research and education network community began to move away reliance upon the NSFNetwork as the centre of international connectivity; in particular, they began to push for greater in-Europe connectivity (several NRENs in neighbouring countries would exchange traffic with each other *via* the NSFNet), which in turn boosted the (international, but in-Europe) telecomms deregulation programme in Europe.

European networking did quite well out of it, by pretty much any conceivable comparison (e.g., price per megabit per second per month to the average end user for global Internet connectivity, which in part is driven by greater choice because the market regulation focused on avoiding any organization making a political decision that could not easily be routed around by anyone shopping for any level of connectivity, whether individual, corporate, or ISP).

Iranian networking did quite well out of it too; domestic politics there was wary of Internet connectivity so it has only attempted to be a regional Internet hub on-and-off with minor success principally wrecked by censoriousness.

The U.S. federal government continues to frustrate attempts to increase Internet connectivity into places it does not like. It is easy to connect to much of the world via Europe now, however, and is likely to get easier as new south Atlantic cables (driven principally by investment from European organizations) come online.

The U.S. also blocks global players from offering services in the USA and offers U.S. based organizations from offering certain services overseas. Online gambling is a particularly striking case of this, with executives of online gambling firms who allegedly allowed U.S. nationals to use their services being extradited to face trial in the USA and credit card consortia threatened with fines and aggressive regulatory tactics to cut off the use of any credit cards (issued wherever) from being used for online gambling (even where legal). Additionally, there have been attempts to cut off Internet connectivity to island states which have allegedly facilitated online gambling and online payments for online gambling. Nieue is a good example.

So, really, the camel of U.S. governmental regulation of the Internet attempting to blockade geographical areas has been in the tent for more than twenty years, and is so comfortably entrenched in there that you barely notice it. It's funny that people object when a non-governmental organization decides to refuse service in part of the USA. (You know that there are plenty of organizations who refuse to offer their services in various states and counties which have adverse regulations or statute affecting how they do business, right? There are _still_ dry counties in America, for example.)

Re:So wait.... it's legal to discriminate?

[david_thornley]

If your religion has human sacrifice as part of its rituals, I can't legally discriminate against you for believing in human sacrifice. However, things change if you actually do sacrifice someone. Similarly, I'm not going to discriminate against someone for belonging to a primitive and hateful religion that thinks evil things about people depending on sexual orientation, but if you try acting it out I will.

xHamster is discriminating based on the law that was passed. Residents of North Carolina are not themselves a protected class.

Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me why we have gender-specific bathrooms anyway? What's the point? Why not just have one big unisex bathroom?

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[MightyMartian]

Because apparently unisex washrooms makes Baby Jesus cry, and Baby Jesus is an angry, jealous god who will punish those that dare go against His commandments. Thank Baby Jesus there are good Baby Jesus-fearing politicians in North Carolina who know how to preserve that state from the wrath of Baby Jesus.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, having separate bathrooms for males/females is okay, but you try to prevent a male Trans from using a female bathroom, it's somehow discrimination. Wearing lipstick and female clothes does not turn a male person into female.

And to answer the original question, the separate bathrooms are used to prevent sexual harassment (peeping) done by males to females, and vice versa in same cases.

I may be in the minority, but the NC law seems reasonable.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[taustin]

Because real privacy stalls cost more than simple dividers. On the other hand, in France, they have urinals mounted to the outsides of buildings on public streets, with any privacy screens at all.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[godrik]

Really? Urinals outside with no privacy screen at all in France? I call bullshit.

Vespasienne were built with privacy screens. And they basically no longer exist. They are mostly decommissioned. They have been replaced by public (paying) toilets that can be used by both genders.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[110010001000]

No they don't. Christ.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[PPH]

I call bullshit.

I can't speak for France. On the other hand, I can for The Netherlands.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[Livius]

(1) Women insisted. The bathrooms have always been "women" and "other", so all this angst over bathrooms was completely unnecessary all along.

(2) Urinals are specific to a particular anatomy.

Re: Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing reasonable about promoting discrimination - in any form.

Re:Why do we have gender-specific bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

"to prevent sexual harassment (peeping) done by males to females" -- There are already doors (with locks) on the individual stalls, so even if you go into the women's bathroom, the only one you can peep on is yourself.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

like that will stop anyone from getting porn.

proxies? vpns?

noobs.

I'm conflicted by this

[Okian Warrior]

I'm conflicted by this action, and other recent actions in the news.

On the one hand, I'm four-square in favor of human rights, and against these sorts of laws. (So don't bother explaining the situation to me.)

On the other hand, I don't like going outside the process to overturn a result you don't like.

So for contrast and comparison, how is this different from people asking Amazon to drop Trump-branded merchandise, because they want to stop him from running for president?

How is this different from Visa and MasterCard blocking payments to Wikileaks, which seriously crippled them?

How is this different from credit reporting companies putting "terrorist" on their credit reports for certain people? (As mentioned by John Oliver last Sunday.)

In all cases, it's having a powerful entity hurt someone or some group because they don't like what they stand for, and without oversight or judicial reason.

I was also a little uncomfortable with overturning proposition 8 in California. I could 'kinda justify negating it because it tended to favor *less* control of one set of people by another. It shouldn't be up to one group to dictate what another group can do, so long as they're not hurting anyone.

Is that the answer here as well?

So... I'm just a little conflicted.

Can someone lend me a machete to help me through my mental thicket?

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Livius]

On top of all that, this transgendered empowerment seems to truly be an hysterical fad, with some people irrationally supporting something they have clearly not thought carefully about, and other people irrationally supporting something different that they haven't thought carefully about either. Right now people are lumping together lifestyle choices (which society has no obligation to enable) and medical conditions (which do merit accommodation within reason).

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Solandri]

It gets worse. For decades, the politically correct social justice people have been telling us that it's discrimination when a person feels uncomfortable and discriminated against. That is, the intent of the party committing the act causing the discomfort is irrelevant, what's important is that someone was offended by their actions. e.g. Black family finds "negro" printed on their black sofa and are offended, never mind that the sofa was made in a Spanish-speaking country and negro is the Spanish word for black. Or sports columnist writes a story about Yao Ming's flagging performance titled "Chink in the armor." He's unaware that "chink" is also a racial slur, but that doesn't matter since the Chinese community is outraged.

Now someone feels uncomfortable that a person of the opposite sex is in their presumed unisex bathroom, but suddenly their feelings don't matter and it's the intent of the other person in the bathroom which is important? A little consistency would be nice.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[quintessencesluglord]

In a sense, this is a mirror reflection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with same arguments (both for and against) regarding compelling the use of private property by law- either you are allowed to discriminate or not.

The arguments ran following the lines that business would be foolish to discriminate as it would mean a loss of profit, yet businesses did discriminate. The other that there are certain standards every business should adhere to, but that means a severe weakening of privater property rights (as well as state's rights).

If you agree with the laboratories of democracy ideal, this is a natural consequence of people choosing their associations- be as discriminatory as you want, but no one else has to fund it. If you agree with the state uber allies model, this is an usurpation of the law by tenuous means.

It might be better to look at this as what would happen if the federal government mandated equal protection clause- people would be up in arms about overreach with others claiming it was needed to insure equal protection. Now you have a state government attempting to legislate what individual cities can and cannot do. Is it overreach or equal protection?

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

Xhamster is a private business, they can (and will) refuse service to anyone on any grounds they choose, so long as it's legal.

"People asking Amazon" to drop something is just that - people asking. People can ask whatever they like, and Amazon can decide whatever it likes. That's freedom.

Visa and Mastercard is more problematic, because those really are effectively a duopoly, and that gives added weight to their private, commercially-based decisions. But you can't make that case about Xhamster.

Another difference is that the only commercial relationship being affected is the direct one between Xhamster and their viewer. No third-party or other relationship is affected in any way: the viewer can still visit any other site they like. Again, that separates it from the Visa/Mastercard case and the credit reporting companies.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, I don't like going outside the process to overturn a result you don't like.

Nothing does, or should, compel an individual or an organization like xHamster, PayPal, the NBA, Alphabet, ..., from doing business with another group that actively works against their own morals.

Put into reductio ad absurdum terms, nothing ought to have compelled IBM to work with Nazi Germany, but they did it anyways. That was a failing on IBM's part, "going outside the process" was no excuse.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[taustin]

The difference is that in this case, the people making the decision aren't the ones implementing it. They aren't asking, they're forcing. A business that decides to make people use the bathroom they (the business) believe is appropriate is a qualitatively different situation from the business being told by people with guns and badges which bathroom is appropriate, regardless of what the business, or their customers, might think.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[jmv]

I think it all comes down to how "essential" a service is. You can be OK without seeing a particular artist or visiting a particular website. But an organization is often not OK if it can't use Visa and MasterCard. Look at the opposite case: if my state votes a law to protect LGBT people and some artist/company decides to boycott, well I didn't want to see them or do business with them anyway! Again, unless it's some kind of "essential" service.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different because in this case xhamster isn't saying that Trump cannot upload his porn vids, or that Trump won't get paid for his porn.
They are saying they won't deliver Trumps porn to this group of people, which is completely reasonable.
It's more like amazon telling Trump he can sell his hats, but they won't be delivered to the UK. (and neither will anything anyone else sells).

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[TheGratefulNet]

google image search returns:

http://heahea.org/img/1025-You...

(uhm, lol?)

what were we arguing about, again? oh right. political incorrectness.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what if a big movie chain decided to not distribute movies that have a person who is/was a member of the Communist Party as a writer? Was that OK?

Or what if a commercial advertiser decided to remove its sponsorship of a MLB team because they allowed a black man to play on the team? Was that OK?

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[rahvin112]

The proper society accepted way to respond to speech you don't like falls into two categories. 1. You ignore them. 2. You engage in speech yourself.

Boycotts, refusing to associate and other actions are ALL speech. The idea that you can't say or do things to someone for things they say is absolutely anti-speech. It's the very basis of hate speech laws that are 99% of the time used to silence minorities and attack unpopular opinions. Look to Turkey as an example of how well these restrictions work out.

Everyone should be encouraged to use your speech to counter speech you don't like. Boycott the speaker, stand on a soap box on the sidewalk and speak endlessly about how they are horrible people. Petition retailers to stop selling products they sponsor. These are all valid responses to speech you don't agree with.

Creating a "safe space" where people can say things without counter speech or social consequences is nothing more than a step away from fascism.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go around demanding consistency from people, you are bound to be disappointed.

Even the noblest of laws can be ruined by corrupt cops and/or stupid juries.

But still, all we can do is apply what little political force we have to the eradication of blatantly unjust laws.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[AmiMoJo]

For decades, the politically correct social justice people have been telling us that it's discrimination when a person feels uncomfortable and discriminated against.

No, that's complete nonsense. It's something professional victims say to gain support for their imaginary cause.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

But you see, absolute consistency is impossible. There are arguments for both sides, and because the law is being discussed in a two-valued manner, any compromise or any result will inevitably "discriminate" against someone else.

The best move is not to play.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

Incompatibilities pervade in a world without nuance.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[aquabat]

I think the distinction is that it's not some level of government mandating that businesses not transact with NC. These are private people and private corporations exercising their rights to not do business in NC, basically because they don't feel like it.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Straif]

The NC law has no impact on businesses in NC.

The 'bathroom' law only affects public facilities and leaves the decision on what rules to implement about bathroom use on private property (i.e. businesses in NC) to the private property owner. So if Starbucks wants to have a trans friendly policy there is nothing in this law to prevent that.

If people are so outraged about not being able to use the bathroom of their choice while visiting city hall they can work within the normal system and build support for a State law.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Catmeat]

As you're a big fan of "process", you can always buy stock in the companies involved and get their policy reversed at a shareholder's meeting, assuming you can get enough other shareholders to agree with your position. That's the **process** that exists. As it is, these companies (likely with a view to maximizing shareholder value) are taking the stand that the PR win is worth whatever's the financial loss of taking elsewhere investment that might have optimally gone to NC. Disagree at a shareholders' meeting if you feel so inclined.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Scroatzilla]

The consistency is: Grow up. Your examples (which seem somewhat plausible) are, at best, simplistic and-- while they do showcase silly examples of social-just-gone-too-far-- don't really measure up to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is *institutional discrimination* (that is, discrimination enshrined in law).

If you find your viewpoints being bombarded in ways the you find inconsistent, why not take a look at your own attitude? Are you *really* so confused about this? Here's a hint: Those "feelings" that you think should "matter" are *irrational fears* that are carelessly reaffirmed by religious fearmongerers who love people like you (who naively argue while discussing topics like this, "Who, me? I am the rational one.").

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[david_thornley]

By that definition, I really don't know politically correct social justice people. I doubt there are many out there, although they do tend to be noisy.

I think a woman would be a lot less comfortable in the unisex rest room if someone walked in who looked, dressed, and acted like a man than if someone walked in who looked, dressed, and acted like a woman, regardless of actual genitalia, chromosome composition, or birth certificate. I also think that the physical danger to trans women (who are apparently often the victims of violence) outweigh general discomfort.

Re:I'm conflicted by this

[Anonymous Coward]

From my understanding, this only applies to public facilities. Private businesses can exhibit unicorn and mule bathroom segregation and be fine in NC, I'm sure.

If we really wanted to make an impact

[Anonymous Coward]

We should specifically stop buying Saudi Arabia oil and gas. No protection of the monarchy too.

In Saudi Arabia, ABC members are stoned. Free speech proponents are hanged. There is zero tolerance to Syrian refugees: official policy is not to take refugees from other countries.

If you are non-muslim, you are basically not allowed to travel to S.Arabia as a tourist. You have to lie and to pretend that you are a muslim, and never get out of the closet (that you are non-muslim) if you want to be safe. If you are non-muslim, and you will want to visit holy city of Mecca, you will be basically punished by a lifetime deportation, or if a judge decides that you wanted to offend, you will be punished to death.

Females are not considered fit to drive.

Most of the real jobs are held by non-citizen workers. Saudis, those who chose to work, get overpaid jobs, and if it is government jobs, that means work is optional. I have met a lot of .... not exactly talented Saudis.

And here in USA, we have a state that has an issue when a dude with a dick will come to ladies locker room and shower, all legally, and North Carolina said, fuck no.

I do not live in North Carolina, but I have two daughters. They are already attending martial arts. We will increase the frequency of the classess.

Where is all the liberal bathroom haters wrath when buying gas made from Saudi Arabia oil, or when repeatedly voting for Obama or RINO's?

A possible backlash... against the wrong people.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear that the masses won't react too well to all of this, especially those who may already be bigoted and those who are completely ignorant of what the NC state legislature have done. I fear that the reactions won't be towards Governor McCrory and the NC state legislature, but against the transgender community directly.

And nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the NC legislature is not going to lose any sleep over this.

Wrong

[s.petry]

Instead of reading it with the spin and bias someone told you to have, check other laws at the State and Federal level. The majority of State laws are written to have authority over lower levels of Government. Federal laws are similarly written to supersede State laws on the same subject matter. If you are supposed to have a power structure from the bottom up, how do you suppose the upper levels have any power when lower levels could usurp their laws?

I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the law you are claiming is somehow bad. It states right in the preamble what that wording is for. Now check every other State law and see if there is similarity.

I wish people would actually read the 5 pages and use their noggins a bit. The law is intended to protect girls and women from perverted men. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me some court cases where a woman is arrested for being in a mens room taking pictures of men's genitals. I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.

Re:Wrong

[serviscope_minor]

I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.

How were they "caught" if it's not illegal? Oh wait they were caught because it already IS illegal, and so a new law which discriminates very heavily against transwomen is not needed.

Re:Wrong

[Pseudonym]

I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the law you are claiming is somehow bad.

Just curious... have you ever read the Patriot Act?

The preamble states in no uncertain terms that "the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected". Who could possibly argue with a law based on that intention? Sign me up for some of that!

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

Reductio ad absurdum? I can't really tell, so: The law is written because many local Governments have adopted a unisex law without unisex rest rooms. If you have a penis but don't feel like you should, you can use which ever rest room you like. This means it's not illegal in those areas. The State is assuming power over those local laws, so that it is illegal.

II really don't see this as a difficult concept for a rational person.

Re:Wrong

[serviscope_minor]

Reductio ad absurdum?

No, I'm pointing out that the things you seem fearful of are already illegal. So why pass a new law?

II really don't see this as a difficult concept for a rational person.

You keep on listing the reasons for the law without every listing any of the bad consequences of it. I don't see how a rational person can keep on ignoring the bad consequences.

Re: Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking out of your ass. Lower level jurisdictions can pass more restrictive laws. Or are you telling me every state and local income tax law is illegal because there's a federal income tax law?
The puropse of the law is to spread hate toward people you don't agree with. You are a bigot.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you've never been to a busy bar or club. Women do that all the time to men.

Although, the men who will to go to those lengths are not going to be stopped by this law. What they are doing is already illegal so a new law would not be required.

I'm not sure why people care about who's sitting in the stall next to them. I think you're problem is that people have read the "5 pages" although this law is longer than that so you're clearly not one of them. People read it and see it for what it is. You are playing to the fear that has been mongered.

If all you can find is literally hundreds of cases on this issue then it is not a big enough issue to merit a law that will clearly allow discrimination. You might as well pass a law that makes misbehaving in a bathroom a much harsher punishment. Then you'll at least accomplish your stated goal.

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

They are legal under local laws, that you just ignore that fact twice makes me think you are just a troll.

Re:Wrong

[kwbauer]

No, but it makes it a bit easier to prove bad intentions. If the law gives men access to the women's bathroom, then the fact that a man is in the bathroom is no longer grounds for suspicion. That removes one barrier for ill-intentioned men. The fact that proponents of allowing transgendered men into women's bathrooms and changing rooms can't see the potential problem because "transgendered men aren't interested in women" tells me quite a bit about such proponents. The biggest being that they are lacking in any imagination because non-transgendered men have already been caught lurking in women's bathrooms so anybody who can't imagine that others might have imaginations and can pretend to be things they aren't shows a huge lack of imagination.

Re:Wrong

[Aighearach]

Just last week in my town a drunk guy was arrested for stripping down in the womens restroom in a 24 hour restaurant... and lathering himself up in the sink... and making sexual comments to women.

If all of that was legal, other customers would drag him out in the parking lot, instead of having the cops deal with it in a civilized way. It isn't behavior that is tolerated by the community, regardless of the details of the laws. Whereas, if he had just gone in a stall and done his business without talking to anybody or exposing himself, chances are nobody would have called them... or cared.

The important detail people miss is that the fear is being drummed up mostly on the basis of the threat of sexual assault; but that is illegal anyways, and men follow women into the restroom for that purpose as it is; and they aren't dressing up as a woman to do it, because that doesn't actually help their crime in any way. You're not going to attack somebody while there are other people in the restroom without the cops being called, so what is the disguise for? How is there actually an increased threat? If there were robot guards at the door that let in anybody wearing a dress, then the fear would make more sense; but women are allowed to wear pants these days, so that wouldn't work anyways.

Re:Wrong

[kwbauer]

Additionally, I have read articles about boys who feel that they are a lesbian trapped in a man's body and women who feel that they are gay men trapped in a woman's body. Parsing that statement tells me that you have physically male (adorned with penises) men who enjoy the sight of and want to be with naked women and who are claiming the right to be with them because they "feel" that they should have the same body parts as those women. And likewise on the flip-side.

If anyone truly believes that looking in your pants is not a good way to determine which bathroom to use because of KISS, then you are truly a rube (or looking for rube goldberg).

Re:Wrong

[Aighearach]

Stop calling people names for using basic logic. If you didn't understand it, that doesn't mean that they weren't making a point. It just means you didn't understand it.

I'd try to walk you through it, but you don't listen or comprehend what the other users on this site say to you so it is hopeless.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the part that already IS illegal: taking photographs of someone in a position of implied privacy without their consent. Which is the (untyped for some reason) point of servicescope_minor. There are already laws against that, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, hair-color, or other shit that doesn't matter.

Sorry for the AC response, I should probably get me one of these fancy /. accounts.

Re:Wrong

[GameboyRMH]

I take it that you consider gay men and lesbian women using the same bathrooms as everyone else to also be a problem then?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This law, however noble in intent, causes harm in application.

The harm it causes outweighs its intent.

Re:Wrong

[kwbauer]

In some ways yes but in other ways no. At least they are being anatomically honest.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is intended to protect girls and women from perverted men. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me some court cases where a woman is arrested for being in a mens room taking pictures of men's genitals. I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.

*Sigh*

Your implied argument is that allowing transgender persons into the bathroom somehow creates a loophole that perverts can exploit. Are you implying that taking pictures of someone in the bathroom somehow becomes legal if we allow transgender persons into a restroom?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest being that they are lacking in any imagination because non-transgendered men have already been caught lurking in women's bathrooms so anybody who can't imagine that others might have imaginations and can pretend to be things they aren't shows a huge lack of imagination.

Here's one for YOUR imagination. How do you imagine these non-transgendered men ahve been caught lurkig in women's bathrooms? Was it the 5 o'clock shadow? Their penis? Or how about their active, suspicious behavior? Because if it's the last and the story is "the men were warned multiple times and finally caught with photos", I don't see how anything in the law changes a damn thing. If the same person is caught repeatedly acting suspicious and finally caught with photos, do you imagine magically this law existing or not changes a damn thing?

Seriously, anti-discrimination laws don't cancel out suspicious behavior nor police having the ability to document a pattern of suspicious behavior. That's the prime basis for finding these perverts. Not their penis.

Re:Wrong

[serviscope_minor]

They are legal under local laws,

Could you try to speak with somesemblence of coherence before you accuse others of irrationality and trolling?

*WHAT* is legal under local laws.

And now for the bit of my post that you'll snip and pretend didn't happen because you won't reply:

You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.

Re:Wrong

[AmiMoJo]

So what do you do about lesbian perverts? Or gay perverts going in to the men's bathroom and taking photos?

This is an old argument that has been used against homosexuals and even non-whites. It's similar to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that claimed it would lead to all kinds of perversion and criminality. It's not about protection at all.

Re:Wrong

[cmdr_tofu]

This is simply a place where the law does not need to be. There are already laws that protect girls and women from perverted men.

Nothing about sharing a bathroom with people of any gender is a threat to people of any other gender. In fact it would be more democratic because the line outside the women's bathroom is usually longer. I know plenty of times that impatient women who would use the men's room and vice versa. Did I immediately phone the police to say that I came out of a stall to see a woman washing her hands in the men's room and that I had been bathroom-violated? Of course not, because I'm not a moron.

Bathroom door signs are not a legal issue. They are put there by the owners of those bathrooms, and if bathroom gender enforcement should be done, it should be done by the owners of those bathrooms. If I put a "women-only" sign on all the bathrooms in my home and then enter those bathrooms, have I commit a crime?

I think it reasonable that USING ANY BATHROOM for intended biological purposes by anyone of ANY GENDER without misconduct is not a criminal act. Unwanted sexual contact in the bathroom (or outside of the bathroom) is a criminal act and especially heinous if it involves children. However that has nothing to do with trans people. In fact, no trans person has ever been arrested for unwanted sexual activity in a bathroom. However there have been many senators involved in illegal bathroom sexual shenanigans. Perhaps it would be more fitting then to create a law to ban Republican lawmakers from public restrooms:
http://www.newnownext.com/zero...

Re:Wrong

[stdarg]

You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.

Photographing is done in secret typically. However it's harder to hide the fact that you're a man. So if the law starts protecting men going into women's bathrooms, it'll be much harder to enforce the law about men sneaking into bathrooms to photograph women.

Not to mention the "ick" factor, which is the real reason for the law.

Re:Wrong

[stdarg]

If there were an easy way to tell who's lesbian, there probably would be lots of people who want to make it illegal for lesbians to go to the women's bathroom. Same with gays.

This law is about guys who simply "identify" as women going into women's bathrooms. That is not okay. If you truly look like a woman then it won't even be an issue because nobody can tell.

Re:Wrong

[AmiMoJo]

If you truly look like a woman then it won't even be an issue because nobody can tell.

Saying "it's illegal but no-one checks" isn't very comforting.

Re:Wrong

[serviscope_minor]

However it's harder to hide the fact that you're a man.

Depends on how you define "man". Plenty of post-op transexuals that there is NO way you could tell without getting rather intimate.

So if the law starts protecting men going into women's bathrooms,

The law doesn't do that. The only laws proposed have been to protect tranwomen by allowing them to behave exactly as women. It does not protect men from going into bathrooms.

it'll be much harder to enforce the law about men sneaking into bathrooms to photograph women.

[evidence needed of which none exists]

Not to mention the "ick" factor, which is the real reason for the law.

Well that's just people being cunts, so fuck 'em.

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

They are legal under local laws,

Could you try to speak with somesemblence of coherence before you accuse others of irrationality and trolling?

*WHAT* is legal under local laws.

Right back at you. My general statement is that a male being allowed in the woman's room is legal under local laws, assuming the male claims identification as a woman. Since that is the exact subject of the law I said people should read, I assumed it was extremely obvious.

And now for the bit of my post that you'll snip and pretend didn't happen because you won't reply:

You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.

You on the other hand go to one of several possible illegal consequences and say "it's illegal" without clarification, and have the expectation that I know what "it" you are referring to. Nothing like being balanced.

That said, you are attempting to claim that because a valid consequence is already illegal, placing people in a circumstance which provides the easiest way to perpetrate the crime should be required. Should we pass laws that disallow people from having locks on their doors? Robbery is already illegal. Should we pass laws that require you to place your personal information on a plaque visible on your chest and mailbox? Identity theft is already against the law.

As stated above, the women complaining are females who are being forced to have males in their rest room. In NC girls complaining to parents about situations forced on them at school was the driving rhetoric to the bill. I know plenty of women who complain about the burly looking person wearing a dress being in their bathroom. I can easily find stories of sexual assaults of females in the rest room. Their fears are not phobias, they are well founded rational fears.

Your attempt to force that situation would be fine if all people were altruistic and perfect. Nothing would ever go wrong no matter how we made requirements. Community showers with all genders, races, and ages would be perfectly fine under that circumstance because nobody would ever lust or take an immoral action against anyone else. The fact that people are not altruistic and imperfect kills your position, as it does with most of the progressive left rhetoric.

Re:Wrong

[stdarg]

No, it's not. But if you're susceptible to the "comfort" argument then you have to take into account the comfort of non-trans as well. Are they comfortable if a biological man who identifies as a woman goes into the women's rest room? Nope. Hence the law.

Re:Wrong

[stdarg]

Depends on how you define "man".

Well that's the whole point here, right? Different people define it differently. Trans people want to define it most beneficially to them because they feel uncomfortable otherwise. But others want to define it for their own benefit because being around someone who is trans makes them uncomfortable. Why do the transexuals have a better case? They don't.

The law doesn't do that. The only laws proposed have been to protect tranwomen by allowing them to behave exactly as women. It does not protect men from going into bathrooms.

Not sure what you're referring to but the Charlotte ordinance was not restricted to trans women (and honestly I'm not sure what that means... men who have become women or women who have become men).

The state law is intended to require men to go to the men's room and women to go to the women's room. So you must be referring to another law.

Publicity stunt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the Apple hoo har.

And nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

NC politicians are probably saying to each other "what can we do to get these guys to hard-block the whole state?"

A few of them are probably saying to themselves "how can I use a VPN without it getting on the front page of the paper?"

Good. Who needs that smut???

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn lovers need to get a flipping life.

Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, all of a sudden in the US are people supporting the "rights" of people who were, just a few years ago considered aberrant by the vast majority of people? Why is homosexuality suddenly the "in" thing to support come hell of high water. I don't ask these questions with hate or bigotry but rather out of sheer curiosity. Personally, I'm opposed to the homosexual lifestyle and what it entails, but understand people have free will to live their lives as they will. I just don't understand how a man born a man or a woman born a woman thinks they have a right to use the bathroom of the person they "think" they are, when one's plumbing defines the correct bathroom. I'm opposed to ideological beliefs and rather find facts like penis=men's room true.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[taustin]

I just don't understand how a man born a man or a woman born a woman thinks they have a right to use the bathroom of the person they "think" they are, when one's plumbing defines the correct bathroom.

Well, now, son, that's where you went astray. This law doesn't require people to use a bathroom that matches their plumbing, it requires them to use a bathroom that matches the plumbing their birth certificate indicates, even if their own plumbing has been changed. Given the skill of the surgeons and other doctors who do gender realignment procedures, this law requires individuals who literally look like Playboy centerfolds to use the men's room. And men who look like professional body builders to use the women's bathroom.

If that makes sense to you, then, please, move to North Carolina. And stay there.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here. I asked the question in a polite light and you answered in a non-polite manner. Why? You think your thinking is better than mine? Stronger? More enlightened? Please answer in a manner consistent with the patience in which the question was asked or simply refrain.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there is a magical procedure they do that I am unaware of to bestow actual female anatomy on men, even transitioned transsexuals do not have actual functional equipment or "plumbing". You could put a pair of fake tits on me too, and I'm not suddenly a female with female parts. I'm a guy with silicone implants.

The only thing different about the actual transsexuals is that they took some hormones before they got the implants. And whether they cut their balls off or not, they still don't have ovaries.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes sense is getting help for those people who are a small minority. What doesn't make sense is trying to offend everyone else.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[taustin]

You didn't even look at the links, obviously. Not surprising.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[aquabat]

This law doesn't require people to use a bathroom that matches their plumbing, it requires them to use a bathroom that matches the plumbing their birth certificate indicates

So, in NC, persons must produce papers for the pee-pee po-po to proceed to the plumbing?

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Straif]

To be more clear, the law only requires people to use a bathroom that matches the plumbing their birth certificate indicates in government owned facilities; everywhere else is up to the private property owner. So all businesses in NC are free to be as trans friendly as they want to be and trans supporters are also free to push for a State-wide law supporting their position.

The law essentially just overrides the smorgasbord or individual town/county laws and states that all laws concerning these type of special protections need to be passed at a State level.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think these guys belong in the women's bathroom? How about sending these women into the men's room until they've had the big snip?

just a few years ago considered aberrant by the vast majority of people

It's been a lot longer than just a few years, you might not have noticed but it's not the 1950s any more.

Re:Honest Questions, Not Flaming...

[dskoll]

Because people's attitudes change as additional facts emerge. That's the hallmark of science.

The hallmark of religion is to refuse to change the ideology, even in the face of new facts. That's why a lot of the people supporting regressive laws and opposing same-sex marriage are religious; they're stuck in their ideology.

Refusing to change your point of view even in the face of facts? I think that is the definition of insanity.

Duh

[s.petry]

The difference should be obvious. The woman can file charges and have the guy arrested/expelled without much fuss. The guy attempting to file charges will be ridiculed and ignored. See Title 9 if dealing with College. Need me to site specifics or can you find UNLV, Duke, and Penn State all by yourself? Penn because allegations of boys being raped was ignored for decades. In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.

There is no parity, but it does not favor who you claim it does.

Re:Duh

[Plus1Entropy]

In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.

Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?

Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...

Re:Duh

[dywolf]

no, stupidity such as this deserves censorship, if only to avoid infecting others.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The boys being raped at Penn were not students and the college facilities were being used for a non-school related activity.

Re:Duh

[s.petry]

In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.

Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?

Not at all, and quite frankly I find your position completely irrational. Fact: The majority of complaints regarding transgender restroom use is when masculine females use the woman's room. It is such an easy search I am not going to bother with a LMGTFY link. I can tell you that I have worked at 4 companies in the last 10 years where people with penises were reprimanded for using the woman's rest room after several warnings. Women were uncomfortable in their own rest room. Fact: The majority of actual crimes related to restrooms are males in the woman's room.

How is it rational to make it legal for men to enter the woman's room, as long as they claim "I don't believe I'm a male."? I really need a compelling fact based argument to change my mind, and I have not seen one. I see "unisex", but that is not the same thing as men being allowed entry into the woman's room.

Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...

Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit. UNLV and Duke both show that assertion to be incorrect, and another quick google search will show that your bias does not appear to exist. The first link in a Google search is a Yale basketball captain who was expelled after an allegation, and the list is rather lengthy.

Would you care to guess how many women generating allegations proven to be false have been prosecuted or expelled?

Re:Duh

[MightyMartian]

If it's such an easy search, why didn't you provide the results?

Re:Duh

[Plus1Entropy]

So you're not complaining that the legal definition of rape is twisted so men can't be raped, 'cause it sure sounded like you were in the GGP. Now it seems like you're saying that the law should be asymmetrical since one part of the population is more likely to be the offender than the victim. Pick a side will you?

Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit.

I guess I'm the one who's going to have to provide the LMGTFY link. I'll even QTFY:

the U.S. Department of Education is investigating complaints against 161 institutions for their handling of sexual violence investigations.

Also, you're going to have to be more specific about "Duke and UNLV", and how they "both show the assertion to be incorrect". By the way, Duke is back on the DoE's aforementioned list as of January. Since Title IX investigations take 1-2 years, I doubt this is the specific case you're talking about.

Re:Duh

[Plus1Entropy]

Oh, I forgot to mention, you're delusional about Penn State. If Sandusky was a janitor he would have been locked up years ago.

Re:Duh

[Capsaicin]

In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.

"In fact" you are mistaken. The very opposite is the case. At common law rape involved the penetration of a woman's vagina by a penis, forcibly and without the consent to the woman. Since sodomy was an offence per se, questions of consent were simply immaterial. The law has been "warped" (not necessarily in a bad way) where it is possible for men to be the victims of 'rape' (at least in the CL world).

In NSW, the jurisdiction in which I'm admitted to practise (which in the event I don't), the crime of rape was abolished and replaced by the sex/gender-neutral offence of sexual assault, which can be committed by inserting any body part (or object) into either a vagina or an anus, or when oral sex if forcibly engaged in. Different methods have been used in various jurisdictions to "warp" rape law to such an extent as to allow men to be raped. In England the law has been warped only to the extent that the penis might be placed in mouth or anus in addition to the vagina (i.e. while either sex* can be the victim only a man* can be a rapist). The English law, however, does envisage other sexual offences which cover situations in which women might be the perpetrator.

[* I speak here of 'sex' rather than 'gender' to avoid any ambiguities of terminology that might surround a person who has a penis.]

Re:Duh

[AmiMoJo]

How is it rational to make it legal for men to enter the woman's room, as long as they claim "I don't believe I'm a male."?

It's not just a claim, it's a medically diagnosed condition for which there is a course of treatment.

You might as well ask if it is rational to allow someone to use the disabled bathroom as long as they claim "I'm disabled". There is a legal and medical definition of disability, just like there are legal and medical definitions of gender and the condition known as being transgender.

Or are you saying that checking between a person's legs is a more valid test than anything medical science has come up with?

Re:Duh

[DarkOx]

Fine but why on earth is the treatment gender reassignment and not psychiatric care until they able to recognize and accept their sex. If I thought I was mermaid, no medical professional would advocate surgery to give me fins.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the movie "The Hunting Ground" lots of facts and stats in there to keep you happy about how difficult it is for women to get men punished for assaulting them and raping them in colleges around the country.

  http://www.thehuntinggroundfilm.com/

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine but why on earth is the treatment gender reassignment and not psychiatric care until they able to recognize and accept their sex.

Because science.

The first one has been shown to work very well. The second one has been tried and tried and only ever managed to make the problem worse.

"Insanity is repeatedly trying the same, expecting a different outcome".

Re:Duh

[AmiMoJo]

Because gender dysphoria is a medically recognized condition that has been determined to be genuine by a vast amount of research. Gender reassignment is proven to work too.

Also, there is a difference between your body not matching your psychological gender, which we know is quite possible since sex isn't at all binary on a genetic level, and feeling that you should be another species. One is explainable by how we know genetics and sex to work (i.e. there is a physical cause), and the other is not.

Re:Duh

[s.petry]

Or are you saying that checking between a person's legs is a more valid test than anything medical science has come up with?

I don't believe that is always necessary, but the genitals are the fact and the "I dress like the other gender because" is completely subjective. Not everyone who dresses as their non-biological gender is transgender. Statistics show no difference between the percentages of transvestite and transgender people in the population.

Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured biological male who dresses as the opposite gender and uses the opposite gendered rest room. Nobody can tell! Nobody is complaining about the feminine featured male using the male rest room. In the adult space (not K-12 grade schools) nobody cares if a feminine featured woman uses the rest room. People may find it odd, a few may find it somewhat erotic, but nobody is filing charges or complaining. The complains are about the masculine featured biological men who use the female rest room. If you put a dress on a 5'9" 190lb masculine frame it looks like a male in a dress. Women (rightly) feel very uncomfortable in their own rest room when that occurs. Their fears are rational and founded in facts and experience.

People claiming that women should just ignore the fears are simply put, assholes. If it benefited them, they would push for laws to remove all door locks. It's already illegal for someone to steal your stuff, so why have locks on doors? They would similarly pass laws that required you drive slowly through areas like Compton with your windows down, because carjacking is already illegal.

These bathroom gender free-for-all laws are simply FUD which benefits an extreme minority with an irrational view.

Re:Duh

[s.petry]

Ahh, the old cherry pick by someone who is not very good at it. I never complained about the legal definition of rape, I provided a fact.

The definition of Rape has changed over time.

The prevailing common law definition being most often sited is defined so that women are the only possible victim. Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will.

Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case..

Wow, you just proved my point.

Interesting and twisted way of looking at the Penn State case which I had not considered. Oh, Bill Clinton called and said "position does not matter when allegations are made". Yup, he is scum but the court of public opinion convicted him long before the sweater ever came out.

Re:Duh

[StikyPad]

I've seen women in the men's room (for its intended purpose), and men go into the women's room, and I, a man, have gone into the women's room as well. It's a courtesy separation, not a prohibition against "I need to shit or piss somewhere -- now." Every reasonable person understands this. They might not like it, they be incensed, they may flee the scene, but at the end of the day, they understand.

People determined to invade someone's privacy, or sexually harass, assault, or rape someone else will not be deterred by a law prohibiting their presence in a bathroom. It doesn't even begin to hold up to simple scrutiny, even if it were reasonably enforceable, which it is not, and it punishes people who actually need to use, you know, the bathroom. It's the most ridiculous fucking idea I've ever heard, or will hear this year, unless someone starts a campaign to prohibit some other bodily function that can't always be regulated, like hiccuping in public because children might be scared by the noise. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with us?

Re:Duh

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

If you had been born with different genitals, but were 100% the same in every other aspect, do you think you'd identify with the gender that matches your sex? I wouldn't.

I believe (and there is growing supporting evidence) that there are innate psychological differences between men and women. Some people are born with a psychology that does not "match" their sex. They're literally a man born in a woman's body. You suggest psychiatric care to fix their psychology, but why not cosmetic surgery to fix their genitals? Both suck, but the latter seems less invasive (and empirically gets better results)

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting this, I was going to do so, but you've saved me the time and trouble.

Re:Duh

[DarkOx]

Even if true and that research show that to exist in a vanishing small part of even the population that say they are trans, it does not mean that sex ( we both used gender before, not the correct term ) reassignment is the only treatment that is effective just a treatment that is effective.

Where anyone other medical condition is concerned doctors generally resist the idea of removing healthy functioning organs. This has the appearance of being treated differently because 1) sex is involved, 2) its politicized.

Re:Duh

[DarkOx]

If you had been born with different genitals, but were 100% the same in every other aspect, do you think you'd identify with the gender that matches your sex?

Yes I do because I am not in the habit of trying to deny the reality of what I see before me or reflected in the mirror for that matter. Had I had the opposite genitals I would also assume from birth on I would have had very different experiences and developed very differently psychology as well as physically.

sex reassignment is hardly cosmetic surgery. It has major major impacts on the endocrine system and the rest of the body. We are not talking about a tummy tuck here. I would say its use in all but the rarest of cases such as intersex individuals and identified genetic abnormality the doctors who don't try everything else the can first are being incredibly irresponsible.

Re:Duh

[Plus1Entropy]

Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case.

Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.

You didn't even read very far into the link you provided:

Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will. However most states have refined and broadened the statutory definition of rape so that marriage, gender, and force are not relevant.

Who's not very good at cherry picking now?

Re:Duh

[s.petry]

Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.

I realize that things like evidence are unimportant if you have an agenda, but the person discussed in the majority of that article had no evidence and did not behave as if a crime had occurred. If I say you raped me last Friday should you immediately be expelled, terminated, and put in jail without any evidence? Good grief, you have to have some form of mental retardation if you believe that is the correct result of an allegation.

I noticed how you omit the other link which provides a full definition including the history of Rape including links to the various State definitions. I quoted the easy part because the few dozen pages of of State definitions is not feasible. I gave you both links so you did not even have to look, but you grasp the only part which backs your delusion. I hope you get falsely accused of a crime and put in jail, you will get what you advocate in time. Buh Bye now! No more dealing with the irrational you.

What happened to the old "routing around damage"?

[mi]

It was John Gilmore, who said in 1993:

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

I wonder, if he could've envisioned the next generation to celebrate censorship as Slashdot-posters do today...

Human Trafficking Hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn is such a moral business. \sarc

Re:A possible backlash... against the wrong people

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. No one is going to get violent over not being able to go to xHamster.

Pornhub is much better anyway.

Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

There are simply men and women. If, despite having been born with distinctive genitalia, someone considers himself to be of the opposite sex, then they suffer from a delusion:

a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

My recent argument with one such person ended, when I asked him to define terms: what is the definition of the term "man"?

If you choose to reply to this, be sure to include your definition. And, no, do not try to imply some difference between "sex" and "gender" — they are synonyms (except when talking about grammar rules).

And, no, contrasting what you are vs. how you identify is bullshit too — unless you are prepared to treat this human as a cat, and this White woman as Black.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have common sense. I wish more did. People are so quick to jump on cause bandwagons because others do. My favorite example is the nutters at a college who actually called for the dismissal of college staff in favor of Trump for President. Really? I love how the left (generally) calls for the silence of dissenting opinions. So much for the mystical tolerance the left preaches. The left basically preaches that I'm entitled to my own opinion as long as it gels with their own. If it differs, I'm a "hater" or "bigot".

I miss the old days. Things were more simple, black and white.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, note that being transgender implies that a certain base gender exist, meaning that gender is not something you can arbitrarily wish up.
Otherwise it would be possible for me to claim to be a transmale, even though I am clearly simply male, and have never been female.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

There are simply men and women.

Yes, if you go by a cartoonishly simplistic understanding of gender.

What about people who have both "male" and "female" features? How do you classify them? What if they disagree with your classification? On what basis do your assumptions about other people take precedence over their own knowledge of themselves?

What about other cultures who don't have a binary concept of gender (like some aboriginal societies, who in some cases have five genders)? Do you believe that the narrow and parochial Eurocentric way of understanding the world has supremacy over that of other societies?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Ixokai]

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.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

Except the experts on things like delusions [...]

You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.

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.

Such as by attaching a furry tail, whiskers, and retractable claws?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[davidwr]

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).

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

Yes, if you go by a cartoonishly simplistic understanding of gender.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

Again: Define the terms.

What about people who have both "male" and "female" features? How do you classify them?

Y-chromosome.

What about other cultures who don't have a binary concept of gender

Some "cultures" can't count beyond two nor discern colors... Would you denounce the Eurocentrism of the number 5 and the color red?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or chimeras who happen to be about half XY and about half XX

Yes, yes. And some people have an extra chromosome too... Not talking about such invalids — only about those, whose chromosomes and genitalia are quite unmistakable and in full agreement, yet they insist on identifying as something other than what they are for some intangible reasons. Sad, really — pitiable, even, if they weren't forcing the rest of us to change the very English language to accommodate their delusions.

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.

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?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so important to you? You couldn't even describe what a Y chromosome does during fetal development!

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Ixokai]

Except the experts on things like delusions [...]

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.

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.

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".

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap.

I'm sorry, but arguing with a clear understanding of the terms is what slines do.

Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.

Is transgenderism so new a phenomenon, that language "hasn't caught up"?

mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition

Sorry, but that's merely an appeal to authority. And a highly questionable authority too — not only because most of their experiments can not be verified, but also because politics would cause any "health professional" disagreeing to lose his license, job, and access to pornography.

There's no "species dysphoria".

Says who? How anthropocentric and speciist of you!

And what about the White woman "identifying as" Black? Why should be fired from a "colored-only" job, but a muscular penis-owner be allowed into a women's bathroom?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

arguing with a clear understanding of the terms is what slines do.

That should be without, of course.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

Why is it so important to you?

Because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[davidwr]

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.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

a gay man is XY, has male body parts, and self-identifies as male

Ah, so the chromosomes and the body parts do play their part. Very good... Unfortunately, you chose to add the "self-identification" part into it too — despite my warning against it.

Because, if — as logical consistency demands — we take your approach to other cases of delusion, we'll have to agree, that this White woman is not White, and this human is not human. They both do not identify as what they appear, and thus — by your definition — are not that... (Not to mention the various other sufferers, who similarly "self-identify as" Napoleon Bonaparte and similar figures.)

Having thus shown your approach as self-inconsistent, I don't even need to creatively redefine, what "winning an argument" means — nor claim to identify as victor in this little debate of ours. I simply am. Remember to logout.

I did invent it.

Thank you for this admission. But we are still conversing in English and reinventing terms to mean something new is not acceptable.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[davidwr]

Thank you for this admission. But we are still conversing in English and reinventing terms to mean something new is not acceptable.

Unfortunately, there is no universal agreement on the definition of what a "man" is. There is broad agreement that fits the vast majority of cases, but there is disagreement on the edge cases, and for the purposes of this discussion, it's the edge cases that count.

So, if we are going to stick to what is universally agreed upon, then by definition a man (including boys) would be the set of all individuals which would be labeled as "male" by every subject-matter expert and every expert in the meanings of words and how they change over time (or, more practically, by the consensus expert opinion where such a consensus expert opinion existed) and a woman (including girls) would be the set of all individuals which would be labeled as "female" by every expert (or, more practically, by the consensus expert opinion where such a consensus expert opinion existed). But what about those where there was disagreement among experts (or, more practically, where there was no consensus opinion of whether that individual was a male or female)?

If you allow for biologically-intersexed individuals, that last group is clearly not empty. However, you've asked that people with non-clear-gender biology be excluded, so I will exclude them for the sake of argument.

Sticking only with people who have both XY genes and clearly male body parts and, by extension, those who have clearly XX genes and clearly female body parts, the question arises:
Is that last group - the set of all individuals where experts would disagree on their gender (or, more practically, where there is no consensus expert opinion) an empty set?

I claim that it is not. I don't have time right now to scour the scholarly research, but the fact that several countries allow "other" or "indeterminate" genders on passports and other official documents for reasons other than biological inconsistencies strongly supports my claim. I will grant you that this is not proof, as these decisions may have been completely motivated by reasons outside of science, such as for purely political reasons. But I strongly doubt it.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a lot of conservative websites. Their general attitude on that matter is that the medical profession has been infiltrated by those seeking to advance the Gay Agenda, and can no longer be trusted. It's just another liberal front.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

Man means you have male reproduction organ.

I know this is a hard concept for guys who want to be girls to understand. It is sad that people can't be happy as they are and have to act like a different gender.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

then why do you continue to take a bigoted stance on so many topics?

lets not pretend you care about injustice anywhere as long as you continue to be bigoted against minorities, women, LGBT, and Islam.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[backwardsposter]

Both sides of this argument are worth entertaining, I think. Yes, it's short-sighted to say it's always black and white. But it describes an underlying rationale that there is a benefit to society when the lines are clearly defined. Hopefully I'm not downvoted for trying to rationally play devil's advocate, but I guess I'll take the risk.

Individual freedom is constantly playing tug of war with what is good for society. Sometimes what is good for society trumps individual choice. But I think it's still important to understand why. Guns and sex are two obvious issues. Society can determine that two consenting adults can't legally have sex because it's not good for society, or that they can't arm themselves. Society has also had an unwritten contract for a while that, I think, is based on natural instincts. You see animals look a certain way to communicate with the rest of the species, and that's one reason why we also dress the way we do (obvious exceptions occur). Most people like to see something and know what it is and I think that seeing a man or a woman as such was just a way to make society easier. It's a form of communication, whether intentional or not.

The issue is when this trumps the personal freedom of how one dresses or prefers to appear to society. Those claiming this is black and white are being short sighted I think. Is it better for society that every man wears the same suit and every woman wears the same dress? We've decided not, individual freedom is more important. BUT not important enough to be nude in public. We're redrawing the line to protect a certain group of people, we should be more understanding of both sides (society versus individual freedom), even if some people are just being discriminatory (which again society likes sometimes).

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Straif]

Experts are very split on the mental health aspects of sexual reassignment surgery.

Some top hospitals have stopped performing them because most studies show that the actual surgery does not generally have a positive impact on the patients and instead suggest treatment for the underlying depression that often causes trans individuals to seek the operation in the first place.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Can I just say I appreciate you responding rationally and calmly to this line of questioning. It's refreshing to see a well-thought-out answer in the face of the obtuse disingenuous questions being thrown your way.

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Locke2005]

So hermaphrodites are men then, according to your learned scientific opinion? Good to know...

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Locke2005]

Not quite a binary as simple-minded people like to think it is. 0.2% of the population are born intersex, with both male and female attributes. Granted, it's a corner case, but doesn't the "bathroom laws" imply they are not allowed to use EITHER facility?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[mi]

0.2% of the population are born intersex, with both male and female attributes

They aren't "transgender".

doesn't the "bathroom laws" imply they are not allowed to use EITHER facility?

I don't know. Does it?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[david_thornley]

The Y chromosome is inadequate to determine sex in some cases. It's been of particular importance in the Olympics, where there were people who looked and acted like women but weren't XX, and had some physiological advantages over women. Do you want them going into the men's room or the women's room?

People can discern different colors, but they don't necessarily have words for them. (IIRC, pretty much everybody has a word for "red". Try "green" next time you use this argument. Not that it changes your argument.) However, you seem to think it praiseworthy to be able to count to 20 and to have separate words for "blue", "yellow", and "green". By that analogy, wouldn't it be praiseworthy to have more than a binary definition of gender?

Re:Delusion of "transgender"

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem like you've spent a bit of time thinking on this, so maybe you can answer a question on this topic that has been bothering me?

This argument seems to be about whether it is more correct to 'define' people by their body's physical attributes or their mental/behavioral/dress attributes. For the life of me, I cannot come up with any attributes in that second category that if I said "boys are like THIS, but girls are like THAT," I wouldn't think the remark is sexist. For example:

- "Men wear pants, women wear skirts" (seems sexist to me; the opposites are becoming more common)
- "Only women wear makeup" (less and less true)
- "Boys are good at math, girls are good at English" (yeah, right)
- "Boys want sex, girls want companionship" (clearly sexist and not universally true)
- "Boys only like girls, girls only like boys" (don't even need to expound)

If that's the case, aren't we reinforcing those sexist stereotypes by saying people who act this way should use the men's room, and people who act that way should use the women's room? Is the end-game of this argument just that the words 'boy' and 'girl' have to go away, and bathrooms are the most 'in your face' place left? What am I missing here?

and....

[meglon]

the sheep got (more) scared.

to you censors

[s.petry]

If you believe my position is wrong how about you argue against the position instead of attempting to censor using your mod points. Better still, have the intestinal fortitude to use a named account to back your position.

Re:to you censors

[ArmoredDragon]

Probably because harassment wouldn't apply in either case...which I thought I made clear enough in my original post, but I guess not, so I went into more detail in this post:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Womens Urinal Hate crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the law is too broad. But at the same time am offended by the lack of urinals in the women's room, Its an outrageous hate crime. All new construction should have Gender and sex "fluid" restrooms. The creation of additional genders is something we should all be prepared for and embrace.

Re:Why do we have gender- Sex Predators

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex Predators.

Don't block it

[PPH]

Just redirect requests to a trap porn site.

creameries

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, it'd be more interesting if you answered yes and it locked you into a version of the site that only had videos of a married couple having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation (not even a money shot at the end).

Not much of a detriment if you like creampie videos.

The relevant part

[s.petry]

If you want to cherry pick as an argument at least cherry pick the right parts. ‘(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hos-tilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreignnationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdic-tion of the United States, of any foreign person, foreignorganization, or foreign country that he determines hasplanned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilitiesor attacks against the United States; and all right, title,and interest in any property so confis

This is one of many areas where it defined the jurisdiction as the United States (Federal) level. Prior to this section it refers to Congressional powers, Presidential authority, the authority of the Executive Order, etc...

Re:The relevant part

[Pseudonym]

My point is merely that the officially-stated intent behind a law may not align with the true motivation of some of its backers, or its (perhaps unintentional) consequences.

ecalp sdrawkcab

[schematix]

I lived in NC for 8 years. I've lived all over the US. NC is BY FAR the most backwards, outdated, close minded place I've ever been. Mentally, it is easily a century behind the rest of the country (the deep dirty south perhaps being on par though). Strange place... Everyone is engaged in an unspoken contest with each other to be the most 'simple'. Religion is serious business there. Social circles are confined to who you go to church with. Frequently members of one denomination won't talk with members of the same denomination who go to a different church "because they don't practice right". What? Can't tell you how many times I heard that one. And my favorite, one evangelical group referring to another evangelical group as "too crazy". All of you believe some wild crap, even by religious standards.

Re:ecalp sdrawkcab

[godrik]

I live in Charlotte, NC. Pretty much no one I associate with is religious. I am not saying there are no religious people, one church every other block in the southern half of the city. But clearly there are also a lot of people that don't give a shit about religion.

Re:ecalp sdrawkcab

[schematix]

Charlotte is one of the more "modern" cities. I was making a comment about the general nature of north cackalackians. In any population you have outliers. Charlotte and the RTP vicinity of Raleigh were vastly different than say, Asheboro.

Re:ecalp sdrawkcab

[davidwr]

NC is BY FAR the most backwards, outdated, close minded place I've ever been.

Based on your description and the followup comment that made it clear you weren't talking about urban areas, I'd say it's a tie: There are rural areas of several other states whose reputations match your description.

Oh, and just in case people think I'm rural-bashing: There are certain neighborhoods in certain cities that are equally closed-minded in their own way (although not necessarily in the area of sexuality/gender-identity), and there are plenty of rural areas that are a far cry from what is described in the parent post to this one.

Re:ecalp sdrawkcab

[Locke2005]

You've obviously never been to SOUTH Carolina! NC is saved by the tech people in the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park area, who are relatively liberal. SC has no redeeming highly-educated neighborhoods.

Tolerate us...

[Anonymous Coward]

or else we won't tolerate you?

Another fascism story again today?

[slasher999]

Express your beliefs? No porn for you. Or Springsteen shows. Or minimum wage PayPal jobs.

Re:What happened to the old "routing around damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is celebrating censorship. The point is to combat bigotry, because as has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, if bigotry allows to develop into a political movement without opposition, that movement invariably begins to express its politics in the form of violence against the powerless and disenfranchized. So for this reason, combating xenophobic violence necessitates combating hate speech as well.

So sick of this nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I've had enough.
I'm so sick of all this trans-this, and trans-that BS that's thrust upon the media and the rest of the whole freaking world.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 0.3% OF THE POPULATION PEOPLE!!!!!
That's right, millions are forced into submission so that 3 people in 1,000, don't get their feelings hurt when they try to take a shit in public.

STFU and deal w/ your own mental problems, but stay the hell out of my loo! If you can't figure out whether to stand up or sit down that's your problem, but I'll be damned if 3 of you can pass a law so that me and my 999 friends are forced to deal w/ your fucked-up-ness on a daily basis.

Re: So sick of this nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this.

Re:So sick of this nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Blacks are only 6% of the people! Why can't they just use their own drinking fountains and stop infringing on us white folks rights!

Re:So sick of this nonsense

[dskoll]

Ooh, the power!!! I am SO FREAKING HAPPY that every time I use a public washroom, I FORCE PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION!

Minimum wage is also regulated by HB2

[kromozone]

http://www.newsobserver.com/ne...

It also nullified local ordinances around the state that would have protected gay or transgender people from being fired simply for their sexual preference or identify. It also clears the way for businesses to refuse to serve gay or transgender patrons.

The state has always had laws on workplace discrimination, public accommodation, minimum wage and other business issues. This law makes it unlawful for cities to expand upon those laws, like Charlotte and more than a dozen others had done.

Re:Minimum wage is also regulated by HB2

[ganjadude]

and? why should some groups have special rights over others?>??? I thought all these groups were fighting for equality not special rights

Re:Minimum wage is also regulated by HB2

[L. J. Beauregard]

When you hear of someone being fired for being straight, or cisgender, or Christian, or any of the other sorts that you Hundred Percent Red Blood Americans consider "normal," how about you submit it to Slashdot. I'm sure it'll make the front page.

Not being fired over matters that are none of your boss's damn business is not a "special right."

Re:Minimum wage is also regulated by HB2

[dskoll]

I don't want special rights. It's not a special right for me to use the washroom that pretty much everyone who glances at me will agree is the correct one to use.

Nice to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's position is to let men into women's restrooms and showers. Congratulations, you're on the side of horny sex offenders everywhere!

Re:Nice to know

[davidwr]

The polar opposite position is to force women who are still sporting the male equipment they were born with into women's restrooms and showers. If that's you, congratulations, your on the side of scaring women who are showering off in the gym after a workout when they see a pre-op trans woman sporting the male anatomy she is still carrying around and they assume she's not a she.

In short: Your point, while valid, doesn't tell the whole story.

Re:Nice to know

[MightyMartian]

Have some evidence that shared unisex washrooms increase rates of sex offense.

Not to worry, I'll wait while you prove your assertion.

All-out war!

[dskoll]

Wow. Now that all those Republican politicians and hypocritical evangelical Christians can't get to their porn, we'll see them really start to get cranky.

Why just NC?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in WA. Ban my IP too.

Paypal is hypocritical

[Attila Dimedici]

Paypal decided not to open a global operations center in North Carolina because North Carolina has a law saying that a man dressing as a woman still has to use the men's room. But they still have their international headquarters in Singapore where having homosexual sex is a crime?

Re:Paypal is hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. They probably think that they have the power and opportunity to make a difference in NC, but not in SG. In NC, the law can still be stopped. Paypal and other can be a part in stopping it. In SG, there's no new law to stop, and no leverage to stop it even if there were.

Re:Paypal is hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

That is highly morally dubious and disproportionate, much like hanging anyone who spits on the sidewalk because you can't catch murderers.

Re:Paypal is hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like companies are just latching on to a bunch of hip trendy PC bullshit that's all the rage among high school and college age kids, and actually don't have any really deep ethical beliefs.

Because they are corporations.

Tampon Corp could have made their own font with girl emojis, and gave it away for free. Instead they made a viral video whining about the deliberately genderless emojis. Do you think they deeply care about girls being represented on their iPhones, or do you think it was just a gimmick to market tampons to a bunch of cranky women (who are likely to be on the rag right now, if they care about this shit).

For a movement that likes to complain about the lack of girls in STEM, when a golden opportunity to get girls interested in computers (making custom fonts) comes along, nah we'd rather bitch and destroy than create.

Nobody has read the text of the law it's just all knee jerk "everything is racist evderything is sexist you have to point it all out" Anita Skeezerian bullshit

Re:Paypal is hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, they announced the new center 2 weeks before the law was passed... so after it was already on the congressional floor. It seems rather convenient to announce something 2 weeks before you then unannounce it.

Who you calling "bigot"?

[mi]

The point is to combat bigotry

Bigotry? What is that? Ah, dictionary to the rescue:

S: (n) bigot (a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own)

So, one "side" of this conflict wants people holding an opinion differing from their own punished.

The other wants to keep men out of women's bathrooms...

Re:Who you calling "bigot"?

[Locke2005]

Both sides want to keep men out of women's bathrooms. One side considers someone with muscles and a beard who was born without a penis a man, while the other side considers him a woman. Personally, I would prefer people that look like men to you my restroom than my daughter's restroom, but the NC laws states that they MUST use the women's room!

Re:Who you calling "bigot"?

[mi]

Both sides want to keep men out of women's bathrooms

Only one side has a clear definition of what "man" means. The other side does not have one, but is demonstrably intolerant of and outright hateful towards the side, which does. Only one of them is bigoted.

Personally, I would prefer people that look like men to you my restroom than my daughter's restroom

If she does not have a penis, she is neither danger, nor particular discomfort to your daughter. But if he does, then he is. You may disagree, but it is no "bigotry" to think otherwise.

It's not just those 0.3%

[davidwr]

I'm a male. Do I really want a trans-woman sporting a penis walking into the stall next to me in a men's room because the law says she has to? Perhaps I'm still slightly bigoted, but it does make me uncomfortable relieving myself next to a woman where I can see her feet and she can see mine.

Do I really want a trans-man sporting a vagina doing the same? Call me bigoted, but I'm about equally discomforted, for the same reason.

I think it's safe to say that I'm not alone in my discomfort.

The increasing awareness that transgender people exist and that the man washing his hands next to me in the men's room may still be sporting the female private parts he was born with means I can't bury my head in the sand: I have to face the issue head-on like an adult. With this in mind, perhaps its time we went to unisex bathrooms with completely-private stalls and a common washing area. Or, alternatively, require that newly-constructed buildings with bathrooms larger than a certain size be accompanied by a single-stall completely-private bathroom that anyone can use, similar to the "handicapped or parents-with-small-children only" restrooms you sometimes see in large recently-built movie theaters and shopping malls in the United States. Heck, it could just be a matter of changing the signage to make it clear that anyone is allowed to use the "private" restroom, not just those with physical disabilities or who are assisting small children.

Re:It's not just those 0.3%

[PsyMan]

Or of course we should move to a more free thinking attutude alltogether where we remove all walls/barriers/taboos and shamelessly take a "Donald Trump" side by side with our fellow human beings while discussing the hot topics of the day.

Re:It's not just those 0.3%

[Locke2005]

If you make a habit of studying the genitals of other occupants every time you use a public restroom, perhaps the problem is you, not them... normal people politely look the other way!

Yes

[davidwr]

Well, maybe not in North Carolina, but worldwide, yes.

Re:Yes

[losfromla]

Hmm. But, our laws only apply in the US. And North Carolina's only in NC, so, how many people are being actually discriminated by this law? Not that I am for discrimination, I'm just questioning the numbers as I think they are false and hyperbolic.
For the record, I would favor an "Allie McBeal" style of restroom sharing, mixed gender, no special bathrooms for either sex. Equip it with urinals and toilets and people can use whatever they are comfortable with. Lets even make sure the urinals are compatible for both genders, just to be super-equal. The benefit of that kind of rest room is that you know going in, what you are up against.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to mask your bigotry with statistics.

More to the law than what bathrooms you can use

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what is really the problem before you post anything or have any opinion at all you should read it.
One of these forced through with all kinds of shit in it laws.

slines???

[davidwr]

I learned a new word today. Thank you mi, and thank you Google.

I spotted an interesting situation

[davidwr]

Not talking about such invalids — only about those, whose chromosomes and genitalia are quite unmistakable and in full agreement, yet they insist on identifying as something other than what they are for some intangible reasons.

Suppose it's 1970 and a new baby is born. It looks like a girl so they put "girl" on the birth certificate.

The girl grows up and is a tomboy as a kid and is consistently masculine in behavior and feels like she's a boy trapped in a girl's body. She's afraid of being called weird so she keeps her feelings to herself but it's pretty obvious she's not very feminine. Assume for the sake of argument that she dies at a young age, before things like cheap DNA testing are available and before the gay- and lesbian-rights movement became the LGBT-rights movement.

Based on the evidence available, is she a male-acting, possibly-delusional woman, or is she one of those chromosome-to-body mis-matches that you are explicitly "not talking about"? The answer is, of course "I don't know the answer without a DNA test."

What if, 50 years from now, science comes to the consensus that sex includes some as-yet-undiscovered component. If that is the case, then the version of you 50 years from now would probably include disagreement between that component, DNA, and visible genitalia as "exceptional cases."

It is possible - not necessarily likely, but possible - that the vast majority or even all of people we now consider "transgender" but whose body parts at birth and DNA agree with each other have some other component that is mis-matching with both DNA and body parts, and that at some point in the future this component will be discovered and science will gradually come to understand its importance.

I invite you to think about this possibility.

Re:I spotted an interesting situation

[Anonymous Coward]

expecting anything close to rational or understanding thought from mi is a lost cause.

Good to be Able to Exercise Their Conscience

[njhunter]

Would be nice if everyone was allowed to exercise their conscience, without being bullied.

Re:Good to be Able to Exercise Their Conscience

[Anonymous Coward]

R U discriminatin' against us bigots? What about R feelins? When we see someone who offends R sensibilities we gots to react, there 'n' then, an' we needs us some right 'n' proper discriminatin' laws to protect us from indignant outrage of them people who ain't bigots. Anyhow, where's ma Brawndo. Gotta gets me some more electrolytes.

On the "black" woman and the "cat"

[davidwr]

Like gender, the definition of what it means to be Black/African-American and the definition of what is means to be human both have "edge cases" where there isn't universal agreement among experts.

Unlike gender, "what you feel like inside" is not, by itself, enough to move you from the "every expert agrees you, a woman born to two non-African-American parents, are not not African-American" or "Every expert agrees you, a child born to two human beings, are not a cat" group to the "there is no consensus about your racial identity" or "there is no consensus about your species" group, much less to the "you are African-American" group or the "you are a cat" group.

For that reason, these people are so far away from the "edge cases" of contemporary, early-21st-century definitions of the terms that it's laughable to suggest that Dolezal is African-American or that Nano is a feline.

However, it would be arrogant (to say the least) for me to see these definitions as immutable. Hypothetically speaking, if 1000 years from now we have gene-splicing such that we have "intelligent cats" and a human being is raised by "intelligent cats" as if she was one, I can see language evolving to the point that the term "cat person" might include someone who, genetically, is 100% Homo sapiens. For now though, I'll leave that particular hypothetical scenario to the realm of science fiction and thought experiment.

By the way, the "edge cases" for racial groupings is very real. The "edge cases" for being human is still hypothetical. But someday, if there is enough gene-splicing and breeding between Homo sapiens and our closely-related primates, or enough gene-splicing between our species and more distantly-related species, expect to see differences of opinions among experts over whether a particular individual is or is not a human being. I see this as far more likely to happen than any "intelligent cat" scenario. It might even happen this century.

Re:On the "black" woman and the "cat"

[mi]

Darling, we've already established, that in order for you to win this argument, you have to redefine terms. Which means, you lost it, no matter, how many more posts you make here...

And you redefinitions weren't merely cosmetic — you turned them from objective ("Is this a cat?") to subjective ("Does this identify as a cat?").

Such redefining of the very meaning of the language is called Doublespeak. It is not merely an invalid rhetorical vehicle (fallacy), it is a very slippery slope. One good book gave an example of redefining "war" as "peace" — wouldn't that be convenient for someone seeking to justify President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, for example?

Closer to home, casually redefining, what the term "bigot" means, allows the actual bigots to denounce (and even punish, as TFA describes) any and all ideological opponents as such. Other examples abound. Don't do that.

Stupid is as stupid does...

[Zaphon]

Nice, so now I can add xHamster to the list of stuff I won't support alongside Paypal and Springsteen.. Perfect..

I am 100% for the law

[sarku]

I am 100% for the law. Basically, homosexuals are people who need counseling and rehabilitation. Not, "Oh, it's OK, you can be gay, that bad society tells you your so bad...boo hoo." WRONG! I'm not for being cruel to people who are confused in their gender, but I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to making homesexuality, trans-whatever normal. IT'S NOT NORMAL. It's confusion. I hope Carolina stands its ground. The hell with Bruce Springsteen.

Re:I am 100% for the law

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a trans woman but I'm attracted to woman. Did your head just explode?

What are you doing on this site anyway, shouldn't you be on a pig farming/dating site instead?

Evil always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

The LGBTQ can boycott any group they want to and that group cows down because they don't want to be considered to be one of those evil racist faggots who hates queers.

However what would happen if the religious right boycotted the NFL and the NBA due to the public support of queers?
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I find it hilarious that if I spoke to an auditorium and asked how many people had a problem with anal sex, nobody would raise their hand. Yet if I spoke to the same group of people 20 years earlier and in the same location everyone would raise their hand.

What has changed? Nothing. Today, the media elite has convinced a whole nation that anal sex is cool, and that only faggots hate queers. 20 years earlier they had convinced an entire nation that anal sex was the end of all civilization. What can we conlude from this? People are easily brainwashed. You can convince a whole nation to hate faggots, just as easily as you can convince them to love faggots, just as easily as you can convince them to hate Jews.

Your reality is just a collective set of prejudices fostered on you by your predecessors who convinced they have the right answers.

Question everything.

Re:Evil always wins

[dskoll]

However what would happen if the religious right boycotted the NFL and the NBA due to the public support of queers?

Probably nothing. The American Family Association has been screaming about boycotts of "gay-friendly" companies for years (Disney comes to mind). The boycotts have gone nowhere, probably because the religious right would be hurt more by the boycotts than the organizations they're trying to boycott.

But oh, well, bring it on. Let's see what happens.

Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

Are PayPal and xHamster owned by Jews, by any chance?

I'm just curious.

Goodnight PayPal

[Anonymous Coward]

PayPal quit NC. I quit PayPal. These corporate bullies should keep their biz out of politics. New Zealand signing out.

Being a faggot is more important than free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

So today being a faggot is more important than free speech?
And free vote?

Trying to force somebody vote the way you want?
Would it be ok if I would not sell food to people who do not want to vote as I want?
How is this even legal?

No privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

in France, they have urinals mounted to the outsides of buildings on public streets, with any privacy screens at all.

Because they are animals and would otherwise pee wherever they were standing or sitting otherwise. Not to mention all the peeing they do in the coffee they serve in their coffee shops.

Disabled?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't the trans just use the disabled toilet?

They are mentally disabled, after all.

Re:Disabled?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.
Mental people voted it -1 though.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

There is no such thing...

[denzacar]

...as biological marriage.

Re:Why do we have gender- Sex Predators

[Anonymous Coward]

How do separate bathrooms prevent sexual predation? I think they don't.

Anathem (Re:slines???)

[mi]

The book came out in 2008. If you still haven't read it in 2016, you can not continue posting on Slashdot...

Re:Anathem (Re:slines???)

[dywolf]

tremendously overrated author.

Re:Anathem (Re:slines???)

[mi]

tremendously overrated author.

Libertarianism is coming. Deal with it.

Re:Anathem (Re:slines???)

[dywolf]

ok, not sure what that has to do with an author who writes generally boring overly technical books devoid of plot.

oh, and no its not. stupid as they may be, the American people aren't that stupid.
you on the other hand..

People lie about their age to get their porn

[jgfenix]

People lie about their age to get their porn so they will lie about this too.

Re:People lie about their age to get their porn

[Locke2005]

Exactly how to you lie about the IP address you're using to connect to the server? (Ok, they could use a proxy, but come on, this is North Carolina... most of 'em aren't smart enough to figure that out!)

So, not a mental dissorder - but a brain boo-boo

[denzacar]

not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone

It's not one kind of mental disorder - it's this other kind of mental disorder.
Which is "appropriately treated" with "sexual reassignment surgery".

Mental issues, fixed by surgery.

You know... that sounds a lot like the way lobotomy was a cure for... well... any mental issue.
But more specifically, as a the case where people claim their body is not right... it sounds very much like BDD and BIID.
With both those disorders, patients will seek surgery as "cure" for their otherwise healthy but unsatisfactory body.
Only, surgery not being that widely accepted as a cure for those conditions (BIID is not even recognized as one) they'll often try to "fix" their bodies using household appliances.
Like "accidentally" mangling their body parts with powertools or having "hunting accidents".
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03...

And the other way

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And some people go the other way to hyper-masculinity or hyper-feminity. Body builders will pump themselves up with male hormones and work their asses off for large muscles. Women will get boob jobs and plastic surgery.

It's one thing when someone is born with birth defects that give them deformed genitalia to be corrected as a small child, but it's another when a perfectly healthy adult does it.

Re:And the other way

[sims 2]

With all the rights parents seem to have for corrections at that point they could probably decide you looked better with just one arm and have it lopped off and no one would care.

Well except the child who is going to wonder at some point why they only have one arm.

So I suppose what your trying to say is things that were done to them ( like above example ) without their consent are perfectly fine but if someone turns 18 (or whatever the age is in your location) and can actually consent to such an operation its wrong and they should just be happy with who they are and not change anything?

Who has to live in that body?

The parents probably did what they thought was best.
So they pretty much always get a pass on that.

But everyone else?

For whatever reason this reminds me of the story "The Yellow Wallpaper" where the husband refuses to change the ugly wallpaper because she would just find something else to complain about. I thought it was horrific.

Lol @ porn site trying to take moral high ground

[JustNiz]

....now if only every other state could find a way to piss off XHamster we could be rid of them entirely.

Anonymous stalking

[mi]

you continue to be bigoted against minorities, women, LGBT, and Islam.

Once again, your obsession with my (deeply flawed) persona is unhealthy. Seek therapy.

Coming out of "anonymity" may be the first step towards healing — you have nothing to fear IRL...

Soviet Russia

[vsavkin]

In Post-Soviet Russia, the state blocks xHamster.
In the US, xHamster blocks a state!

Language is in flux

[davidwr]

English is not a dead language.

The shades of meanings are in flux.

As one example of how English is a living language that popped up in the news recently, the usage and therefore the definition of "internet" (all lowercase) has changed over the last few years from "an interconnected network" to "the interconnected network formerly known as the Internet [capitalization required]." Only recently have "official" things like style-books caught up with actual usage.

To require a fixed, never-changing definition for edge cases or to ask me what definition I use then reject it because I didn't cite a specific authority but instead presented a logical argument supporting it is, well, not helpful to discussion.

By the way, I don't know if your purpose of the argument was to "win" or not, but when I have discussions on forums like this, my purpose is to present the ideas I present, and leave it up to each reader - including you but also those reading today and those reading months or years from now - to decide what to take away from it.

By the way, I am familiar with the term "doublespeak" as used by George Orwell. "Black is white" declared by fiat is not the same as when a dictionary re-defines "literal" as "not necessarily literal" as a major dictionary publisher recently did after observing that the actual usage of the term has evolved over time (I think this news item made Slashdot, but I forget).

I disagree Re:I spotted an interesting situation

[davidwr]

Much of what he had to say is worth thinking about.

Common!

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to use one bathroom or another is a human rights issue? I guess in America when we have nothing else to worry about it is? I would say those in the rest of the world that may not even have clean water to drink they probably don't worry about who's using their non-existent bathroom as they have slightly more important things to worry about at the moment.

This is great for any company that wants/needs attention right now. They can take an open stand against the law and it increases their PR ten fold whether that company actually cares about this law or not.

Re:Common!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, why are you complaining about Christians imposing religious laws in America? Don't you know that atheists get executed every day in the middle east? You can't complain! Why are you complaining about government surveillance in America? Don't you know that the North Korean security agency monitors all their citizens 24-7 and if any one even thinks about challenging their regime them and their whole family get thrown into labour camps? You can't complain!

Discrimination and censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So Bruce and corporate America plan to discriminate and censor North Carolina citizens because of their personal preference or opinion. It's okay to be outraged by the law but not okay for 2/3 of the state to choose their own community standards. Blackmail and bullying are acceptable methods to force change. The vocal minority (read: squeaky wheels) are allowed to run over the majority.

Too many negatives

[hucker75]

"Due to the state's law preventing cities from banning discrimination against the LGBT community," What on earth does that mean? I need a calculator to remove all the negatives.

Wtf is a LGBT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally just got off from xhamster before check my emails and clicked here.

Thank blob I don't live in NC

Re:Wtf is a LGBT?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Wtf is a LGBT?
It stands for Losers, Gross, Bastards, Trash.
They even have communities.
And they fight the healthy citizens to destroy the world so that nobody can have a normal life if they cannot have one.
They hate the world and themselves. These are really grave mental cases.

I like transgender babes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to run into a transgender hotty like Bailey in the men's room... Jussayin. I don't think it's homosexual. It's a grey area, like this whole topic. If she is extremely hot but happens to have a penis, oh well. Everyone woman has something about her I don't like. Substitute "loud snoring, can't cook, and being a bitch" with "has a penis"... And I think it evens out.

Missed the best part

[Locke2005]

xHamster also pointed out there have been over 500,000 searches from IP addresses in NC for "she-male" porn, so apparently North Carolinans love to watch transgender people have sex, they just don't want them sharing restrooms with their wives...

Re:Lol @ porn site trying to take moral high groun

[Locke2005]

You do know nobody is FORCING you to watch their crappy porn vids, right?

The whole thing is dumb

[Methadras]

Gosh, I wonder how we got to this point when we were just men and women, knew our roles, understood who we were and correspondingly were able to go almost 3 millions years of human evolution to get to the point we are at now. This is a blip on the timeline. Nothing more in social experimentation. No one likes discrimination, but themselves as individuals tend to discriminate all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Sexual preference and sexual identity being one of those points of discrimination. However, let's understand that if a state chooses to pass legislation blocking extra rights to stop from creating a protected class solely based on a self-admitted fluidic concept of gender and identity, so that protected class is insulated from any criticism, judgement, or even discrimination.

I'd say it's fair

[wardrich86]

Somebody on the xHamster team needs to calculate how much of its library contains lesbian porn or scenes with more than 2 people in them. Clearly the state is against that stuff, so why bother even wasting the bandwidth serving them things they've made it clear that they don't want?

Just thinking further on this point, they also wouldn't be allowed to even watch hetero porn because if they're spanking it to hetero porn, they'll be getting off to at least 1/2 of their own sex making them at least 1/2 gay and that's against the law there. So all they'd be allowed to watch is solo stuff... and I doubt even 25% of the content on the site is solo.

Re:Good. Who needs that smut???

[Locke2005]

Why? They already have a fapping life...

Re:So, not a mental dissorder - but a brain boo-bo

[StikyPad]

It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability. Cosmetic surgery is already done for a plethora of other reasons, many without truly therapeutic value other than a sense of well-being: Cleft palate. Breasts subjectively too small. Breasts subjectively too large. Scar tissue removal. Cosmetic fat removal. Skin tightening. If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.

Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry. Going outside is a valid treatment for some conditions. That's a physical treatment. Talking is a physical treatment -- perhaps the most popular.

Perhaps at some point there will exist a treatment to allow the mind to adjust to the body. I'm sure some people might elect that treatment instead. That would also be helpful for the conditions you've cited. At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity, and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.

Girls and Boys in the same bathroom????

[Anonymous Coward]

It is amazing the religious fervor with which folks have banded together to say with a very stern face, "Are you kidding me??? Your daughter's right to go the bathroom without any men in there is insane!!!!!" That is the concern from the insane side of the argument. Us crazy nuts do not want our daughters raped by some pervert. Oh, the good old days when females could go the bathroom without fear of being raped...This crowd that thinks traditional bathrooms are an act of terrorism are the same ones who will legalize pedophilia because that is exactly where this lunacy is going.

Re:Lol @ porn site trying to take moral high groun

[JustNiz]

of course. Equally nobody is forcing anyone to commit rape either but that doesnt stop me wishing all rapists could be eliminated from society.

Depends on the available alternatives

[rundgong]

It's possible that they weigh the moral right thing against the financial right thing.
If it is easy to find an alternative to NC, why not do that?
At the same time it could be really hard to find an equally good alternative to Singapore. Are the laws better in other countries in that area? And if there are countries with better laws in this regard, they may be worse in other ways.

xHamster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not up for loading that site, but I can guess from the name what it's all about, which is to say a website dedicated to people who insert hamsters up their assholes for various reasons, from the tickling they probably hope to feel, to the claimed improvement they'll experience in their dancing ability. So, obviously a move in solidarity with the 300 pound tranny freaks who are being allegedly inconvenienced in NC.

Can't use the women's washroom? No problem, bro. The men's room is right there.

Me

[stolidobserver]

I identify with using the womens bathroom. When will they be installing urinals? I'm getting sick of this discrimination!

Toilets for all mental illnesses!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the day there are public toilets for people like me who have insects crawling under our skins - stop the discrimination!

Pipe Fittings

[Pipe Fittings]

DEVDEEP STEEL ALLOYS India's leading Exporters of Pipes & Pipes Fittings, Forged Fittings, Buttweld Fittings, Structural Steel, Bar, Wire, Fasteners, Flanges, Pre cut & Ready cut Shims, SS Flexible Hose, Fabricated & Flanged End Pipes & Fittings in Stainless Steel, Carbon Steel, Alloy Steel, Nickel Alloys & High Performance Alloys

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest damn thing I have read yet. Internet porn trying to be socially conscious. ROFLMAO

BEHOLD!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... the power of pr0n!

Re:So, not a mental dissorder - but a brain boo-bo

[denzacar]

It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability.

Hormonal therapy is "cosmetic"?

If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.

So, one "small sense of well-being" trumps other sense of well-being - because YOU find it to be "deliberate disability"?
Like say... taking a human and cutting out its reproductive organs, then replacing them with cosmetic but non-functional reproductive organs?
That's not "deliberate disability"?

Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry.

Yet, "gender reassignment" does. No amount of talking or "going outside" will boost a woman's testosterone levels nor a man's estrogen levels.

At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity

Just like with people who just want that specific limb shortened, that particular nose size, shoe size, that particular number of ears, arms, fingers, eyes, skin and hair color... outside of what the majority has, but which, when achieved, will give them that "small sense of well-being".
Why should one's gender have priority over one's "completeness"?

Also, do note that you are equating people cutting themselves due to their BDD with "gender reassignment" people - as they are both just looking for "a small sense of well-being".
It's just that your "inclusiveness" has certain limits. There's that imaginary "deliberate disability" line.
Though it doesn't matter to you one way or the other which parts someone else deems superfluous and replaceable on their own body.

and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.

So which one does that make you?
Considering, spiteful or unjustifiably confident regarding the qualities of your own wit?