Slashdot Mirror


Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google Lobby Against Texas 'Bathroom' Bill (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Executives from some of the globe's leading technology firms are demanding that Texas not adopt "discriminatory" bathroom legislation. On the table in Texas is a law similar to one enacted -- and later partially repealed -- in North Carolina. The tech companies have aligned themselves with critics of the bill who believe the legislation is unfair to the transgender community. "As large employers in the state, we are gravely concerned that any such legislation would deeply tarnish Texas' reputation as open and friendly to businesses and families," the companies wrote Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. "Our ability to attract, recruit and retain top talent, encourage new business relocations, expansions and investment, and maintain our economic competitiveness would all be negatively affected." Pending Texas Senate legislation would prohibit transgender people in Texas from using restrooms matching their gender identities. The House on Sunday passed its own bill that would apply the bathroom limitations solely at schools. The tech companies, however, aren't threatening to pull out of Texas, like some did over the same issue in North Carolina. The letter sent to Gov. Abbott was signed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon chief Jeff Wilke, IBM head Ginni Rometty, Microsoft President Brad Smith, and Google's Sundar Pichai. There were 14 companies -- including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Silicon Labs, Celanese Corp., GSD&M, Salesforce, and Gearbox Software -- signing on to the letter. "Discrimination is wrong and it has no place in Texas or anywhere in our country," the companies wrote.

29 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. Corporations are people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, yes, let's have for-profit corporations serve special interests to undermine the actual public's will.

    1. Re:Corporations are people by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The corporations don't care either way, I'm sure. They are simply afraid of boycotts — and worse. Because, when you are fighting for the rights of the delusional to persist in their delusions, all means are just and noble...

      Few companies' management have the testicles (sexist metaphore!) of the Chick-Fil-A's one — most are like Mozilla's...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Corporations are people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because, when you are fighting for the rights

      What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.

      Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Who cares about bathrooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Why is this an issue? The real issues involve transgender people being perceived as duplicitous and being treated as if they're perverted. The whole thing of asking if you'd like your child using the restroom with a transgender person who hasn't had the surgery yet is ridiculous. It portrays transgender people as perverts without regard that someone of the same gender of the child is just as likely to harm the child. It doesn't affect me if a transgender person is in a public restroom with me, rents from me, or is employed by me. Let them be, don't discriminate against them, and focus on the real issues. This might be surprising coming from a conservative like me, but let's worry about the economy and foreign policy, and let transgender people be.

    - snruter rotsac

    1. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?

      Have you no critical-thinking skills?

      Chester the Molester does. He figures this will be a pretty sweet opportunity to go into the women's bathroom after your little girl goes in by just saying he identifies as female today. Good times for Chester.

      Bad time to be a child needing to use public restrooms, though.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by corychristison · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?

      Your argument is bullshit.

    3. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously. Why is this an issue?

      Because people with nothing better to do have decided that people different to them must be punished.

    4. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?

      So what you're saying is that you want Chester to be allowed the right to enjoy equal-opportunity molestations?

      How very...Progressive...of you.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I tend to agree with you. This legislation is in reaction to the LGBQTBDSMLMNOPQRST...militant movement trying to force legislation that makes disliking in any way someone different a crime. Neither should be allowed. If I don't like rednecks I don't hang out with them and shouldn't be forced to accept their behavior. But I also don't go and try to get a law passed outlawing rednecks behavior.

    6. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a complete fabrication which probably stems from your complete ignorance how this works. Might as well claim all ACs were abused as children, that has about as much factual basis.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are laws against reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. Those laws are to prevent deaths and injuries. Not all instances of reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway cause death or injury; the laws are still proper.

      A law against a man in a lady's restroom is to prevent sexual assault. Not all cases of a man in a lady's restroom result in sexual assault, a law preventing a man in a lady's restroom is still proper.

      People being secure in their persons is essential to a civilized society, it is of far more importance than "health care, job creation, infrastructure" (only the last of which is a valid government function.)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are heterosexual males that will use this as an excuse to enter female bathrooms and use the law as an excuse.

      It's not an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are transgender men or women (pre or post surgery) who already identify themselves by dress and attitude and who want to go to the bathroom they think they belong in.

      Neither viewpoint is 100% right or wrong. There will be people who abuse the right to trans bathrooms, and others who use it as intended.

      Personally, I have two young daughters who I am of course immensely concerned about protecting from predators. Yet I believe that there are plenty of laws already in place protecting them from being filmed, approached sexually or otherwise that keep them safe. I'm in favor of trans bathroom protection because I'm willing to believe that the benefit to trans people is greater than the risk from hetero pervs. (Data may prove me wrong.)

      But it's wrong to think that this is a one-sided issue and that everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong. It's a valid concern. I disagree with the Texas/North Carolina measures. But I'm not willing to say that those who oppose trans bathroom rights are just awful people. I understand the instinct to protect one's children at all costs, even if this specific measure isn't borne out by my experience.

      Slashdotters in general pride themselves on being rational people, and I think they are (moreso than the general population). But empathy for opposing viewpoints is a rare skill, even among the highly intelligent. Maybe we can use this place as a model for trying to talk rationally about the pros and cons of both approaches? I have much higher expectations of seeing a well thought out argument on either side - couched in terms that could actually sway minds instead of just stoking flames - here than I would expect in the comments of the Washington Post or Fox News.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    9. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of those driving laws are because no further volitional act is required for death and injury to result. Luck of the draw will decide if it comes out OK or not.

      The case of the 'man' in the women's bathroom results in no harm unless/until a further volitional act occurs.

      Here's one to jam the works. A father is out and about with a young daughter and she needs the bathroom. Should he take her into the women's bathroom, take her into the men's bathroom, hand her over to a woman he has never met before in his life, or tell her to go pee on the potted plant in the corner?

      Perhaps, rather than a law, we all just need to learn not to get so triggered in the bathroom.

  3. These hypocrites do business in Middle East by SensitiveMale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so they have no problem with gays being stoned to death apparently.

    1. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by SensitiveMale · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These companies have no problem supporting boycotts of state and companies trying to stop men from going into the bathroom with little girls, but they have no problem with Muhammed using facetime to broadcast a wall being pushed on Steve because Steve is gay.

      Apple, Paypal, Google, Amazon, and the rest have no problem making money in countries where gays are killed, little girls have their clitorises cut out, women are "honored killed" for talking to a random man, and women are raped as a matter of a daily schedule yet they have no problem taking money out of the hands that throw stones and acid.

      It is nothing but pure hypocrisy.

  4. Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I used to go to a bar where a guy who had both a dick and tits was a customer every so often.

    To me the presence of this person was visually revolting. I was not in the least afraid of this person,
    however I go to a bar to enjoy myself and the presence of this person impinged on my ability
    to enjoy myself. So I quit going to the bar. This was no loss for me, because there are other bars
    where such freaks do not show up. Many people don't want to hang out with such weird shit, and if
    you doubt this then you need to get some more real-world experience because you are living in a bubble.

    Bottom Line Number 1: some ( many ) of us just don't want to be around seriously weird people. And don't even try to tell me a
    person who has a dick and tits that were added later is not weird. No power on earth is going to make me decide I am ok with being
    proximate to such shit.

    Bottom Line Number 2 : The vast majority of people are not transsexuals or similar. Transsexuals etc. are a tiny fraction of
    the population. There's no way in the real world that weird people who are a tiny minority of the population are going to have the
    ability to compel the majority of the population to accept their weirdness. No law or regulation is going to force people to like stuff they
    do not like. And only an idiot or a fool or a liar with a hidden agenda would attempt to claim otherwise.

    Bottom Line Number 3 : Do what you like in the privacy of your own home. But when you go into public there are rules and laws
    in place which we all have to follow. If you disregard those rules you're going to have a rough life.

    Lastly - I am sick and tired of minority groups acting like they are entitled to special treatment. And I guarantee I am FAR from alone
    in this sentiment. You want to be weird and flout convention ? Fine. Don't expect any sympathy from me if you find yourself in a bad situation,l
    because quite frankly, you put yourself there. If you look weird, or act weird, you're asking for a difficult life. Don't be surprised when it happens.

  5. Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forced group disrobement is obsolete because nobody can agree on what the groups should be. I have visited and participated in nude beaches, but group showers for men in a local community center frankly feel weird. Why should anyone watch me washing my junk? And for anyone with kids the preferable solution is to give them privacy from others of any gender.

  6. Public controls public bathrooms by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms?

    Every once in a while females get raped and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics — by "regular" perverts.

    For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.

    Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their [obsenity] bathrooms.

    Not "their" — the law is about public (and otherwise publicly accessible) bathrooms. You can still pee however you want in yours, even if — thanks to certain Democrats — you aren't free to properly flush afterwards.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary â" without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.

      Heaven forbid they should arrest people under any of the hundreds of other laws that such behavior would violate (assault, indecent exposure, loitering in a restroom with intent to commit lewd acts, peeping tom laws, etc.).

      ... you aren't free to properly flush afterwards.

      1.6 gallons is actually plenty of water for flushing a toilet if the toilet is designed correctly and the drain pipes actually slope downwards at a sufficient angle to carry sewage away. Clogging is almost invariably caused by toilets that are designed badly. And trust me when I say that there were plenty of badly designed toilets before 1992 as well.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Grow a brain.

      The primary purpose of the law is to make it possible for men to be evicted from women's restrooms. As the GP posted, we want to prevent rapes. There are already too many rapes, and the laws punishing rape have been in existence for a long time. A law that allows men in a women's restroom encourages rape and lewd behavior.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms.

      Not only do you need to prove that this is true (spoiler alert: it's not), you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this.

      The real context around this law is

      1)"Social conservatives" lost the battle against the gays, so they are starting a new battle against a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.

      2)"Small-government conservatives" resent the federal governments above, and local school districts below, having sane policies about transgender student bathroom use. Notice that the law ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (and even that has some expections). If there was an epidemic of cross-dressing rapists, wouldn't it make more sense to have this law apply to private businesses as well?

      3)The author of the bill, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, is a minor-league Rush Limbaugh that somehow got elected to high office. He's a grandstanding idiot that doesn't care how many transgender teens commit suicide, so long as he can rile up his base with this fake crisis.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    4. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Much as I detest "whataboutism", what about lesbian rape? Gay rape? Or is it only penis in vagina rape that gets the Puritans riled up?

    5. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you point us to some statistics that show

      a)there's an epidemic of men in women's bathrooms committing assaults?

      b)making extremely feminine transgender women go into men's bathrooms will somehow reduce assaults?

      c)a law that only applies to SOME GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS will have any effect on this "epidemic"?

      To put it bluntly, you've been duped by Dan Patrick and his hate squad. Don't kid yourself-this law does nothing to protect women or any victims of sexual assault. Do you think that bush-league Rush Limbaugh gives a shit about whether or not women get sexually assaulted?

      It's mainly an impotent revenge play on the federal government for dictating that transgender students can use the restroom of their identified gender (a policy that is strongly supported by local school districts). If it passes, it will do untold economic damage to Texas, and INCREASE sexual assaults.

      If you are a Texan, make sure you know how your state lawmakers voted, and make sure you tell them they're getting VOTED OUT if they supported this petty, oppressive law that has no place in the freedom-loving state of Texas.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    6. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Those "transgender teens" need serous therapy, not bathroom access to the wrong gendered bathroom.

    7. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      more like professional radicals won "gay marriage" so they moved on to the next cause that gets them a paycheck; and the predictions about the consequences of perverting marriage proved true since we are now seeing child abuse on a massive scale, no one dared to train kids in homosexual behavior though they're being taught it's preferable, but any kid can be influenced to into a transgender identification, becoming a client who requires lifelong treatment, creating the equivalent of several full-time jobs

    8. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neither of these two can be prosecuted pre-emptively.

      Did you know that the Constitution prohibits pre-emptive prosecution? Is that really what you want to argue for here? "Pre-emptive prosecution?"

      Isn't "pre-emptive prosecution" the ultimate nanny-state?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's right though, anyone passing these laws obviously needs psychological help.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I feel the same way about religious people, but hey, you can't always get what you want.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Sophistry by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a typical tactic used by you people.

    "Where's the issue? It's NOT Happening!"

    Well it's not happening now because there are laws, regulations, conventions, customs, that keep men from using women's facilities. (This is also a deception by you people...it's about ALL women's facilities, not just bathrooms).

    If a guy goes into a woman's facility now, they will be chased out, the police might be called, and the guy possibly arrested for disorderly conduct or something.

    Wit the laws that the Left is trying to pass, this could not happen. Further, they write the laws so poorly that ANY guy could simply declare he identifies as a woman and walk right in. There is no "Trans Card" or anything else to prevent that. Get that? Any Guy, Any Time, merely needs to declare, and it's an all access pass.

    So the bottom line is you would be opening up a very target rich environment for perverts who could enter a women's facility, unquestioned, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they could not do anything absent some evidence like a camera, or inappropriate behavior.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.