Slashdot Mirror
Porn Giant xHamster Blocks North Carolina Users Who Support Anti-LGBT Law (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Due to the state's law preventing cities from banning discrimination against the LGBT community, popular porn site xHamster.com is blocking some North Carolinians' access to its material. xHamster tweeted on Monday that is was "blacking out access for North Carolina" because of newly passed House Bill 2, which also dictates which public restrooms transgender men and women can use. North Carolina users will be asked if they support the anti-LGBT law. If they support it, their IP address will be blocked from the site. "We blacked out the access to our website because we want to draw the attention of millions of people to patterns of human rights violations," xHamster Cheif Marketing Officer, Alexander D. Hawkins said. He added the company plans to stand their ground in the "fight for equality." xHamster may be one of the most recent businesses to publicly oppose North Carolina's House Bill 2, but they're not alone. PayPal canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and Bruce Springsteen canceled a scheduled show in North Carolina as well.
I checked it out, it asks if you support the law, answer yes and it won't let you into the site. Of course, I was able to delete the cookie and answer I didn't agree with law and it let me in, lol.
Deutsche Bank said today http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article71314817.html that it was freezing plans to add 250 more jobs at its Cary location. Feeling the pressure, NC Gov. McCrory today issued an Executive Order http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article71368717.html#storylink=mainstage to rescind 2 parts of the bill, neither of which is the part concerning gender-specific bathrooms.
Yes. It says that local jurisdictions within NC cannot have broader protections against discrimination (against anyone) than those of the state legislature, which are basically none when it comes to LGBT people. The "trans bathroom issue", which is merely a consequence of that broad legislation, is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
in this case, it worked out. at least one porn site blocked voluntarily.
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.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Reaffirms the provision in the new law that gives businesses and local governments the right to establish non-discriminatory policies for their own employees.
That sort of thing is usually considered a bad thing when it comes to rights, since "right to establish your own non-discriminatory policy" generally just means "right to discriminate." Much as "right to teach your own version of science" really just means "right to teach something that isn't science and call it science." But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it. (not about bathrooms though)
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
.... if you are discriminating against those who are discriminating against someone else?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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...
...
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
We're all friends here. You don't have to pretend with us.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
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.
The fact that Johns Hopkins no longer performs gender reassignment surgeries because they did enough studying to determine that the surgery does not stop the dysphoria or other self-hate thoughts in a large majority of people might be a clue that there is a consensus among a subset of experts on the subject.
That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.
The data from multiple jurisdictions show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.
And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy would be forced to use the ladies' room.
"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.
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?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There are simply men and women
The facts in evidence - starting with chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or chimeras who happen to be about half XY and about half XX, then going on to body-doesn't-match-chromosome situations like a baby who looks like a girl on the outside but is genetically XY or babies born with visually-ambiguous genitalia - prove this statement false.
I haven't even gotten to the people whose "mental gender" mis-matches their external body parts, their genes, or both. I don't have to. All I had to do was demonstrate that the core point of your argument - the claim that "there are simply men and women" - is not true. Once that is proven false, the rest of your statements are no longer logically provably true without help. If you expect the reader to believe they are true, you should replace the now-disproven first sentence with statements that are both true and sufficient to prove the rest of your posting.
Since you asked for a definition of the term man (which I take to include boys), I will give you one. I assume you also want a definition of a woman, which, by the definition I am using, is NOT "any human being who is not a man/boy."
By the way, here's a "minimalist" definition of "man" and "woman" - I say minimalist because I don't think anyone would argue that those who meet this definition are men or women:
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy). These include but are not necessarily limited to genetics (XY, XX for women/girls), internal and external sex-dependent characteristics (testicles/penis, ovaries/vagina/etc.), and, where the person has the capacity to meaningfully assert it, a claim that the person is completely male or completely female.
Any person who lacks any of these things may be neither a man (or boy) nor woman (or girl). This includes those with XXY genes, chimeras with both male-gene and female-gene cells, those with visually ambiguous genitalia, and those whose mental self-concept differs from either their genes, their sex-related appearance (penis or vagina), or both.
This doesn't mean that a person who is lacking in one or more of these things MUST be neither, only that this person MAY be neither. The definition presented is intentionally incomplete in that it doesn't attempt to define such people as either a man (or boy), a woman (or girl), or neither/in-between/both. It doesn't attempt to do so in large part because there isn't a universal agreement about what the definition should be (see intersex and third gender as well as the references in these articles for further discussion).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
That's not the law in North Carolina. Very explicitly not the law. If you had a dick when you were born, use the men's toilet, even if you don't any more. If you had a vagina when you were born, use the women's toilet, even if you have a dick now.
Try to pay attention.
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.
-- Will program for bandwidth
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy).
Ah, thank you! Finally we have something.
This definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example — yet they are referred to as men by everyone.
I don't follow your statement "this definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example."
That is false - to the extent that a gay man is XY, has male body parts, and self-identifies as male, the definition applies. I do acknowledge that some people with XY genes and male body parts who are sexually attracted to men think of themselves as female or something else other than a male (e.g. a "third sex"), and that those in this group who "present themselves to the public" as gay men (as opposed to presenting themselves to the public as a transgender straight woman or as a "third sex") will very likely be thought of as gay men by the general public. However, the definition I am using would not apply to them - they are in that "undefined" group that may or may not be "men." They are in that group because there isn't anything close to a universal agreement on whether they are "men" or not.
Similarly, it would apply to a lesbian who is XX, has female body parts, and who identifies as female.
If you are still sure, you wish to defend it, may I ask, where this definition is from and when did it appear? Because I can not find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal... You did not just invent it, did you?
I did invent it. The wording of your original post "be sure to include your definition" [emphasis original] seemed to invite us to do so. I'm glad you asked the question the way you asked it. The "edge cases" of the definitions of what it means to be a man (or woman) are not universally agreed on. Heck, even the basic definition has changed in the last 75 years - before we knew what DNA was, a baby was a man, a woman, or "in between" based on looks alone. Now we know better: The looks give us a presumptive gender, but if the DNA and the appearance disagree, then that presumption goes away.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.