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 On the table in Texas is a law similar to one enacted -- and later partially repealed -- in North Carolina.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.

339 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.
    3. Re:Corporations are people by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      To expand on West Wing's comment on the subject, they want government just small enough to fit into your bedroom and bathroom.

      --

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

    4. Re:Corporations are people by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      it applies to bathrooms in government buildings, and the issue has always been who is the bathroom with kids, but don't let details get in the way of your logical leap. But let's follow your logic and let normal males, not just diagnosed mentally ill perverts use whatever bathroom they want and see how long it takes liberals to start protesting about safe spaces

    5. Re:Corporations are people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      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.

      To me, it is quite apparent that most people, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and Independents alike are ALL against big government when they don't agree with public policy. Republicans, generally don't like big government in terms of social services... unless they receive benefits. Democrats, generally don't like big government in terms of the military/police... unless the police come to their aid. Libertarians, generally don't like big government in terms of regulations... unless said regulations work in their favor. Of course these are broad generalizations but the stereotypes serve a purpose to illustrate a point.

      In this case, one can generalize that Republicans are against big government but want government to dictate who can use which bathroom. Perhaps they are only in favor of the monitoring because it appears the government will monitor the bathrooms in the same way they would to protect their own sensibilities. However, lets no kid ourselves into thinking this generalization applies to all Republicans and not to anyone else. All parties do it and this topic isn't black and white in terms of opinions aligning with party affiliation.

      Another related example is religion - lets ban Islam/the USA is a Christian nation. Ok. Fine. You get to decide if the USA will be a secular or non-secular nation. After you make that choice, I get to decide the religion. Choose wisely - you may be forced to wear a colander. Personally, I'd just ban douchebaggery and no race, color, religion, nationality, age group, gender, disability or veteran status has a corner on that market - dealing with douche bags is the main reason most of our laws exist in the first place. Example: Look at the 10 Commandments. Ignoring opinions regarding the first three, the last seven can be summarized as 'don't be a douche bag'.

    6. Re:Corporations are people by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Why not just do co-ed bathrooms with stalls? Make sure at least one stall is marked "sitting only". Good companies can even make sure there are enough supplies to deal with messes left by assholes who actually think their pee doesn't sprinkle... everywhere off of the main stream.

      If men and women are equal, we can share a bathroom.

      As for rapes and violence in bathrooms, I'm pretty sure men's and ladies' toilets never helped with that anyway.

    7. Re:Corporations are people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's going to take a famous and tragic case for the adults to finally school the SJW playground and enact these legislations everywhere.

      How many "famous and tragic" cases of some gun nut going into a school and shooting a bunch of first graders will it take before strict gun laws are enacted everywhere?

      Not one of these bathroom bills has anything to do with kids' safety. How much horseshit do you have to be fed before you push the plate away?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      Bathroom stalls also have nothing to do with the right of the people to resist their government from tyrannical overreach also.

      Obvious straw-man argument is obvious.

      Also, off topic.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    9. Re:Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Strict gun laws don't work in the places where they exist. Now if you wanted an outright ban you might have an argument, though not one I would agree with.

    10. Re:Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 2

      In this case, one can generalize that Republicans are against big government but want government to dictate who can use which bathroom. Perhaps they are only in favor of the monitoring because it appears the government will monitor the bathrooms in the same way they would to protect their own sensibilities. However, lets no kid ourselves into thinking this generalization applies to all Republicans and not to anyone else. All parties do it and this topic isn't black and white in terms of opinions aligning with party affiliation.

      I don't know about the rest of the country, but here the Republicans want to allow businesses to determine who can use what bathroom instead of having it dictated by the state government.

    11. Re:Corporations are people by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If anything the possibility that the woman you just followed into the ladies room may have a penis would actually DETER some rapists...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Corporations are people by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      As one of the 33% of men with a shy bladder- please get rid of the fucking urinals, they are the worst and most horrible invention in human history. Get them the fuck gone.

      Just give us all lots of stalls please.

      I'm prepared to bet the only REAL reason urinals cut down on queuing time is because a full third of all men walk in - sees no empty stall and somebody else near a urinal and choose to leave and come back later rather than suffering the embarrassment of standing in front of a urinal and nothing happens because somebody else is in the room and feeling sure that they think you're a perv and only there to check out their junk and jerk off because you're not peeing.

      When only 66% of the men actually try to pee - that cuts down on wait times I'm sure.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Corporations are people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are simply afraid of boycotts

      This is incorrect. I can say this as someone who helps shape these sorts of policies, but not at the listed companies.

      Any large-enough company will have trans employees. We want to be able to retain all employees who meet our performance standards. Bills like this that discriminate against our employees make it harder to retain good talent. It also hurts in-office relations. These bills are bad for business, with or without the threat of boycotts.

      Also: There have been trans people for a very, very long time. Where do you think they've been going to the bathroom? Right next to you.

      This bill isn't about maintaining the status quo or fighting off some trans invasion or keeping straight men in dresses out of the women's restroom. It's about singling out a subset of the population to fear and using that fear to motivate voters. Just like it is every time this happens.

      Lastly: you know you have a unisex bathroom at home, right?

    14. Re:Corporations are people by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Why do we have bathrooms for men and women, but not for corporations? Each establishment should provide an extra Corporation Bathroom, where corporations could take care of their dirty interests.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    15. Re:Corporations are people by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      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 ever wonder why men aren't allowed in women's bathrooms? Why there are laws against men going into the wrong bathroom?

      You think men asked for separate bathrooms?

      Seriously, you're a fucking moron if you think women are going to agree to non-women using their bathrooms!

      It isn't bigots, or homophobes, or transphobes who want a female-only bathroom, it's women. Normal women, lesbian women, old women, young women, thin women, fat women...

      Why don't you be the first to stand up and tell women that they must accept men into their bathrooms? Go ahead, I'll wait.

      Even better, why not let women vote on this - ask them outright "Are you okay with men in the women's bathroom?" I can guarantee that the majority of western women, used to entitlements, are going to vocally protest any attempt to make them share their bathrooms with males.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    16. Re:Corporations are people by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There's just one little problem with your rant.
      These laws aren't preventing men from going into the women's bathroom.
      Not even slightly. Trans-women are not men - and keeping them out has nothing to do with your rant.

      On the other hand this law is actually forcing 6 foot 4 dudes with beards into the women's bathroom because they were born with a uterus.

      In fact, several of the cases currently before the court are transboys who requested permission to use the boys room because their girl schoolmates were uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with these boys - despite these boys having vaginas.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Corporations are people by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      There's just one little problem with your rant.
      These laws aren't preventing men from going into the women's bathroom.

      No, ya moron, existing laws prevent males going into female bathrooms. What's happening is that a group of people want to change existing laws to add exceptions that will allow a certain class of male to enter female bathrooms.

      I'm particularly interested in seeing how you get women to accept that.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    18. Re:Corporations are people by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Erm no - these 'existing laws' do not exist.

      If they did - there would be no need for North Carolina and Texas to be passing these NEW laws saying the exact same thing.
      They could merely declare laws that say people can go to the bathroom they feel they belong in invalid.

      If your idiotic assertions were true, bathroom bills like this one would not exist.

      >What's happening is that a group of people want to change existing laws to add exceptions that will allow a certain class of male to enter female bathrooms.
      No, the are merely asking - under existing laws to be treated equally. There have been title IX claims by transgender folk asking for the right ot use the bathroom that matches their true gender. There has been ZERO attempts at ANY new laws in their favor.
      Seriously - you are incredibly vociferous in your opinions considering you know absolutely nothing about the subject and are just making random shit up and pretending that shit is 'facts'.

      >I'm particularly interested in seeing how you get women to accept that.
      You mean the people who are the majority calling FOR trans people to be allowed to use the bathrooms of their choice because they are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a muscled, bearded dude and they really don't feel more comfortable because that dude has a uterus ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Corporations are people by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's OK when it's the left doing it. Yay corporations! /s

      And I'm a guy who thinks this Texas law is stupid.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Corporations are people by operagost · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to inconvenience the rest of the world just because you have a problem. And stop trying to project it onto other people. No, I haven't seen streams of men turning on their heels like Abe Simpson seeing Bart working the door of a brothel, just because a guy is already at one of the urinals.

      Urinals use less floor space and less water. You can use the stall.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re: Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Japan has a gun ban, not strict gun laws.

    22. Re:Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 1

      My actual stance is that I've only heard coherent arguments in favor of separating bathrooms/locker rooms by physiology. The arguments against seem to be that using one that differs from identity makes that person uncomfortable and that person being uncomfortable is more important than the discomfort of anyone else. Any attempt at compromise is met with claims that transgender people are being treated as second class citizens.

      It would probably have helped everyone involved if there had been a public discussion before the issue was decided for everyone in my state by an unelected committee.

    23. Re:Corporations are people by robinsc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its better to ask "are you okay with transgender men who dress like women using the womens bathroom ?"

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
    24. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Republicans who wanted to pass a law determining who can be in what bathroom. I haven't seen Democrats pushing for such laws.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Gun laws have nothing to do with the right of the people to resist their government from tyrannical overreach either. That was the original idea, but there's no way a bunch of civilians with guns are going to effectively resist government troops. The best they're going to do is make areas close to ungovernable and thoroughly uncivilized.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      That's what the Brits thought in 1775 too.

      Got a history lesson for ya...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    27. Re:Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 1

      In this state the Democrats didn't even have to pass a law, an unelected committee decided that all businesses must allow people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match whatever they say their identity is.

    28. Re: Corporations are people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When I notice one of you, I like to yell: 'Ha Ha! Stage fright!'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Corporations are people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's not a shirt, that's a blouse, it buttons up the other side. He's dressed as a woman...a 120 kilo bearded drunk smelly woman wearing biker boots.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of 1775, and that the Revolution would have failed if it hadn't been for regular troops.

      However, did you know that the average soldier now carries a rifle, not a smoothbore musket? It's even capable of multiple shots, and actually doesn't need a ramrod. Artillery is now guns that fire explosive shells, and it's even effective beyond line of sight. Since that time, people have designed heavy guns capable of firing lots and lots of bullets really fast. We call them "machine guns". And don't let me get started on what's replaced horses. You'll never believe what's in the sky besides birds, either.

      In less obvious features, troop commanders can talk to each other without being in the same place. Without having to go through the musket drill, it's possible to train troops to operate in ways other than standing in lines and firing at the enemy. Things have changed since 1775.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, women have to use the women's room, and men have to use the men's room?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Things *have* changed since 1775. On both sides.

      What you're describing in a civilians ability to resist the current US Armed forces can best be described as 'groupthink'.

      The military that underestimates their opponent is the military that will lose.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    33. Re:Corporations are people by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If they had to use the one that matches their identity, yes. They don't. They have to use the one that they say matches their identity at a given time.

    34. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Gender identity is not fluid in any case I know of. (It can get really complicated, and I'm not an expert in the field.) It's generally expressed in dress and actions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have good reasons for what you call groupthink. I might be incorrect, but I have reasons. Look at what happened in WWII in partisan warfare. When poorly armed, poorly trained, poorly led regular troops encountered valiant partisans with personal weapons, the partisans tended to lose.

      I haven't seen good reasons for the ability of civilians to beat the US Army, other than by convincing parts of said Army to go over to their side. Nobody's explained to me how this is supposed to work, or how things have changed in the past seventy-odd years to make the lessons of Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans irrelevant.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      When poorly armed, poorly trained, poorly led regular troops encountered valiant partisans with personal weapons, the partisans tended to lose.

      Quoting a few rare examples does not define the norm.

      Nothing will prove my point save for a trial of combat. Until then, yes, it's most certainly groupthink to assume otherwise. I would suggest getting back to work but I suspect you already are.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    37. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You appear to think that it's completely up in the air, except that anyone who disagrees with you for whatever reasons must be going along with groupthink? Is that a reasonable summary of what you said?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      it's completely up in the air

      Yes

      anyone who disagrees with you for whatever reasons must be going along with groupthink?

      No.

      I am saying: blithely dismissing an opponent as having no chance without having seriously considered the ingenuity of desperate humans has proven throughout history to have been a poor command strategy. This mental process to failure is often described as 'groupthink'.

      My Ego has nothing to do with it.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    39. Re:Corporations are people by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You appear to be claiming that I have not seriously considered the ingenuity of desperate humans. I've observed it second-hand or third-hand in various histories. People can get really ingenious, and that ingenuity has almost never worked to defeat regular troops tactically without other major advantages. Popular uprisings can't stop the military from going where they want. They can make areas temporarily ungovernable, which isn't what we'd want out of a revolution.

      "Groupthink" is usually taken to be something people think because they're part of a group without adequate other support. This is not what I'm doing. It's always possible that I'm wrong (although I'm pretty darn sure of myself in this), but I arrived at my conclusions without benefit of other people telling me about it. My conclusions aren't groupthink in any reasonable sense of the word.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Corporations are people by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      They can make areas temporarily ungovernable, which isn't what we'd want out of a revolution.

      I couldn't agree more.

      This is a more accurate description of groupthink:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  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 beelsebob · · Score: 2

      It's an issue because people are trying to restrict usages. No one cared, until someone tried to take the transgender people's freedom away.

    2. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Because you can be hurt or killed in the men's room and have the police take you away or worse labeled a sex offender in states like Arkansas depending on their bathroom laws

    4. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I have a small child. What exactly am I supposed to be concerned about?

    5. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Yes. The vast majority of transgenders were abused as children and as such have an extremely high chance of becoming abusers themselves. The number of transgenders who rape, kill, molest etc vastly outnumber "straight" people when adjusted for population.

      They are dangerous people to be around, period.

      Citation?

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And those laws are stupid. Punish people who sexually violate others regardless of gender. If you violate someone else in the restroom, you should be punished, regardless of gender. If you keep to yourself in the restroom, do your business, and don't violate anyone else, it shouldn't matter. Texas should focus on health care, job creation, infrastructure, and so many other things that are actually useful, and not on discriminating against people.

      - snruter rotsac

    10. 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.
    11. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 3

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

      Obviously it increases the molester's attack space.

      (I've already read -- not from Christian fundamentalists -- about men going into women's bathrooms and perving out. The women were too cowed to say anything, afraid that he would claim to identify as a woman; then the women would be the "bad guys" even though he was obviously a guy in there just perving out.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. 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.

    13. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Which should tell us all that this was a carefully contrived controversy meant to anger people and bring them to the polls. Not to sound paranoid or anything...but seriously...it must have been deliberately engineered. Right? This just seems too stupid an issue otherwise.

    14. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And what, please tell us, could happen to that small child here? Some wrong sex-rays being projected through a stall wall or what?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. 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.
    16. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us. Watching while they fixed their makeup? Or what?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are sick. Probably you are much more of a danger to others than the typical trans person could ever be.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

      Your argument is bullshit.

      No, Blue Strat's argument is emphatically NOT bullshit. Allowing men into the restroom meant for FEMALES gives "Chester the Molester" twice the opportunity for misdeeds, compared to the scenario in which Chester is only allowed in the MEN'S room.

      You must be one seriously stupid motherfucker if you are unable to grasp that.

      Keep up the good fight, BlueStrat. The idiots are thick in here tonight, but their minds are weak and logic will prevail as it always does.

    19. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that one. These people cause a significant amount of the pain and suffering in the world and do so without good reason. Not even greed, just because they have an issue with somebody else not being like them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    20. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Keep up the good fight, BlueStrat. The idiots are thick in here tonight, but their minds are weak and logic will prevail as it always does.

      Hah! Thanks! These idiots are operating with the same level of cognition as the idiots protesting racism by demanding...racial segregation. 0_o

      MLK Jr.'s spirit weeps.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real issues involve transgender people being perceived as duplicitous and being treated as if they're perverted.

      No, that's the reasoning among those who only consider the scenario which supports their ideological beliefs.

      If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.

      The resolution for the whole thing points to unisex bathrooms, with a separate partitioned area for urinals, and the stall walls extended to go from floor to ceiling so you can't peek over/under them. That would also settle the arguments about there needing to be more toilets allocated to women because they take more time so the lines are longer at womens' bathrooms. Though I suspect there will be pushback by businesses since walls extending to the floors will increase the amount of janitorial labor needed to clean multi-stall restrooms, and extending walls to the ceiling will require each stall to have its own vent.

    22. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Rape, or molestation. It's not uncommon as sex crimes go. This isn't about tans-anything, it's about a rapist or molester throwing on a dress in order to find a victim isolated in a somewhat private space.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us.

      Why should I have to justify to you what creeps women out?

      In fact, here's the link: http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom. Ask her yourself.

      Another link: http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111

      It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

      the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

      And another: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html

      The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.

      Two women showering in Whitney Hall, a residence at U of T's University College, reported they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them, in two different incidents, police Const. Victor Kwong told The Toronto Star.

      "The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    24. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A perv would feel less restricted in doing things that he would be inhibited from doing where there are cameras and/or men who would protect a woman. Exposing himself. Standing between a woman and the toilets, blocking her way and asking "Do you fuck?" "Can I watch you?" "C'mon, just a little feel." Standing next to her while she's at the sink, breathing on her neck and drooling. Masturbating.

      Do you honestly think those things won't happen, or is it that you want them to happen?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Before the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: I love Texas! I can grope whoever I want and not go to jail! --- After the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: Oh noes! Extremely feminine transgender women are forced to use the men's room in a subset of government buildings! No one has a job because every tech company pulled out of Texas, but...I can still grope whoever I want, short of penetration, and not go to jail! Molester (kneels reverantly): Thanks to Jesus Christ and Dan Patrick!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    26. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      The questionnaires have the field : Sex/gender?

      And this is part of the issue... not directly, but ironically.

      I as a man have been raised in a society where multiple times a day, every single day... wherever I may be, I or the the people around me make comments or have discussions or make jokes that define a person who is in possession of their very own penis makes use of it as a secondary brain that is occasionally dominant and able to preempt logical thought process.

      It is extremely clear to most people that gender and sex are related. Although, no as in sex = gender... but instead gender and sex go hand in hand.. or more specifically penis in whatever you can stick it in.

      I raise my daughter in a way where I explain to her that once hormones kick in within teenage boys, primal urges kick in and while most people learn to adapt and control them and let them out during appropriate times and in appropriate places, far too many (even if it's few) men never learn... and they are a danger to those around them. Whether it's their urge to dominate and overcome through fighting or sex, they are a danger to the people around them.

      I recently talked with my son about drinking parties (he's 15 and drinking age is 18 which means .. well they're all drinking now). I set some rules
      - Never ever be at a party where there isn't at least one person who is sober and responsible enough to call parents, taxis and ambulances etc... if needed
      - If there's no one else, it's you.
      - If you're the responsible one, that means you sip on a single beer all night and sneak refill it with water to keep the drunks from pressuring you to drink too much
      - If there is a girl passed out on a bed or couch... find another girl and sit on the bed next to the passed out one chatting.
      - If there isn't another girl, then pick her up and carry her outside and let her sit and puke there.
      - If there are any drunk girls who need to get home, find a sober(ish) girl to walk/carry her home with or call her parents. Do not stick her in a cab or uber alone. You don't want her parents worrying you violated her.
      - Invite your guy friends to crash at our place if needed. Girls ALWAYS go home and you have to get them there if needed.

      Basically, I'm teaching my son how to make sure his friends don't have the opportunity to think with the wrong head. I'm also teaching him how to not be accused of raping a girl at a party that someone else raped.

      So... all of this is about penises doing the thinking. Testosterone is a shitty thing and makes people stupid. Alcohol with testosterone is a disaster.

      So... it's not about being perceived as duplicitous or perverted any more than any other penis baring human.

      The point is that these are people that have testosterone in their bodies. And while not all people with penises are driven by sexual desires, someone who identifies themselves as a woman but should in theory be prone to testosterone driven desires to dominate and overcome... well... here's the problem. Even if their solution is just to tug themselves off in the bathroom, and while I have never found myself that desperate, I have been forced to listen to people tell me and others that they have... unabashedly. And now, that person may be using the ladies room to deal with those desires.

      Ok... so here's the thing... the real problem isn't which room they do it in. I certainly don't like the idea of some asshole jerking it in the stall next to my son or my daughter. I don't like the idea of some asshole jerking off because they are aroused by my son or daughter. I hate the idea of some asshole thinking they should relieve themselves by dominating my son or daughter.

      So for me the problem has nothing to do with gender or gender identity. It has everything to do with the types of people who can't keep it in their pants (or skirts I guess).

      I'm not far from beating the shit out of the next person who looks

    27. 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
    28. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      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.

      Aw, are we trying critical thinking today?

      1. 1. Where is it legal for Chester to molest? If Chester were following any laws at, he'd avoid the biggest one first. This isn't an end-all argument, just used to judge impact vs consequences.
      2. 2. Almost all the people this law will affect are law abiding citizens. People too afraid to think just haven't noticed most of them before.
      3. 3. So, now you're creating a law that makes more people uncomfortable than there are right now, and tempting a whole lot of law-abiding citizens to break the law. (I think it's like speeding on the highway, I'd be for autobahn-style laws that actually make sense but I digress).
      4. 4. It makes me wonder why are normally anti-government-regulation types all of a sudden wanting over-regulation?
      5. 5. So I looked it up, and found that the idea that sexual predators benefitting from bathroom choice is a myth, and most of the victims of bathroom violence are actually the trans-gender people.
    29. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?

      Danger is something that is perceived, not necessarily something that actually hurts someone. So yes, some may see a danger.

      If you can prove to everyone that it's impossible that anything could ever go wrong, you should hurry up and do that. Otherwise expect people to be protective of their children.

      On the other hand, what's the benefit to the other 99.99% of society if transgender people feel comfortable about their bathroom use? And why does their comfort override parents' comfort? (These are genuine questions, BTW. If you want to advocate for a bathroom policy, shouldn't you be able to answer them thoughtfully?)

    30. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      You are the idiot Blue Strat, and no amount of sock puppet up mods...

      ROFLMAO!!!

      Dude, really!? See my UID? It will be legally old enough to marry in some States soon, if not already. That's how much of a comment history I have. Anyone can plainly see I've never engaged in sock-puppetry or any other shenanigans.

      Look at the average mod score of my comments. I don't *need* to boost my moderation scores with bot accounts. I get up-votes the old fashioned way: I *earn* them by having a brain and using it.

      You should try it some time.

      Strat

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

      Sorry for re-replying, cleaning up my formatting and adding more about why this Child Molesters will love this bill:
      --
      Before the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: I love Texas! I can grope whoever I want and not go to jail!

      --
        After the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: Extremely feminine transgender women and 7-year-old boys are forced to use the men's room by themselves in a subset of government buildings!

      No one has a job because every tech company pulled out of Texas, but...I'm applying for every government job I can! I'm still not on the sex offenders list!

      Molester (kneels reverantly): Thanks to Jesus Christ and Dan Patrick!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    32. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Or IF

    33. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 2

      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

      I think the point was "if you're going to be pedantic, ignore realities, and argue that making a useless and discriminatory law will prevent Chester from molesting, then the counter-argument is that Chester can still molest, this law doesn't prevent that."

      After looking up the numbers, I have to agree. The vast majority of physical attacks are against trans-gender people, not by them, and the law does not noticeably impact the child-molesters. My common sense reiterates that, knowing that most child-molestations and rapes are by people the victim is familiar with.

    34. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Good question. I've seen women using men's lavatories * a few times, and nobody did more than raise an eyebrow.
      I just assumed the queue for the Ladies was too long. As long as they don't try to pee at the urinal and splash my legs, I don't care.
      If some bloke in a frock came in, I'd care even less.

      Conversely, why do trannies get so upset at having to use the men's bathroom? Is it such a terrible inconvenience?

      * Why do Americans say "bathroom" ? If people really were taking baths at work, I could see the modesty issue.
      The Brits are no better. I had to ask directions for the gents in the UK because I did not know that a "cloakroom" is where one takes a pee.

    35. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Troll

      After looking up the numbers, I have to agree. The vast majority of physical attacks are against trans-gender people, not by them...

      I never claimed nor do I believe trans people would be the problem in the vast majority of cases. It's others who would take advantage of the law to gain access both to women and children while in an exposed and vulnerable situation with the addition of some level of privacy to the space discouraging the presence of those who might interfere.

      That is a significant risk.

      When you can come up with a simple, quick, easy, and cheap method that works without physical contact to determine if someone really does identify as another gender today with a certainty exceeding 98%, give me a call.

      Until then, this is dangerous stupidity that puts women and children at unnecessary risk.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    36. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, would you agree with the following then?

      A law against a man owning a gun is to prevent murder. Not all cases of a man owning a gun results in murder, but a law preventing a man from owning a gun is still proper.

    37. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      As opposed to what? Restrooms are not high security. Our hypothetical rapist or molester is already intent on crime, he's not going to be deterred by having to casually stroll into the women's room. There are no guards on the door. Rarely CCTV.

      If he gets caught before he can start on the raping he can easily just claim it was an honest mistake, he was distracted and mis-read the sign. Who can prove otherwise?

    38. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, though... I've proposed these unisex rooms many times on socially conservative sites. I've pointed out not only the practical advantages in reduced floor space and cleaning costs, but also that the increased foot traffic will actually improve safety - assault takes some uninterrupted time, plus it means that any calls for help are more likely to be answered if half the people outside of the room are too uncomfortable to enter. But I've never gotten anyone to express agreement. I think the 'creepy factor' is just too high. People are strange creatures.

    39. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us.

      Why should I have to justify to you what creeps women out?

      In fact, here's the link: http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom.

      Ok, an extremely rare incident occurred, as a result of which, some women were made temporarily uncomfortable.

      Not a very good justification for discrimination.

      Another link: http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111

      It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

      the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

      Creepy but no one got harmed. And, almost certainly not a transgendered person. Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!

      And another: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html

      The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.

      Gender-neutral is something quite different.

      In fact, you should really be more careful with your citations as you seem to have an unfortunate habit of excluding a critical paragraph that undercuts your entire point.

      Melinda Scott, dean of students at University College, told campus newspaper The Varsity that some washrooms in the college's residences will now be separated by gender for "those who identify as men and those who identify as women."

      "At the same time, there remains at least one gender-neutral washroom per floor and per house,” Scott said.

      “The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."

      ie, the remedy to this voyeur was the exact policy you're arguing against!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    40. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Creepy but no one got harmed.

      No one ever got harmed when I drank and drove, either.

      Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!

      No need for right-wing pundits: it's the first thing that I -- and many other men I know -- knew would happen.

      "those who identify as men and those who identify as women."

      And how do you enforce that?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    41. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by freudigst · · Score: 1

      But, like, sensitivity and all!

    42. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A law against a man in a lady's restroom is to prevent sexual assault.

      In that case it makes things far, far worse. This law would force guys like this to use the women's bathroom:

      http://www.gaystarnews.com/wp-...
      http://www.advocate.com/sites/...

      There is no way you can tell that those guys are trans just by looking at them, so how are you supposed to know that any random guy who wonders in to the bathroom is legally required to be there?

      Of course, sexual assault in bathrooms is extremely rare and a better solution would be to install panic alarms in the stalls. This isn't about protecting people, it's about enforcing religious bigotry and expressing disgust and moral outrage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.

      If a "pervert", as you call it, would go to such lengths, why would they not just dress up as a woman and do the same? I think your argument is dubious. And anyway, what is the (sexual) attraction of using the bathroom as the opposite gender? It is hardly the kind of environment to inspire lust; not in my, at least. No, the real reason for gender specific bathrooms is the fact that many of either gender would feel awkward about using a unisex facility, simply because it is something they are not used to, and since it is just a small thing, nobody bothers to change it.

    44. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.

      It's possible. Firstly, has it ever happened? Secondly, that's why we have judges and juries and shit. It's not perfect, but it's better than absolutely insisting that bald bloke with the beard over there uses the ladies bathroom.

      and the stall walls extended to go from floor to ceiling so you can't peek over/under them.

      Seriously, what the FUCK is it with America and bathroom stall walls which end like 3 feet above the floor?? It's an incredibly stupid design, but it's like mixer taps to the Brits. You all seem to have this national blindness towards how stupid it is.

      Also you know what else fixing that would fix? Theft. People snatching stuff from neighbouring stalls is a much bigger problem in the US than just about anywhere presumably because you all make it so easy.

      Though I suspect there will be pushback by businesses since walls extending to the floors will increase the amount of janitorial labor needed to clean multi-stall restrooms, and extending walls to the ceiling will require each stall to have its own vent.

      4 inches my man! 4 inches! There's no need to go all the way. Just stop them being so creepily huge.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    45. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It doesn't even make any sense. This law would require a guy to enter the women's bathroom to trim his beard, because he happens to have been born female.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      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.

      So then he'll get his ass beat down and thrown in gaol. Pretending to be transgender isn't a get out of gaol free card. Your scenario is a stupid as the police collaring a thief who then claims "bt I was going to pay for it", then saying "oh it's not theft we can't gaol him".

      This is why we have judges and juries and shit. No law can cover all conceivable circumstances. So when Mr Thief claims it's not theft because he was gonna pay honest guv I didn't steal it fell off the back of a lorry innit, the jury will have a good laugh and find him guilty. Likewise for Mr Molester, though probably without the laugh.

      IOW mens rea, motherfucker!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    47. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So the problem is voyeurs, not trans people. And the proposed solution is to force trans men to go into women's bathrooms to trim their beards, because there is no way that could be used as an excuse by a non-trans man.

      This reminds me of the panic when people realized that gay men can enter the men's locker room with young boys. Somehow we survived that without banning homosexuals from the locker room matching their gender.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      So the problem is voyeurs, not trans people.

      And more dangerous pervs.

      It would be interesting to poll women on their attitudes to "penises with dresses" (if you can have "vagina monologues", we can have "penises with dresses") in their bathrooms.

      And the proposed solution is to force trans men to go into women's bathrooms to trim their beards, because there is no way that could be used as an excuse by a non-trans man.

      What???

      This reminds me of the panic when people realized that gay men can enter the men's locker room with young boys.

      I must have missed that one.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    49. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.

      Man are you going to get a surprise when you realise it's possible for a normal man dressed as a man with all men bits to also go into a women's bathroom.

      And what are you hoping to achieve? Watched dressed women wash their hands and do their makeup? *HOT*. I'd masturbate to that but I'm sure masturbation in public is already on the banned list. Or maybe I want to look under a bathroom stall, though I'm sure a women dressed as a women with all the woman bits would also find herself afoul of a law if she did that. Or maybe I'm just in the mood to rape someone. But now I'm really going to think twice about it because there's a law preventing me from dressing as a woman for the purpose of getting into the women's bathroom. Yeah I'm reformed now. I couldn't help myself before, but now I'm definitely not going to rape everything that moves.

      How about we keep the existing laws that target all people equally for crimes they commit rather than focusing on what actually is dangling (or not) between a person's legs.

    50. 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
    51. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by houghi · · Score: 1

      To me the real issue is that Companies are fighting for policies and are on the side of the people.

      1) Why are the politicians against the people?
      2) Why are the people not doing it them selves?

      An easy solution to this whole thing is as obvious as going to metric: have doors that go to the floor like a civilized country.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    52. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, you're trying to wrap up blind prejudice as sense, but it won't work.

      The law as it stands right now will not prosecute that bloke with a beard over there from using the gents, but will prosecute pervy mc pervpants from creeping over little girls in the ladies. And there might be a problem with pervs, but there isn't a problem with then claiming they're transgender.

      Under your new law a great big bloke with a big beard can wander into the ladies and claim he had to by law since he was born female.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    53. 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.

    54. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Makes you think, the hazards of stupid laws. So if I put a ladies sign on the toilet in my own home, as a male, am I breaking the law if I use it. Those signs were meant to be nothing more than a recommendation and requirement by the owners of the premises, their premises their rules. Creating laws is crazy, use the toilet don't use the toilet, as long as you are only using the toilet and not interfering with anyone, so what?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    55. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the bathrooms are all unisex, you can go into the bathroom with your daughter and make damned sure nothing bad happens.

    56. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's really funny when conservatives get *TRIGGERED*

      None of those things you mentioned are even vaguely legal now. Your argument is just as silly as the gun control nuts who figure someone ready to commit mass murder will be stopped cold by a law banning concealed carry.

    57. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 2

      OTOH, if we had gender neutral bathrooms, fathers would feel a lot more comfortable being out and about with their young daughters. Bizarrely, in order to protect the children, a father out with a young daughter cannot go into the bathroom with her. Same for a mother out with a young son.

    58. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      An what has that to do with the current discussion? Oh, right, nothing at all. Because, you know, a rapist intent on acting will not be deterred by a law that says he cannot go into that room and rape happens to already carry some pretty harsh penalties. So again, what could happen to that small child there that a law about trans-people not being allowed in a specific bathroom could change?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    59. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It tends to be one of the evils of the moral majority to assume that inviduals from some oppressed group speak for that entire group. To assume any black person speaks for all black people. To assume any trans person speaks for all trans people - she certainly only claimed to speak for herself. She consistently used the singular "I" and not once a "we".
      She also didn't make any claims - she just asked for evidence to back up the bizarre prejudice the GP had claimed (knowing that no such evidence exists - which was rather the point).

      I never saw her making any attempt to claim she's speaking for everybody - but frankly, if she DID - I would be more inclined to trust her than some of the people who DO claim to speak for all trans people (like Caitlin Jenner - whose genuineness I rather question considering who she voted for).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    60. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The whole set of "arguments" given is fully bogus and is based on some deranged idea that people that have some issues with their gender identity and did something about it are a danger to others much more so than regular people. It is basically "fear of the unknown" in a really stupid and extreme form. Of course, the numbers do not support that claim, but there are apparently so many people out there that are deeply afraid of anything that challenges their own gender identity in the slightest that they become completely irrational.

      Also, nobody with at least some residual rationality would plan (and that is what "putting on a dress to do it" means) a rape in a public bathroom. After all, somebody else can walk in at any time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    61. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      How about you come up with a cheap easy and non-invasive way of finding out what shape somebody's genitals are under their clothes.

      Because so far, the most common outcome of these laws have been vagina-owning cisgender women being accused of having penises on account of somebody else thinking they didn't look feminine enough.

      Considering there is basically no sane way of actually knowing what shape somebody's genitals are until they choose to show them to you - it's a fucking dumb law that will not protect anybody and, in fact, have no effect other than to force trans people into greater danger.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The first one sounds like a massive over-reaction to me, fueled in part by an over-active imagination. Also note that even so no in any way obvious "perving out" was reported.

      The other ones are locker-room incidents. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

      So far you have nothing.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    63. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What???

      Seriously how are you confused? An FTM trans man will have a beard, possibly male pattern baldness and the kind of muscles and body hair that male levels of testosterone give you. Yet as a female born person, he'd be legally required to use the women's bathroom.

      And it said bloke turns up in the ladies, if he says he was born female, you couldn't even have the police to question that because obeying the law is not probable cause. That's the rather ironic thing is that this law will make it easier for non trans pervs.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    64. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

      The "woman" in the background in both pictures looks like the same person in the same clothes. Maybe this is a men's room and the trans person in question is the one who looks like a woman? Just asking since you linked to the photos only without any caption etc.

    65. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Can you cite an example of proposed legislation that makes disliking someone a crime?

      Whenever I look into claims like these (e.g. the classic "I don't mind gays, I just don't want it rammed in my face") it turns out to be "I want those people to hide their true nation from me in public spaces".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I get the distinct impression that the two sides in this debate are not only talking past one another but talking about two separate and distinct topics.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    67. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      In that case, surely it follows we need at least one additional bathroom to prevent sexual assaults, so we get bathrooms labelled:

      * Straight male
      * Straight female
      * Gay male + gay female

      Of course bisexuals have to just hold on till they get home.

    68. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you're trying to wrap up blind prejudice as sense, but it won't work.

      It's a clash of ideologies. The majority of women by a large margin are going to object to men using their bathroom.

      Women didn't get their own bathroom because men were afraid of cooties - they got their own bathroom because they wanted privacy from men.

      They take their tops off in the bathroom. They discuss feminine issues in the bathroom. They occasionally even change clothes in the bathroom. They do not want to do all of this in front of men. They tend to be okay doing it in front of other women, though.

      The are two possible solutions:
      a) Make all bathrooms unisex (good luck getting women to give that up), or
      b) Require that anyone who is obviously male use a male bathroom and anyone who is obviously female use a female bathroom. You have a beard? Go into the mens. You're wearing lipstick and fill out a bra? Go into the womens. You're androgynous? Go into either.

      The "solution" of saying you are what you identify as is stupid. It's better to say "You think you're male/female? You'd better look like one"

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    69. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That seems to be the case, yes. One seems to think that men and women must be separated whenever the circumstances are more "private", because otherwise the men will just rape the women immediately. Kind of the mind-set that dives the treatment of women in, say, Saudi-Arabia. Of course, the mere idea of a trans-person throws a spanner into the mental gears for these people, as it shows the whole train of thought is defective. Hence they do what not-too-smart people often do when faced with a situation they do not understand: They try to pretend it does not exist, up to and including the completely counter-factual claim that trans-people actually do not exist. Quite a few also resort to violence.

      There very likely is also a strong element of gender-insecurity here on this side, akin to the little fact that the most violently anti-gay people are usually secretly gay.

      The other side thinks this a) does not apply to bathrooms (they are not really private, after all) and that men that rape are b) rare and c) a "bathroom-law" will do nothing to help against them and that the whole discussion is entirely misguided.

      Now giving examples of people doing inappropriate things in locker-rooms and showers does fit with the first stance (men are animals and must never be in private with women, possibly except when married to them), but it does not fit into a "bathroom" law at all, unless you have open showers in public toilets (I have never seen that).

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    70. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Why would anyone want to do that?
      The lines are much shorter for the men's room!

    71. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      "The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."

      And yet, that's exactly the opposite of what it will achieve. Specifically, the fear is that some dude who looks like a dude will saunter into the women's bathroom for nefarious purposes, right? Well, right now, if you see a dude who looks like a dude walking in, you can say something, because they're clearly out of place.

      But what this bill will require is that transgender men who look like dudes will have to use the women's room. So, you'll see big, burly men with beards and mustaches walking in, and you can't say anything, because they're required to be there by law (Google, for example, Buck Angel).

      So, this bill, in the name of preventing pervs from sneaking into the bathroom, will actually make it easier for pervs to sneak into the bathroom, because now, their apparent gender identity won't be an indicator of whether they should be there.

    72. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      If all of these laws are "please think of the children!!11" you need one specifically for them too.

    73. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      because otherwise the men will just rape the women immediately.

      Absolutist crap like this is where I stop reading and brand you an ass.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    74. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I bet there are a lot more pervs than there are people like Buck Angel.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    75. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      The guy in the hat is the trans person. He's been an often cited symbol of why the law is pointless.

    76. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And how exactly do you define biological sex ?
      Do you define it by genitals ? Well that's not only scientifically wrong - it also means that hermaphrodites now can't pee ANYWHERE.
      Do you define it by chromosomes ? You going to do a DNA test at every bathroom door ? And again - it doesn't work, for the same reason genitals is not a valid way to define biological sex. Where does an XXY person pee ? Based on outward appearance they are female, can even bear children, but they have a Y chromosome. There are some 14 other known stable and healthy chromosome combinations within the human race - and only three of them are externally identifiable (the three types of hermaphrodites) - the rest look like a man or a woman - but they don't have the same hormones and varying degrees of other biological differences. Castor Semenya externally is female - has labia and a vagina but, thanks to the invasive gender-testing at the olympics we know, has no uterus, this is a known chromosome variant - which produces significantly more testosterone than the usual female average - and many an women's olympics winner has had it. But then there is also a common mutation among them that makes their bodies unable to absorb testosterone - so many of them have LESS testosterone than the average female DESPITE producing more - for a long time those were the ONLY ones who were allowed to compete in the olympics.

      Basically - biological sex is messy and complicated in the extreme. In the age of DNA studies we've found it's a LOT messier and a great deal more complicated than we used to think.

      That's without getting into gender. And it's the fundamental problem with your 'simple solution' - it's not simple at all because biological sex isn't simple at all. That it was PERCEIVED as simple for hundreds of years doesn't matter - we have the hard scientific proof that this perception was flagrantly false now and political policies should be informed by the best available science, not by anybody's religion.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    77. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The issue is that Bathrooms and Locker rooms are public places where we do private things. And unfortunately the mindset of a lot of people haven't evolved much from middle school thinking if it is private then it must be sexually arousing. While real life it is rather boring. Any Nudity would be brief, and if a transgender person would probably take steps to insure their differences in plumbing isn't flaunted or even shown for any gender restroom. The risk of assault or compromising with transgender isn't any different with any other person in the room. I am sure if that heterosexual person if offered enough money to take some pictures would do so. So really your risk isn't that big of a deal.
      The problem is and this is speaking from a heterosexual male, is the concept of transsexual is very far from my experience so it is difficult for me to understand. At best all I can do is realize it exists and treat the people as human beings, and respect their position. Because trying to do otherwise would do more harm.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    78. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you managed to ignore what I wrote, then misrepresent what I wrote then angrily agree with the sentiment of what I wrote.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    79. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree with you - but I have actually looked at the data. I oppose these bills because they don't fit the data at all.

      I would however be highly in favor of a bill banning republican elected officials from public bathrooms altogether. After all - the data is clear, quite a LOT of people (including many children) have been raped by republican elected officials in bathrooms....

      And that friends, it what we call a headshot.

      While most of the rest of the world simply gets rid of a little bodily waste, here in the US, many of us have our fecal matter and urine spot welded onto our sexuality.

      Now I'm pretty permissive, but it doesn't occur to me to conflate restrooms with orgasms. So I have a hard time explaining the obsession many do have as anything other than projection.

      Google is our friend here as well. In the days before O'Blama and his merry band of Queersome Kenyans grabbed America by the balls, there should not have been men or transgenders assaulting our wimminfolk in public restrooms, right? Turns out that there was and is. At least for men and women - couldn't find any transgenders doing this. There is a word for people of any gender who would attack another in a rest room. That word is criminal.

      Finally, any of y'all ever go to a football game or rock concert, or country fair or flea market? Better not, because most don't have a specific gender for their porta-potties. Why, not only might some queebie be waiting to harass our wimminfolk, but the poor defenseless dear might look in the thing, and see a man-turd.

      But seriously, people have been sharing the same toilets for decades.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    80. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by xiux · · Score: 1

      the LGBQTBDSMLMNOPQRST...militant movement [...]

      Like the militant movement in the 60s?

    81. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      So if I put a ladies sign on the toilet in my own home, ...

      My question would be, "is your own home public"? Anyway, it is not the point. Though, I agree that there shouldn't be any kind of laws like this and government shouldn't be involved...

    82. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      No one ever got harmed when I drank and drove, either.

      That's... a terrible metaphor.

      We ban drinking and driving, we also ban men (who identify as men) going into women's facilities, especially men looking to do creepy sexual things. By the logic you apply to bathrooms we'd need to ban alcohol because it make it more likely people will drink and drive.

      Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!

      No need for right-wing pundits: it's the first thing that I -- and many other men I know -- knew would happen.

      And then endlessly advertised. Men pretending to be transgender to creep in washrooms is an extremely rare problem, before and after!

      "those who identify as men and those who identify as women."

      And how do you enforce that?

      Do you really think guys going to go around falsely claiming to be a transgendered woman is going to be a big problem?

      Have you met people before???

      --
      I stole this Sig
    83. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      In that case, surely it follows we need at least one additional bathroom to prevent sexual assaults, so we get bathrooms labelled:

      * Straight male * Straight female * Gay male + gay female

      Of course bisexuals have to just hold on till they get home.

      How old school! There are an infinite number of genders, so it's infinite bathrooms all the way down.

      I personally identify as Bubble Yum, bubble gum.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    84. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Whenever I look into claims like these (e.g. the classic "I don't mind gays, I just don't want it rammed in my face") .

      I see what you did there.... 8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    85. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      You are not ever going to be able to force people to accept things they find disgusting.

      Sure you are - that was the entire point of the black rights movement in the 50s, the anti slave movement a century before, and the women's rights movement.

    86. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Better not, because most don't have a specific gender for their porta-potties.

      Well, that's not a problem, because port-johns are single occupancy facilities.

      They problem comes when your in a restroom with capacity > 1, and you end up standing/sitting beside someone who's not "one of you".

      And, at least on the men's side of that, many public facilities like that often don't have doors on the stalls, etc....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    87. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Rape, or molestation. It's not uncommon as sex crimes go. This isn't about tans-anything, it's about a rapist or molester throwing on a dress in order to find a victim isolated in a somewhat private space.

      Well, the issue is that even there are bathroom laws against them, do you still think they would stop? I highly believe it is a big NO. On the other hand, if there is no bathroom law, would their act still be a crime/illegal? I will say YES. I think that should be clear enough...

    88. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job for the TSA. I hear they are already experts in groping genitalia.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    89. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      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.

      Honestly, I couldn't care less if a woman comes into the men's room. I would be concerned for women's sake about men coming into their restroom, but there doesn't seem to be any big resistance to that, so this is pretty much a non-issue.

      Nonetheless, people seem to drastically overestimate the rate of sex-related crimes, and the simple fact is that most people just don't do that. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to view it that way for issues that have nothing to do with either bathrooms or trannies.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      There's also needless, counterproductive hysteria in this department, namely donglegate and gamergate.

    90. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      if there's a reason people overestimate the rates of sexual assault in this country... well there's someone to blame for that too.

      i wonder who.

      the fact is. you draw the line somewhere, the because if you give an inch, it's an excuse to ask for another fucking inch. and bathrooms, yes they're trivial, but you know what's not?

      blowing apart the female category in sports, for title 9 purposes... hey, if you just wanted to go back to men dominating all sports and no women's counterparts... all you had to do was ask?

      the next step is some assholes complaining that it's discrimination that I don't want to date a transexual. because to paraphrase jordan peterson... 'individual sexual discrimination/monogamy is the ultimate discrimination, and that fights coming within 5 years, squaring that with sexual assault will be a difficult one' nothing within their philosophy prevents that from being a valid stance.

    91. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      When you can come up with a simple, quick, easy, and cheap method that works without physical contact to determine if someone really does identify as another gender today with a certainty exceeding 98%, give me a call.

      When you come up with a simple, quick and cheap method of checking a person's biological sex before they enter a public bathroom, give me a call. Do I have to whip my dick out in the hallway to prove I can lawfully use a particular bathroom? Will there be stall monitors to make sure I'm not just peeing when I sit on that toilet?

      This whole thing is so stupid. You don't and can't provide proof of biological sex before using a bathroom. So what is going on here? How is this in any way enforceable? It just looks like gender hysteria and nothing more.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    92. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      if they pass, they more or less pass the friggin test don't they.

    93. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      does using the wrong pronoun count?

      or.. having your employee use the wrong pronoun?

    94. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even make any sense. This law would require a guy to enter the women's bathroom to trim his beard, because he happens to have been born female.

      Yes, this is what proponents seem to not understand. They want to prevent men in the women's room by making people who look, sound and act like men use the women's room. There is obviously a fundamental misunderstanding of what Transgender means and what the effects of what they are advocating would be.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    95. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have no idea where you live, but around here, family restrooms are nearly as rare as unicorns.

    96. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I thought it was fairly easy to understand, once you take one of those actions, no further volitional action is required for injury or death to occur. Once you take the volitional act of entering the opposite gendered bathroom, nothing happens unless you take a further volitional action.

    97. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      We're not. It isn't the trans-gendered who are trying to pass a stupid law.

      Why are idiots trying to turn birth certificates into bathroom licenses?

    98. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      https://litigationguy.wordpres...

      same bill being considered, from one of them law people.

    99. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Yep, such a shame there aren't already laws on the books preventing sexual assault in bathrooms...

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    100. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck aren't you worried about children?

      Because children are largely just fine and not in as much danger as some people imagine.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    101. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Obviously you are not interested in any kind of discussion at all and have just seen your points vanishing into thin air. Hence you run away like a coward. Pathetic.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    102. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Why are we letting less then 1% of the population dictate to the other 99%?

      For the same reason that the disability provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act exist.

    103. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're getting that from, when reading that particular act of legislation.

      Unless we're going for the whole reaching argument, and it's a pretty fucking large reach.

    104. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      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.

      Some may see this as a nitpick, but it is a distinction that needs to be stated. Laws do not protect anyone. If they did there would be no penalties for violating them, because no one ever would.

      Knowledge, forethought, foresight, preparedness, awareness, planning, practice, experience, redundancy. These are the components of protection and safety. Notice that none of these happen at the moment an unsafe situation occurs. If your child's first thought of safety or protection is at the moment they discover they need it they are most likely going to become a victim.

      Thinking that laws will protect your children is one of them most dangerous and irresponsible thoughts you can have as a parent. A statute written on a piece of paper will not save your children from predators. They are predators. If you cannot face this first in your own thoughts you are doomed to raising children that will be easily victimized. Your thoughts and actions will ingrain helplessness in your children from an early age, leaving them defenseless against the real threats in the world. As a father I would recommend you look very closely at what you are unintentionally thinking and transmitting to your children.

      Taking action early and preparing and training your children can, and possibly will, save their lives one day. More importantly, if you address this while they are young not only do they get to benefit from it now, and to practice it daily, but it is much easier to do than retraining an adult. Because concepts of your place in society are generally transmitted in many subtle ways it sinks in deep, below conscious thought, below language. By the teenage years it is pretty well established, and by early adulthood they are rather well fixed. Sadly, the normal path for a young adult to learn the truth about safety and protection is through victimization. Now not only do they have to deal with the victimization itself, but they also have to deal with the deep realization that they were never safe, never could have been safe, and they don't know how to generate safety, security, and protection in their own life for the foreseeable future. That combination of events can seriously fuck someone up. You don't want that on your conscience. Better to prevent it if you can.

      You cannot preserve a child's innocence through ignorance. If you do not take the responsibility to prepare them for what the world will expose them to, who will? If you are the first one to introduce your child to a subject, no matter what that subject is, you get to implant that definition for life. Use it to their advantage.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    105. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      does using the wrong pronoun count?

      It might if that's what the proposed legislation actually said.

      It doesn't though, does it? That's just an absurd bit of fear-mongering.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    106. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by lgw · · Score: 1

      A woman walks into the restroom and sees a man there, waiting. Can she call the cops? Draw her weapon given the reasonable suspicion? Hope it will all be OK?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    107. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      A woman walks into the restroom and sees a man there, waiting. Can she call the cops? Draw her weapon given the reasonable suspicion? Hope it will all be OK?

      Of course, she could call a cops assuming it is a female public bathroom. However, what if the person is a woman who looks like a man and dress like a man? You have to define "sees a man" because appearance may not be what you think. I've seen some of women are like that. The scenario could be treated differently if someone who looks and dresses like a woman is in a male public bathroom (and I also know some who look even prettier than a woman). What do you think?

    108. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I bet there are a lot more pervs than there are people like Buck Angel.

      I don't know about that. I personally know half a dozen transgender people, but I don't know anyone who has snuck into a bathroom to spy on or grope people. Sounds like the former is much more frequent.

    109. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by niaxilin · · Score: 1

      ....a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room...

      Didn't Trump pretty much do this exact same thing, before any laws had changed? And what ever happened to that guy...

    110. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      nah, not fear-mongering. some of the lawyers agree that that could be a potential consequence.

      it's all down to how current and future tribunals rule and what kind of message they want to send.

      but they are empowered to fine you or compel you to apologize if they find you wrong.

      Compel speech.

    111. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      it's only a reach if you don't think that if you leave a loophole everybody will be too pleasant for anyone to exploit it. look at the second link that i put up off the original chain, some lawyer took another look. canadian laws are screwy.

    112. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i been in the ladies room.

      was tipsy and confused as to why this building didn't believe in urinals.

    113. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by greythax · · Score: 1

      Dude, you should probably not get all of your information about women from porky's movies. Women don't like doing any of that in front of any STRANGER regardless of gender. That is why there are stalls instead of open toilets.

      But fine, lets accept your movie stereotype. I cite infinite "guy pretending to be gay" movies as evidence that women have no problem undressing in front of men who aren't sexually attracted to women.
      Now, for homework, go meet and actually talk to a woman.

    114. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't try it in the USA though, not a gambling man...

      Wise decision. Too often, a reasonable explaination just isn't good enough here.

    115. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      And based on the mods, my point is proven.

    116. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, the cops are going to give her the benefit of the doubt, unless the law says they must do otherwise. If he's dressed like a man, and looks like a man, and has the creepy vibe, but says "I identify as a woman today", is he safe? All depends on the law.

      No one cares about the flip side. Really. You'll be lucky if the cops don't arrest you if you report it. (Person A is standing nude in their house, Person B sees them though the window. Who's at fault - exhibitionist or peeping tom? Answer: the male goes to prison.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    117. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Well, the cops are going to give her the benefit of the doubt, unless the law says they must do otherwise. If he's dressed like a man, and looks like a man, and has the creepy vibe, but says "I identify as a woman today", is he safe? All depends on the law.

      No one cares about the flip side. Really. You'll be lucky if the cops don't arrest you if you report it. (Person A is standing nude in their house, Person B sees them though the window. Who's at fault - exhibitionist or peeping tom? Answer: the male goes to prison.)

      The argument of someone who is a man and dressed like a man but identified himself as a woman wouldn't make sense to anyone. It is obvious that you don't know how a tran develop to be a tran. Someone who is a tran will never go into a woman's bathroom unless the person feels that he is a woman and would want to blend into female group. No one becomes a tran all of the sudden. It is a long process.

      Also, the sexual harassment/assault laws are in place. The law should already cover regardless the setting/place. This bathroom bill simply nit-picking which goes against the nature of laws -- should cover most cases and rely on interpretation for more extreme cases. If the punishment of the law isn't enough, then make the punishment a lot worse. It should help getting rid of many cases you are talking about

      On the flip side, why no one cares? Why this bill is supposed to be for only one side? There are 2 gender bathrooms. There are 2 genders of trans. Now you want to say that the law is only for one side? Then it is clear that the bathroom bill shouldn't be implemented as law because it can't be applied to both sides (too specific).

    118. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I agree that they shouldn't allow men to compete in women's sports, and nor should mtf trannies. If women want to compete in men's sports, that's fine, but if you have a male frame, regardless of your gender identity, then that gives you an unfair advantage against women.

      I know Blarbara Hudson, aka Mr Garrison, will come in here and shit on the floor because he thinks mtf trannies should be able to compete in women's Olympics, but he should know good and well that even with his genitals removed, he still has a male frame.

    119. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How many times do I have to say it? The worry is not about actual trans people. The worry is about the cover that provides for a man to pretend. To simply say "I identify as a woman today" without being in any way trans.

      Is that point clear?

      Also, the sexual harassment/assault laws are in place.

      After the assault, vs before the assault. If the man clearly doesn't belong in the women's room, problems can be prevented.

      On the flip side, why no one cares?

      For the same reason most people don't care about female-on-male domestic violence? For the same reason most people would agree that a man can't be raped? For the same reason the man is always assumed to be at fault in any accusation of sexual misconduct? For the same reason female teacher, male student relationships often draw the reaction "lucky boy"?

      Human nature, I guess.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    120. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Transgender women are women. They are not men. Many of them are trying desperately to get out of their men's bodies; many are on hormone replacement therapies or have had surgery to remove or add various parts that will allow them to conform better with the gender that they align with.

      They do not have the full lived experience of women that were born in female bodies, but really, no people can claim to have the same lived experience to get them where they are, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

      The problem you're having—and the problem your argument will continue to fail on—is that transgender women are women, and transgender men are men.

      Here's a podcast with a good discussion of the question, "What is a Woman?" http://philosophybites.com/201...
      The guest is a Dr. of Philosophy and runs through things much better than I could.

    121. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      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?

      Jam the works? That's a pretty common situation you've outlined. One I had to deal with many times as a child since my Mom was divorced.

      What happens is the child goes in the restroom that matches their sex, then their parent calls in asking them if they're okay, the child then becomes embarrassed and possibly responds. If the child is too young to go to the bathroom by themselves they go in whatever bathroom their parent uses.

    122. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Why are males trying to use female restrooms and why are females trying to use male restrooms?

      Bathrooms are separated based on sex, not gender, and being transgender doesn't change your sex.

    123. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Aren't those just the single-occupancy/handicap restrooms? I use them whenever I have the chance since there's a lot more room and privacy.

    124. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not sure. Around here, we typically just have the mens and the ladies and each has an oversized stall with rails to satisfy accessibility requirements.

      The few places that have a family bathroom typically make it accessible as well.

    125. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      So absolutes only then? What's your take on a mother taking her young son into the ladies room then? Hanging offence?
      It's not just about ironclad gender rules here AC but about practicality.

      If the left would apply their passion to this idea, instead of using government as a sledgehammer

      You've got it backwards - the right have gone all nanny-state on this to poke into bedrooms and bathrooms instead of keeping out.

    126. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That works OKish until idiots pass bathroom laws and make the whole thing an issue.

    127. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the law in question, a former male who has had reassignment surgery (and so has a distinctly female anatomy) must use the men's. Then there are some people whose gender on their birth certificate was decided by the flip of a coin more or less. They may or may not later choose surgery to remove the anatomic ambiguity and the resultant anatomy may or may not match the birth certificate.

      Not to mention, there are places where there may be a decidedly violent reaction to a transgendered person in the mens.

    128. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is you're desperately trying to make an orange into an apple. But in your reasoning, entering the highway is NOT illegal, it's the driving recklessly part that we care about, so entering the bathroom should likewise be just fine, it's the assault we care about.

    129. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by sjames · · Score: 2

      You mean like trying to legislate a birth certificate into a bathroom license due to a rare corner case?

    130. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      pre-puberty... maybe maybe.

      what i do know is that apparently, the olympics are already trying to figure out what to do with natural women that produce more testosterone than normal testosterone. and i don't know where i heard it, but i seem to recall that MTF trans people are still elevated pretty high over the range of normal females even after hormone therapy... the point being, there's not only legacy issues with MTF transitions, there may also be ongoing issues with testosterone.

    131. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A law like this means that a transgender man is required to use the ladies' room. This means that you can't exclude people from the ladies' room because they're big and muscular and bearded and wear men's clothing. In other words, if I wanted to go into the ladies' room to commit sexual assault, I could claim to be transgender and walk in, and nobody could legally stop me. It looks to me like it makes things more dangerous in the ladies' rooms.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    132. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So try using it sometime.

      I assume we can agree that we want to avoid men entering the ladies' room, while preserving the right of everyone to use a public restroom for it's intended purpose.

      Current situation: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, and he will be asked to leave (assuming he doesn't look too threatening - some women are intimidated by men).

      Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, but when asked to leave he claims to be a transgender man and therefore legally required to use the ladies' room. This isn't legally cause for suspicion.

      Current situation: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room, does what she came in for, no fuss.

      Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room knowing it's illegal but not really enforceable, does what she came in for apprehensively, no fuss.

      Current situation: Person looking like a woman doesn't want to go into men's room, because it's not safe there. Person looking like a woman doesn't.

      Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman feels legally compelled to go into men's room, where it's dangerous. There's a lot of man-on-trans-woman attacks happening, and we don't want to encourage it.

      Current situation with strict enforcement: guards identify people as men or women based on the normal superficial attributes we use, no problem.

      Situation with stupid law in place with strict enforcement: guards have to check genitalia at best; at worst, nobody without a certified copy of their birth certificate gets to take a leak.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    133. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Even if it's done pre-puberty, the male frame still remains intact. Your body frame develops in the womb, and that includes a larger brain to accommodate a larger musculoskeletal system. If such a person died and only their bones were found, an anthropologist would identify them as their birth gender.

    134. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm an attack helicopter. A Super Cobra.

      Don't try and get away with only giving me one turbine, you fascist!

      Restricting my ownership of and open 'chin carry' of a minigun and automatic grenade launcher is also fascism.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    135. Re:Who cares about bathrooms? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Of course it isn't legal for Chester to molest..er. The point was (and is) that Chester now has more opportunity to molest! You get that right?

      Yes, I get it. I'm just saying there are so many other powerful arguments that outrank this by comparison. The number of times that Chester actually takes advantage of this are so minuscule that it'd make more sense to put armed guards in every bathroom.

      If the majority want this law then less people will be uncomfortable after the law is implemented.

      You can't just go by the number of total people on this one. We live in majority rules with minority rights country. Some day you'll find that you or your loved ones happen to be in a minority, and then you'll appreciate this. Yes, it made a whole lot of white people feel good to own slaves. But it sucked so much for the numerically fewer slaves, but logic and a sense of humanity should tell you it should not have been done (if you consider long term economics, fiscal responsibility should tell you it should not have been done). If 1000 people laugh while one person is unjustly murdered, I still want that one person to not be murdered. By similar argument, bathroom bills are affecting a small number of people a *lot*. Transgenders get harassed all the time, and very often actually get physically attacked. The larger number of uptight people are often "uncomfortable", but the total amount of discomfort weighs on the side of the trans-genders.

      How about this though. Government should not make bathroom laws at all. Let people sort out their own social mores just like they used to. So if a dude tries to go into a female bathroom and they beat him out of their enmasse with their handbags (lol) then that's the will of the people.

      Ah, I just realized who I'm talking to. Never mind. But you will understand one day, I've seen it so many times.

    136. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i was under the impression that the majority of the major changes happen during puberty, though if you're sure, then i have no standing to argue the point.

    137. Re: Who cares about bathrooms? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      External changes in terms of where fatty tissue develops, chest and facial hair growth, height, and other gender defining outside figures, yes, absolutely before puberty does make a huge difference. However, the musculoskeletal system remains very much intact.

  3. Go Wherever you want by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

    If you can pass for the opposite sex you will never get called out on going into the wrong bathroom anyways.

    1. Re:Go Wherever you want by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can be hurt or killed in the men's room or thrown in jail if you use the ladies and even be registered as a sex offender in states like Arkansas if caught

    2. Re:Go Wherever you want by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      Let's get real. If you look like a woman and you are in the woman's restroom doing nothing creepy then you won't have a problem. If a woman actually looked like a man, beard an all, and used the women's restroom they are far more likely to get the police called on them, but what is the police going to do, make you pull your pants down? You can easily sign up for a license by checking the female box so they can't find out that way.

    3. Re:Go Wherever you want by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you look like a woman and you are in the woman's restroom doing nothing creepy then you won't have a problem.

      So what you're saying is any potential law won't work so we shouldn't be against yet another stupid pointless law on the books?

    4. Re:Go Wherever you want by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      Have you not heard all the stories of less-effeminate women being denied entrance to the restrooms because they have short hair and wear flannel? It wasn't a problem, but I'll be damned if people didn't make it a problem.

  4. One occupant restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Be done with it and just make one occupant unisex restroom. Everyone wins. Unless it's all about having a whole bunch of folks in the restroom.

    1. Re:One occupant restroom by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that would not happen in, say, a waiting queue or a crowd of people or in an elevator? Oh, wait, it usually does not. News for you: Most people are not animals. I guess you do not qualify, though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:One occupant restroom by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Had my first experience with the consequences of this culture war over the weekend; a fast food place with two unisex restrooms. After a brief befuddlement I picked one, walked in and instantly felt sorry for all females. It's basically a typical piss-on-the-floor men's restroom with a toilet in a stall for the women.

      Now, I don't imagine that women's restrooms in a fast food place were ever that great, but I'm willing to bet they were generally better than what men dealt with, if only because their "aim" is inherently better and because women would certainly complain if they found it that bad. Now it's all been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

      As I said, my first instinct was concern for the plight of women. Then I remembered that the only large demographic in US politics that provides the fucking democrats and their grievance mongering culture war crap with a more reliable plurality than women are blacks — it's their own damn fault.

      So, enjoy girls. Hope you're happy.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:One occupant restroom by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's been about 40 years now, but I read an article about a rock concert held in a baseball stadium. Being a place expecting far more men than women, there was more capacity for men's restrooms than women's, and the women's lines were seriously long. One woman couldn't wait and went to the men's restroom and was raped multiple times.

      By your way of thinking, someone among the several men in that restroom would have protected her. Looks like your way of thinking is wrong.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:One occupant restroom by quenda · · Score: 1

      but I'm willing to bet they were generally better than what men dealt with, if only because their "aim" is inherently better

      No, that is a myth. Study are study shows men's rooms are cleaner and more hygienic.

    5. Re:One occupant restroom by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Two unisex restrooms is an odd thing. Perhaps they were trialing the idea. If they go unisex they can close one down, which means they can free up more floor space for customers to eat in.

    6. Re:One occupant restroom by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That sounds very much like a complete fabrication, fueled by irrational fears of men being animals. The actual thing that happen when a woman goes into a men's bathroom (I have seen it several times in similar circumstances) is: Nothing at all. Maybe some people at the urinal will shift a bit to not expose themselves, but that is it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:One occupant restroom by ThatNakedGuy · · Score: 2

      As someone who has cleaned public restrooms I can assure you that the mens room is cleaner than the womens room. Females are just nasty.
      Sure, men leave pee drops on the floor or seat, but pee is usually sterile. Women leave all manner of fluids, solids, and gooey substances everywhere. And some women do miss the toilet. I presume that's caused by them hovering above the seat because they know how disgusting it is.

    8. Re:One occupant restroom by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Two unisex restrooms is an odd thing.

      There is nothing "odd" about it. It's what emerges when you take an otherwise well designed facility with one room each for male and female and retrofit it for political correctness.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    9. Re:One occupant restroom by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, it's what you get when you half-retrofit it. It gives all the disadvantages of both single and dual rooms.

  5. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. There's no way these megacorps are doing it for any sort of "humanitarian" reason. That's not even in the realm of believable these days. There's an agenda of money or power in some way. Probably involves dividing the people to reduce their power and cause a distraction while these scumbags continue their NWO plans.

    2. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

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

      Do you believe that if those companies had real power to affect change in those countries that they would not? The middle east is an entirely different culture with an entirely different set of values. Stop things where they can be stopped.

    3. 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. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Google in particular helps information flow into those countries, which helps effect change there. That's why those countries put so much effort into monitoring and censoring the internet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by niaxilin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how dare we try and make our country any better until all other countries on Earth have reached our standards, too. Why did we fight for the women's vote while Saudi Arabia doesn't let women drive? We must stop all progress and let the world catch up.

    6. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, if you can't change major things, you're a hypocrite if you try to change minor things?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      So, if you can't change major things, you're a hypocrite if you try to change minor things?

      That's one way of saying it. Another would be "We'll turn a blind eye while making billions in countries that murder gays and women but act here as if not letting men go into the same bathroom as little girls is the worst sin ever committed by anyone."

  6. 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.

    1. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You look weird, you should just stay in your home, and preferably off the internet as well.

      Weirdo.

    2. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Preach it, brutha. One day we'll get everyone to be the same. All we have to do is threaten the deviants and sweet sweet conformity ensues. It's a perfect plan, what could go wrong?

    3. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      You can like what you like, you can accept what you accept, but in the end your lack of maturity will limit how far you get in the real world. So either grow up, or stay home and fume prudishly while you imagine yourself surrounded only by sufficiently good looking people that fit your fucked up definition of "normal".

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re: Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol. You were turned on by his tits weren't you? That's the real problem here. Your little baby dick couldn't help but salute the beautiful man rack and it made you feel insecure. It's okay to be truthful, friend. No one will hate you, and one day you won't hate yourself.

    5. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by quenda · · Score: 1

      And don't even try to tell me a person who has a dick and tits that were added later is not weird.

      Sure it is weird. We even have a psychiatric term "gender identity disorder".
      But your reaction is weird too. Whats your diagnosis? Some sort of phobia? Were you once molested by a cross-dresser?
      Do you have a similar reaction to an amputee? Or a black person?

      I am sick and tired of minority groups acting like they are entitled to special treatment.

      Sure its not that hard to use the loos for your actual gender. On the other hand, its not a big ask either. Its not like they are asking for a special restroom for themselves (not like those over-entitled handicapped people). Seriously, what is your problem?

      My local public swimming pool has signs outside the changeroom that I cannot take my 4yo daughter in with me.
      What do they imagine will happen? People have some very weird sexual hangups.

    6. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      "I used to go to a bar where a black guy 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."

      Damned minorities, ruining your bar by existing. It shouldn't be allowed.

    7. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Wait ... you have a dick and no tits... you just look like, everybody else - and you don't hate it ?

      That's the grossest, weirdest shit I've ever heard !

      Stay the fuck away from me you normie creep.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      He should try getting blown by one - seriously, transgender heterosexual women give the greatest fucking blowjobs in the world. Their as good as gay guys - but you can fuck them even if you're straight !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I used to go to a pub where they had a gay chef. But the redneck shitbird customers didn't like the fact that he was gay so they got rid of him. Then the food went to shit so I stopped going. If people like you were allowed to control everything, the world would be just a grey slab of shit with some turd toppings.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      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.

      The problem is, you can replace the phrase 'a guy with both dick and tits' with all sorts of other things throughout history, and you'd see this exact sentiment expressed. For example, 'negroes.' Or 'women.' Or 'Irish.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:Revulsion is and will remain an issue. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Lastly - I am sick and tired of minority groups acting like they are entitled to special treatment.

      Using a rest room is special treatment? I'd think forcing people into rest rooms they clearly don't belong in is special treatment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. But, but, but ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    The Texas legislature says the bathroom bill is about privacy . Aren't Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google in favor of privacy????

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:But, but, but ... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      The Texas legislature says the bathroom bill is about privacy . Aren't Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google in favor of privacy????

      Actually, yes.
      They don't want anyone but them to know about your secrets.

  8. 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.

    1. Re:Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Really? When I was in school (high school and college) men's communal shower rooms in dormitories and (US-style, not ancient Greek) gymnasia were de rigueur.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by iamacat · · Score: 1

      No forced exposure != no exposure. Nudists should be allowed and encouraged to use private spaces to provide healthy exposure to a variety of human bodies.

    3. Re:Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      that's basically what's in this bill which the tech companies oppose, they want to force you to let a tranny watch you shower, just like they want to control how you use the hardware/software/services you buy from them

    4. Re:Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Never been to an art museum, have you?

      While we're on the subject, most swimwear doesn't leave much to the imagination.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Individual stalls/showers/changing areas by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      and you're opposed because the ladyboys should be forced to watch you scrub your junk?

  9. Think of the bakers by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Your child could grow up to be a Republican baker and be triggered by a non-heterosexual couple buying a cake.
    It's all about protecting such snowflakes.

    1. Re:Think of the bakers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I find cake to be highly sexual. I'm thinking of a flourless chocolate cake with dark chocolate syrup drizzled over it right now and I'm extremely aroused.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Think of the bakers by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well. I mean. Who wouldn't be.

      Cake threeway ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  10. 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 lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms. This is more common than men who get sex-change surgery.

      There's no way to allow "trans women, but not male perverts dressed as women" into bathrooms. If you want to keep the sex offenders out, you keep all the men dressed as women out.

      No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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)
    5. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by mi · · Score: 1, Informative

      arrest people under any of the hundreds of other laws that such behavior would violate (assault, indecent exposure

      Neither of these two can be prosecuted pre-emptively.

      loitering in a restroom with intent to commit lewd acts

      It is not "loitering", if the offender follows the victim there. And that "intent" can not be proven until after the assault — there is no reliable mind-reading. With the law on the books, police can book the pervert. Without it, he can not be touched until an assault takes place.

      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

      Yeah-yeah. And a man can go to a man's problem.

      And trust me when I say

      Nope, not trusting...

      there were plenty of badly designed toilets before 1992

      Maybe. But they were compensating for design flaws with the larger amount of water. But now that option is inexplicably removed — as if we're not in a free country...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. 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?

    7. 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)
    8. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Therapy. They need serious psychological help. This is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue.

      Have you ever stopped for a moment to consider why the suicide rate on post-op transsexuals is so high?

      Maybe it is because they have serious psychological issues that can't be fixed by cross dressing or surgery.

      Think. Just once don't knee jerk.

    9. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      I live in a state where transpeople have been able to use the bathroom of the gender the identify with for YEARS. (Over a decade in fact.) There have been zero incidents of Ãoesome molester throwing on a dressÃoe that you describe.

      In fact I know of zero cases nationwide whereà a non trans person has done such. I even know someone who checked lexis/nexis for such cases and there were zero incidents of a Ãoemolester throwing on a dressÃoe.

      Do you know why?

      Rapists/molesters tend to be the sort of men who are misogynists/homophobes/transphobes and would NEVER put on a dress because they're âoenot fagsâoe as they would put it.

      These laws aren't about protecting women, they exist because Southern Republicans need another Ãoesocial scapegoatÃoe and transpeople are an easy target.

    10. 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

    11. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      I live in a state where transpeople have been able to use the bathroom of the gender the identify with for YEARS. (Over a decade in fact.) There have been zero incidents of Ãoesome molester/rapist/perverts throwing on a dressÃoe that you describe.

      In fact I know of zero cases nationwide whereà a non trans person has done such. I even know someone who checked lexis/nexis and there were zero incidents of a Ãoemolester throwing on a dressÃoe.

      Do you know why?

      Rapists/molesters tend to be the sort of men who are misogynists/homophobes/transphobes and would NEVER put on a dress because they're Ãoenot fagsÃoe as they would put it.

      These laws aren't about protecting women, they exist because Southern Republicans need another Ãoesocial scapegoatÃoe and transpeople are an easy target.

    12. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2

      This is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue.

      A bill that dictates who can use the bathroom is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue?

      What color is the sky in your world?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    13. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Have you ever stopped for a moment to consider why the suicide rate on post-op transsexuals is so high?

      Have you ever stopped for a moment do consider why the suicide rate among gun owners is so high?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It is not "loitering", if the offender follows the victim there. And that "intent" can not be proven until after the assault — there is no reliable mind-reading.

      Nope. Intent can be proven just as easily by a foiled attempt at assault.

      With the law on the books, police can book the pervert. Without it, he can not be touched until an assault takes place.

      If the pervert actually did anything, or even attempted to do so, or even started to do so, the police can book him or her anyway. And if the pervert didn't, then no harm occurred. The only situation where the outcome would be different with a law like the one proposed would be in the ridiculously unlikely hypothetical situation in which all of the following are true:

      • The parent is not with the child
      • Someone else just happens to be in the right place to see someone following that child suspiciously
      • That someone else is so late for dinner that he or she can't be bothered to wait in the non-stall part of the restroom until the person said or started to do something inappropriate before busting the would-be attacker.
      • The person is not freaked out at all by getting arrested, tried, and found not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence, and proceeds to then go after some other child.

      The overwhelming majority of the time, a presumption of guilt is an appalling miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, that's what the law you're advocating effectively does—creates a presumpton of guilt. That simply can't pass constitutional muster, period, no matter the reason.

      --

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

    15. 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.
    16. 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
    17. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how do you know there's been zero problems? burden of proof is only other people's problem uh.

    18. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Are you really that delusional?

      There is (in most civilized countries, I don't know about red states to be honest) already a law against raping. It is illegal. And there are obviously people who don't give a fuck about that law and actually rape women.

      You think someone willing to break that law, which is, and I can hope we can agree on that, a much worse transgression than dressing up as a woman and using the woman's bathroom, would give half a fuck about such a law?

      There isn't really any way you could spin this that makes it sound like you really give a shit about women being raped.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. 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.
    20. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Demena · · Score: 1

      Did you not read before you replied or do you not know what lexis/nexis is? Either expresses only ignorance.

    21. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Because if there was an epidemic of rapists/molesters putting on dresses it would be all over the news... And lexis/nexis the legal database.

      Do you even know what lexis/nexis is?

    22. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      You think someone willing to break that law, which is, and I can hope we can agree on that, a much worse transgression than dressing up as a woman and using the woman's bathroom, would give half a fuck about such a law?

      Someone willing to break the law AND do it in a place he's highly likely to be caught is going to be pretty much undeterred by anything short of a taser/gun/mace/jiu-jitsu.

      These bathroom laws are on the same level of idiocy as making airports "terrorist free zones", or whatever moronic security theater they're employing lately (I haven't flown in years).

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    23. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      The primary purpose of the law is to make it possible for men to be evicted from women's restrooms.

      Evicted by who? Bruno the bathroom bouncer?

      Here's another brilliant idea: Perhaps we could make it easier for the police to catch fleeing criminals by instituting some sort of law which places restrictions on the speed which you're allowed to drive a motor vehicle? Oh right, we already have those, and funny thing - criminals intent on breaking laws tend to ignore that one, too.

      Bathroom laws won't make anyone safer. They will, however, discriminate against transgender people, and very likely make a few fathers into sex offenders for taking their daughter to the bathroom.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    24. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If someone is planning on rape, this law isn't going to stop them. Restrooms are not high security areas. There are no guards on the doors. It's usually the only room that you can be confident does not have CCTV in. Anyone can simply walk in.

    25. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If the pervert actually did anything, or even attempted to do so, or even started to do so, the police can book him or her anyway. And if the pervert didn't, then no harm occurred

      I think the scenario is as follows: creepy dude follows woman into the ladies' room. If he sees there are other women, he does something innocent and walks back out so he can try again at a later time. Only if he notices that the woman is alone and vulnerable, and he's got a good opportunity, he assaults her. There's no police to protect her.

      For this reason people have decided to introduce different bathrooms for men and women, so that you can stop the guys from entering in the first place.

      If you're going back to letting dudes go into the ladies' room, you'll get the problems back.

    26. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Every once in a while females get raped and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics â" by "regular" perverts.

      If this is about Texas, can't you just, you know, shoot them when they try anything funny?

    27. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      So instead you're going to force this dude into the ladies room ?
      http://i216.photobucket.com/al...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Why would a rapist have to wear a dress to enter the women's room ? Can't he "identify as a woman" while wearing jeans and a shirt ?

    29. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are
      1) Accepted by their family and community
      2) Allowed to transition
      3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.

      In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
      Furthermore studies consistently reveal that their trans-status has nothing to do with the suicides, does not make them depressed and does not lead to any psychological problems whatsoever.
      Societal RESPONSE (especially from family) to that status can, however, cause severe depression and this is what drives that high suicide rate.

      The science is pretty abundant that they are correct in their identification, that there are more than two sexes and FAR more than two genders and that your gender and sex may not be the same. The science is also pretty abundant that trying to convince them they are wrong (what YOU want therapists to do) will kill a lot more of them, a lot faster.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    30. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take a look around you.

    31. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Free countries don't regulate the voiding of people's bowels and bladders beyond the bare basics required to prevent the spread of diseases like cholera.

      Free countries don't regulate women's reproductive organs either.

      I'm starting to cheer on the women calling of a sexstrike against republicans. No fucking any republicans until they end all attempts at making abortion harder, all attempts at making birth control more expensive, all attempts at weakening consent laws and all attempts at regulating where people piss.

      It makes eminent sense too - those people who think they own other people's female reproductive organs may finally see the error of their thinking when they are deprived of access to any. Meantime, there are plenty of more evolved heterosexual and bi men for heterosexual women who are wanting the D.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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

      Implying that rape and sexual assault being illegal is not enough you also have to mandate who uses what toilet?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    33. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

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

      Even if that were true (it isn't), this law will make the imaginary problem worse. Instead of having to put on a dress and shave off their beard, now they can just walk in and say "I was born a woman".

      If the goal really is to stop crimes in bathrooms, surely the most effective method would be to install panic alarms in there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      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.

      Not without checking everyone's genitals.
      See, currently, if someone looks like a dude, they're clearly out of place in the women's bathroom, and while cops can't arrest someone merely for being in the bathroom, they can watch them. But this law will require transgender men who looks like dudes to use the women's bathroom. There will be an unending stream of big, burly, mustached and bearded dudes walking into the women's bathroom, because they're required by law to be there.
      And of course, there are transgender women who may decide to skirt (heh) the law and go to the women's bathroom for their own safety, because they look like women and might get assaulted in the men's room. And they're breaking the law, but how do the cops know whom to arrest?

      So, in the name of preventing perversion, this requires the cops to fingerblast every man, woman, and child walking into the bathroom. Just in case.

    35. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by sh00z · · Score: 1

      No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.

      Just what do you think "post-op transsexuals" means, exactly? Post-op, a large fraction of transgender men have a penis. Legislating that these folks use the restroom of the (female) gender listed on their birth certificate FORCES the exact "penis in the vagina room" scenario you're dreading.

    36. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then people would see him as male, not as someone trying to "pass" as trans, which is what these stupid laws are supposedly about. according to mi and lgw, they claim we need these laws because some men might dress up as women to try to get access to women's bathrooms.

      Of course these laws are REALLY about enabling busybodies to harass the "visibly trans"

    37. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are 1) Accepted by their family and community 2) Allowed to transition 3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.

      In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.

      Bold claims, all of them. Citation needed.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    38. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.

      I'm not sure that's true. From the bill "(1) "Biological sex" means the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate."

      A post-op transgender person's physical condition will not match their birth certificate. So under this law it seems a transgender person, who looks, sounds and acts like a man, should be using the women's bathroom. I'm not sure that's the outcome they are looking for.

      Some people have a misconception of what a transgender person is. It's not a transvestite, or bubba from the local bar deciding he is a woman; mustache, beer gut and all. Transgender people most often look and act like the gender they identify as. That's kind of the whole point. Requiring them to use the bathroom that matches their birth certificate will result in men in the women's room, which is what this whole thing is ostensibly desinged to prevent.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    39. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      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

      Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    40. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by mi · · Score: 1

      Did you know that the Constitution prohibits pre-emptive prosecution?

      Whether it is in the Constitution or wherever, you are right — we do not prosecute before they are committed. Which is why, absent a law like that being discussed, a decidedly creepy behavior remains legal.

      If a State's legislature decides to criminalize a particular creepy behavior in public — that's up to them. The justification — that it can lead to an actual assault — is perfectly reasonable.

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

      No, it is not. Nor is it "whale" or "strawberry".

      If you are looking for inconsistencies, start with yourself. You are opposing a law, that would help men and women do their stuff in public bathrooms without the opposite sex present. Doing it separately is an overwhelming preference for the vast majority of people on the planet — but you object to this preference being codified into law. And why? Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us? So much more important, you'd be Ok with the increased incidence of assault even?..

      Most places already ban excretion on the streets — are such laws also unjust, oppressive, and "nanny-stating"?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    41. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      in other words "they suicide because of no bathroom choice" sounds ridiculous.

      It sounds ridiculous, but when the lack of bathroom choice is part of a pattern of abuse that they have to endure on a constant basis, it becomes less so. It's not the whole story, but it's part of the story. Letting people go to the bathroom in the place where they're comfortable is a luxury we afford everyone else. Hell, if you're physically impaired, we even force people to spend money to accommodate you. This is an accommodation which costs nothing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Have you ever stopped for a moment to consider why the suicide rate on post-op transsexuals is so high?

      Have you? Maybe it's because they are already in a vulnerable position, being so different from those around them and what is considered "normal", and then have to contend with bullying and social isolation as well half-wits who say they are sick and need therapy.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    43. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1
      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    44. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If a State's legislature decides to criminalize a particular creepy behavior in public

      So, you're OK with 4chan being banned?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    45. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...

      You said:

      Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are 1) Accepted by their family and community 2) Allowed to transition 3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.

      In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.

      Sorry, but nowhere in the DSM is there support for your claim "In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups". If you think it's there, quote chapter and verse (Yeah, I've already read most of it, and didn't find the claim you made to be supported).

      PS. I already know you didn't read the manual, which is why you aren't able to quote chapter and verse. If you think it is there, show us.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    46. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Have you ever stopped for a moment to consider why the suicide rate on post-op transsexuals is so high?

      The same reason it's 4x higher for gays than straights? People like you telling them they are sick and need help.

      Think. Just once don't knee jerk.

      None of this was necessary before people started putting unnecessary restrictions in place to preserve the sanctity of marri... er, I mean bathrooms.

    47. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes there is - just not in those words.
      What it says is: transgender is not a psychiatric disorder, but community responses can cause psychiatric disorders in transgender people.

      That right there. That backs up what I said.

      If there was any evidence that suicide rates in accepted transgender people were any higher than the national averages for their age groups - that line could not, by law, have been in there.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    48. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by mi · · Score: 1

      Being creepy is not enough. The creepiness must also a) be used as a cover for assault and other actual crimes; b) not be explicitly protected by the Constitution.

      Glad to see, you have no other questions/objections.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    49. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Yes there is - just not in those words.
      What it says is: transgender is not a psychiatric disorder, but community responses can cause psychiatric disorders in transgender people.

      That right there. That backs up what I said.

      No, it does not. Are you are making the rather stupid claim that suicides are caused by psychiatric disorders?

      Just because something isn't a psychiatric disorder that doesn't mean that those particular people have a lower rate of suicide. All official stats show transgender people to be more likely than the norm to commit suicide.

      If there was any evidence that suicide rates in accepted transgender people were any higher than the national averages for their age groups - that line could not, by law, have been in there.

      There is, it can, it is.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    50. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by deck · · Score: 1

      I will be glad for the Progressive womyn to go on a sexstrike. It will lower the reproduction rate of Progressives and possibly lead to their eventual extinction by self selection.

      Part of the problem is that you Progressives would like to make it a felonious crime to not exult LGBT.... persons but oh those horrible conservatives who would just like them to not flaunt their deviation from the norm in everyone's faces.

    51. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Are you are making the rather stupid claim that suicides are caused by psychiatric disorders?

      This 'rather stupid claim' is, with very rare exceptions, considered medical fact. Unless you're making the incredibly stupid claim that depression is not a psychiatric disorder ?

      >All official stats show transgender people to be more likely than the norm to commit suicide.
      The 'official stats' aren't filtered for 'people who are wholly accepted by their communities' -seeing as this is such a tiny number, their impact on the 'official stats' is immeasurably small. But they do exist.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    52. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Erm - sorry for you - but nobody is suggesting a sexstrike against ALL men - only against republicans.

      So if it affects birth rates, it won't be progressive's birthrates that go down.

      I did mention this in the original post- guess you have the typical conservative's comprehension skills and reading ability.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    53. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by mpercy · · Score: 2

      " you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this."

      You mean like gun-control laws?

    54. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by lgw · · Score: 1

      Are you honestly asserting that a man has never raped a woman in the restroom? Seriously? Have you ever read the weekly crime statistics for a big city?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    55. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by operagost · · Score: 1

      (assault, indecent exposure, loitering in a restroom with intent to commit lewd acts, peeping tom laws, etc.).

      Obtaining evidence for those would require the "monitoring bathrooms" that PopeRatzo up there alleged was a motivation of "Republicans".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    56. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So let me see if I get this right.

      The thing you are not realising properly is that you are arguing with an utter plonker. He's still throwing a shitfit over someone calling him racist for criticising Obama years ago---just look at his .sig. However, he's repeatedly gone silent when I try to get him to show me when. I suspect there's something he doesn't want me to see, and bigots tend not to only have one avenue of bigotry...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    57. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

      No, they're asserting that straight men don't bother dressing as women before raping women in restrooms.

    58. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      *sniff*

      No. I wasn't. I even went to a catholic school and still ... nothing.

      Thanks for digging up those horrible memories of rejection, asshole!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A law forcing a transgender female into a men's room is going to result in a lot more assaults. It's dangerous in there. A law forcing transgender men into women's rooms is going to cause a lot of protest when a guy walks into a ladies' room.

      Moreover, how do you enforce it? You want to be able to remove the potential threats preemptively, which means you need some way to determine on sight which rest room each individual person belongs in. You can't demand any sort of search, not even a pants content check. You can't keep people who don't have their papers on them from using the toilet.

      You can't enforce the law until the perp does something bad, so it really doesn't make things any safer.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Isn't this an inversion of the burden of proof? We're talking about limiting people's ability to do what is safe, natural, and non-disruptive. Shouldn't the people who want the ban justify it?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Public controls public bathrooms by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What's one more lie on the road to pussy? It's paved with them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    62. Re: Public controls public bathrooms by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you didn't try to push your imaginary buddy into laws affecting me and teach the bullshit of your fairy tales in schools like it was science, you wouldn't bother me more than the guy with the tinfoil hat who sits in a crop circle waiting for the aliens to return.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. stop being distracted by symbols. by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    I'll tell you what this is:

    This is about an issue that quietly gets handled appropriately by the few people it actually involves, without much fuss or muss, in the individual environments of schools, office buildings, businesses, etc. And nobody cares that much, until one side decides to make it a big political battle, trying to relate it to some big symbolic issue that it in reality has very little to do with. Or when some dumb suburban parent with more volume than common sense thinks their kids or "values" are at risk, no matter how distant or nebulous the chances.

    And ultimately, because most of the time when someone paints something into a big symbolic picture, they're going to get smacked down because it turns out that the reality doesn't match the symbolism. Plus when it comes down to real $, businesses won't stand for stupidity that costs them money.

    Honestly, I am constantly amazed how much of public discourse is consumed by symbolic issues that may evoke some weird opinion, but in reality concern an issue that's pretty much #47 on the list of important things for us to get done. How many transgender people have you even encountered on a daily basis? 0.1%? Is this even that order of magnitude a problem to deserve this level of attention and distration of a government?

    Stop believing and worrying so much about symbols and symbolic issues, and deal with the 25 more important things that actually are killing our productivity and growth every day, you governing morons. Do your job - and govern!

  12. I'm not seeing how this is like the NC one by guises · · Score: 1

    The thing about the North Carolina bill was that the bathroom thing was just distraction - a clever way to get people talking about something trivial, while the real substance of the bill was about allowing for broader discriminatory practices. I'm not seeing that here. I've skimmed a few articles and as near as I can tell this one really does seem to be about bathrooms. Is that true?

    If there's a better article which discusses exactly what this bill covers, could someone direct me to it?

  13. Context around the law (from a Texan) by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a Texan, I've been reading about this bill for almost a year now. Here's some context around it:

    1) Texas still has some of the most molester-friendly groping laws in the nation (anything short of penetration is a class C misdemeanor, you won't even go to jail for it). This bill does nothing to address it.

    2)The driving force behind the bill is revenge 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). That's why the bill only applies to government buildings (and a subset of those, at that!).

    3)The bill's author, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (not the sportscaster) got his start as a bargain-bin Rush Limbaugh. He realizes that the "social conservatives" lost the fight against gays, and he's using this to target a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Context around the law (from a Texan) by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      Someone who is truly transgender is someone whose physical development followed their genes, but whose brain development somehow (for reasons not yet understood) took the opposite path. This is true "gender dysphoria", and occurs in less than 0.01% of the population, or one person in 2000.

      From these, we can realistically subtract some unknown (but probably large) proportion of people who come to terms with their physical reality, who simply function as homosexuals. This is an important group, because transgender surgery is serious stuff, and still fails to produce satisfactory genetalia of the opposite gender. If at all possible, it's better to leave a healthy body alone. Those people with gender dysphoria who absolutely cannot come to terms with their physical bodies, then transition, with the help of hormones and surgery.

      For these few people affected, this should be a private matter between them and their doctors. There will inevitably be an awkward phase, between identifying their problems and completing their transitions, where it's not clear which restroom door they need to walk through. If we simply state that they need to use the door that matches their current, physical genitalia, that is surely the smallest of annoyances in the larger context. If they can "pass" and choose to use the other restroom, no one will know or care. There is no reason for any of this to be any sort of big issue.

      So why _is_ it such a big issue?

      I think the reason is this: We have whole boatloads of activists, who think it's cool and progressive to plaster people's private sexual problems all over the news, the internet, and social media. It's also trendy for people with unusual sexual preferences or predilections to demand some sort of public recognition. Likely there are also a lot of mentally disturbed narcissists who are just using this as a way of seeking attention. What all of these groups refuse to understand is that no one cares and who or what they have sex with, or how they sexually feel at any given moment. That's their business, and no one else wants to hear about it.

      In the words of David Chappelle: "I support anyone’s right to be who they are inside, but to what degree do I have to participate in your self-image?"

      The activists, the "in your face" crowd, are doing their cause a lot more harm than good. The irritation they are generating is going to backfire. That's the reason for laws like the one in TFA, just one aspect of the inevitable backlash.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    2. Re:Context around the law (from a Texan) by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      "We have whole boatloads of activists, who think it's cool and progressive to plaster people's private sexual problems all over...that's the reason for laws like the one in TFA

      Oh, but the creator and sponsors of the bill will tell you that this has nothing at all to do with transgender people. This is really about protecting women in bathrooms, don't you see?

      Transgender people, who would be LED OUT IN CUFFS if they followed your advice to "use the other restroom," are merely collateral damage in the battle against men sexually assaulting women in women's bathrooms (in a subset of government buildings).

      So tell us, do you approve of this bill, and why?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:Context around the law (from a Texan) by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So why _is_ it such a big issue?

      Because bigots are still beating people up for being different.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Context around the law (from a Texan) by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      I actually have no real opinion on the bill. It seems likely that the bill has been proposed more as a publicity stunt than anything else. Which is only possible, because LGBT issues have been blown so totally out of proportion.

      - On the one side: This is an incredibly rare problem, once you filter out the attention seekers who don't actually have gender dysphoria. There is no need for a law that is relevant to only maybe 1 person in 20,000.

      - On the other side, if someone has this unusual medical condition, and has to walk through the "wrong" restroom door, the world will not end. Which toilet they pee in should not be a social or political statement. They need to get over themselves.

      In support of the latter: The gym I go to rents itself out for special events. Sometimes these are men's clubs, sometimes they are women's clubs. When that happens, it is quite normal - at a men's event - for the men to use both the men's and women's locker rooms. For a women's event, I presume it is equally normal for the women to also use both locker rooms. No one is going to get cooties. The damned sign on the door is only important if you are seeking a reason to be offended.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  14. why separate bathrooms? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    In that case, why are there separate bathrooms for men & women? Just have 1 giant bathroom in every facility, w/ a few urinals and a few commodes, let people go in as they wish. Women can use the commodes, men can use either, and I wonder whether women will get to do their makeup in front of the men

    Nobody wants government to monitor bathrooms. Just that Leftists want government to force every public organization to allow transgenders to use bathrooms of their choice. It's one thing if individual organizations choose to do that. But forcing organizations who don't recognize this to do that is what's at issue, but the SJWs have done a fine job equating that to Rosa Parks and other historical watersheds.

    1. Re:why separate bathrooms? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In that case, why are there separate bathrooms for men & women?

      Oh, you are so close to figuring this whole thing out, you know that?

      Plus, a lot of public places don't have separate bathrooms for men & women. And guess what? There's been no spike in sex crimes in those bathrooms.

      Just that Leftists want government to force every public organization to allow transgenders to use bathrooms of their choice.

      There was a time when in certain states (that voted for Trump) there were separate water fountains for black and whites. You can thank "Leftists" for that ending.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:why separate bathrooms? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can also thank "Leftists" for the KKK and perpetual urban black poverty.

      Do please draw us a flowchart which explains your logic here. I want to see all the squiggly lines!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:why separate bathrooms? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I don't think he can manage a flowchart - maybe one of those Rush Limbaugh blackboard rants or possibly an Alex Jones video but a flowchart would be beyond his thinking abilities.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. Incredibly simple answer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I see the people for and against open bathrooms just talking past each other, ignoring very real issues.

    There is a answer so simple it stuns correctnesss.... the answer is this. You have a penis optional room, and a vagina mandatory room.

    Now women who are concerned can feel safe, because they maintain the cherished separation of old.

    Meanwhile, men do not care WHO is in the bathroom, as long as they are quick. Vagina room too full? Come on in. Transgender in flux? No-one cares anymore if you are dressed as a woman in the men's room because hey, penis optional.

    This also finally legitimizes the bathroom for sex which people were doing anyway.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Incredibly simple answer by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Forget that, make all toilets gender neutral. There's no need to have them gender specific.

      And it's not a bathroom unless there's a bathtub in it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Incredibly simple answer by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Why even have gendered bathrooms? You know what's the one thing that'll stop men who are perverts? Other men who are not perverts. Of course the police can stop them too, but they're always a few minutes late.

      Pretty much the only thing you need to do for unisex bathrooms is to extend all of the dividers, which they really should be doing anyways. I don't want to make accidental eye contact with someone in a stall, whatever their gender is.

    3. Re:Incredibly simple answer by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Just go for a single 'we don't care' unisex room.

      - Less floor space needed.
      - Lower cleaning and upkeep costs.
      - Increased traffic improves safety, as any attempted assaults are twice as likely to be interrupted.
      - Any security staff can enter at any time without fear of awkwardness.
      - All these ugly political issues simply go away.

      Everyone wins.

    4. Re:Incredibly simple answer by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that this gets transgender women in real trouble, because men are not all as virtuous as you portray them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. So those companies are pro-deviancy by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The upside is that they recognize that they lose much more by moving out of a very business-friendly state.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  17. Stupid and Ineffective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a transgender woman and I've never had trouble using the ladies' room anywhere in the world, because I'm a woman. I look like a woman, act like a woman, smell like a woman, walk like a woman and talk like one. Pass whatever laws you want, I will use the ladies' room and none of you will ever know.

    But, I'm lucky. Some people are obviously transgender and I fear for those who live in the states of the old Confederacy, because this bigotry puts their lives at terrible risk.

    Whenever I get a job opportunity from a former Confederate state, it goes right into the trash. I hope you all do the same and then maybe they will learn.

  18. I suppose if Texas calls for Pro-AR15 laws in CA? by exabrial · · Score: 1

    I suppose if Texas calls for Pro-AR15 laws in CA, Google, Apple et all would be just as happy to support said bills?

  19. Re:How dare Texas try to protect women and childre by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Actually, I speak as someone from North Carolina who saw the Charlotte school district say exactly what I stated, they wanted to let boys use the girls shower rooms and restrooms if they "identified" with the girls. They also have a lot of other crazy ideas and are busy teaching kids there that gender is a "choice", in spite of parents' objections. That is what started HB2 in N.C. in the first place. Perhaps you are the one who need to stop and think and find out what is really going on.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Math... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Oops...typo. Obviously 0.01% is 1 person in 10000

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  22. Change the sign by stinkyjak · · Score: 1

    Instead of man and woman. Change to the sing of a Penis and a Vagina. No penis allowed in the vagina restroom.

  23. open and friendly? by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

    would deeply tarnish Texas' reputation as open and friendly

    Those are definitely not the two things that come to mind when I see 'Texas'.

    1. Re:open and friendly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those are definitely not the two things that come to mind when I see 'Texas'.

      Well, they have open carry... And they're friendly to other people who look and sound just like them! Open, and friendly!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Great! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I guess this means that the government has solved all the other problems it has if it has time to deal with the "problem" of transgender bathrooms.

    That is my take away. Not only is this not really a "problem", but even if you could argue through some arcane way that it was, it certainly isn't a large problem. In fact it is in the grand scheme of things an infinitesimally small problem that only impacts very few people in society, and those impacts are pretty low.

    Priorities seem to be a bit out of wack. I'm not trying to demean the importance of social issues, but many times they seem to get the ire and the coverage, and the time, when there seem to be so many much larger, more important, much more impact to not only more people, but in a much more significant way. But as I said, it is good they are finally dealing with the transgender bathroom issue, as surely it means they have solved all the other larger issued plaguing society.

  25. Not really an issue by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    This is a mainly a matter of political fodder or flann.
    Really, if you are post op then you are female (or a male going the other way) and thus ladies room and pre-op you are really a male and so mens room.
    If a pre-op enters the Ladies room and someone notices because he is exposing himself then there is a problem.
    If there is a real concern it is that some non trans-gender chomo is going to use this to obscure his real intent but the chomo could jsut as easily have done this before.

    1. Re:Not really an issue by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the operation is primarily to change genitals, which really aren't that visible. The visible changes are going to come with hormone therapy. I don't know when the trans women I knew got the surgery, or even if they did. Therefore, post-op vs. pre-op is not a useful way to distinguish men from women.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Not really an issue by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      The degree on which the secondary stuff is done and the quality of the work depends on the patients physical characteristics and how much cash thye have to spend.

      Sure, its not easy, but jails already determine placement by pre or post op. so it has precedence.
      The thing is that the person looking to expose him/herself knows.
      So if the person does something like provocatively exposing themselves they should go to jail.
      Maybe an extra charge should jsut be slapped on to a flasher/chomo who gets caught with the wrong genitals in the wrong place?

      "Compelling quote" - Famous Person

  26. Easy to resolve by GrBear · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the confusion between male/female. Instead of putting a picture of a man or woman on the door, put an illustration of a penis or vagina. Done deal.

    This isn't rocket science people.

  27. Tech Firms don't understand Texas by laughingskeptic · · Score: 2

    Most of these legislators used to beat up geeks in High School. Tech firms lobbying against something is tantamount to support here. Republican attitude will be, "You don't like this, well I'm going to make you eat lots of it!"

  28. 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.
    1. Re:Sophistry by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      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.

      You've got it completely, entirely, 100% backwards. The "Left" is trying to maintain the current status quo in which transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they appear as, and there aren't any required laws. The Right is trying to force big, burly bearded men to go into the women's bathroom.

      Specifically, as you note, right now if someone who looks like a guy goes into the women's room, they will be chased out, police called, etc. But with this law, someone who is transgender and, say, looks like Buck Angel (SFW, but most searches are not) will be forced to use the women's room. So, if this law passes, burly bearded men will be walking into the women's bathroom, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they cannot do anything because the law requires them to be there. And that means that there may be other big, burly bearded men walking in behind them who actually are men, and you're not going to be able to find who's whom, unless you have cops stationed at every bathroom checking genitals. Do you want cops to check your wife or daughter's genitals before they can go to the bathroom? I sure don't, but that's what this law seems to require.

      Basically, even if you agree with the purpose of the law, the law not only doesn't help that purpose, it achieves the exact opposite.

    2. Re:Sophistry by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Wit the laws that the Left is trying to pass, this could not happen.

      What laws? This entire thread is about the laws a bunch of republicans are trying to pass.

      What you fail to realise is that those laws could in fact lead to the situation you describe. Big bushy-bearded bloke walks into the ladies. Police are called. He claims he was born a woman and so going into the ladies rather than the gents is his only legal option.

      Well, now the cops don't have probable cause to do anything. Sticking to the law as it is written doesn't give probably cause. To determine if the bushy-bearded bloke is even breaking the law the police have to get his name and medical records.

      The other alternative of course is that you're in favour of big government police state kind of thing where any transgender person using the restroom you legally require them to use gives the police probable cause to arrest, detain, demand identification from and of course get their medical records.

      So, which is it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  29. 40% Suicide by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Trans people, regardless of having actually had the surgery, or the supportive nature of their environment, have a incredible high rate of attempted suicide.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  30. Conversely by mpercy · · Score: 1

    " By the argument you're making, we should return to separate banks, separate train cars, separate waiting areas, etc.."

    The argument you're making is that we should only ever have unisex bathrooms everywhere. That we should only have one locker room for the high-school football players and the cheerleaders.

  31. When Target stores started allowing men in ladies by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Dressing rooms, they have been experiencing peeping tom/"upskirt" video incidents because the men in question can walk into the ladies dressing area without fear of being stopped or anything--so long as they can avoid actually getting caught in the act.

    It is certainly possible such incidents happened before the policy change, but at least then sales people who noticed a man going into the ladies dressing room are would have been allowed to say something about it and have the man removed.

  32. Isn't it silly? by Jharish · · Score: 1

    I found it ironic and silly that the companies signing a letter saying 'discrimination is wrong' are all companies that have been actively discriminating against old people and women and have made no headway in the ten years they've been called out for it.

  33. Single vs. multiple occupant restrooms by tepples · · Score: 1

    Plus, a lot of public places don't have separate bathrooms for men & women. And guess what? There's been no spike in sex crimes in those bathrooms.

    That's because most unisex restrooms are single-occupant, in turn because they're in establishments not busy enough to warrant more than two occupants' worth of restrooms.

  34. Gender Identity Development by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Let's not be unscientific and bigoted, you're challenged enough as is.

    Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us?

    Being transgender is not a delusion. It is actually a fairly normal part of human biology and gender expression. The article goes into a great deal of detail (with citations) about why the DSM classification is unhelpful, and about the origin and development of gender identity from a neurological perspective. Generally, gender identity is a product of hormonal influences on the brain, but the sex organs necessarily form before that happens, and the brain doesn't always set itself to the right gender when the hormones kick in.

    This should be considered a normal part of human development. In denying fundamental biology, you create a systemic violence against the differently gendered. You deny transgender persons a right to their own identity, and teach them to be ashamed of themselves for being who they are. This results in mass suicide. But you still feel the need to defend yourself against these people.

    What is it about trying to argue with biology and failing that makes the conservatives so eager to try it again? With the same arguments, even? If being transgender is a preference, maybe mi's thing is that they just haven't stumbled upon a skirt they really like. They could be one Prada bag away from a fabulous new lifestyle :)

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  35. Please lie on the couch by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    Windows XP Computers Were Mostly Immune To WannaCry. 54 comments.

    Google Chrome Bug Lets Sites Record Audio and Video Without a Visual Indicator. 36 comments.

    Ask Slashdot: How Do You Choose a News Source? 247 comments.

    Conch Shells Inspire Next Generation Helmets, Body Armor. 44 comments.

    Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google Lobby Against Texas 'Bathroom' Bill. 509 comments.

    Is there something on your mind, Slashdot?

  36. Re:Gender isn't binary by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    The reason we have gender separated bathrooms is far more complicated than prevention of sexual assault.

    Bathrooms are not separated based on gender, they are separated based on sex!

  37. Get the NCAA involved by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

    I'm skeptical that these companies lobbying the government of Texas would cause them to change their mind. But if the NCAA does in Texas what they did in North Carolina, and announces that due to the actions of these government officials in supporting this bill that the seven (American) football bowl games currently scheduled to be held in various Texas stadiums in December 2017 would be moved to other venues, THAT would draw the attention of the citizens of Texas. Football is kind of a big thing in Texas.

  38. Re:The media doesn't cover this aspect of the laws by iamacat · · Score: 1

    So there are around 100K schools in US.. Schools spend about $12K/student/year, retrofit of each locker room should be doable for a simular one time fee. I would rate this as quite doable if public sensibilities have changed and this brings everyone comfort and greater focus on studies rather than students getting into fights after criticizing each others anatomic development.

  39. Re:Why do they need a dress? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    This is about schools and the real fear that a girl with a penis or a boy with a vagina will want to shower with girls without penises and boys without vaginas.

    And that is a problem in this age of single stall showers? Who is having the fear here and why? Seems like the Mrs Lovejoys seem to think of transpeople...even kids, as predators.

  40. There is a massive need for FEMALE specific by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There's no need to have them gender specific.

    This is the part that gender neutral bathroom advocates are totally clueless on. There is a HUGE need for bathrooms that only allow females, because many females DO NOT FEEL SAFE around men. Also MOST parents do not feel like having little girls using the same bathroom as grown men.

    None of that is wrong or bad. All of it is logical because of physical differences between men and women. So let women have a specific room as they always have, which satisfies everyone since the Mens bathroom becomes gender neutral.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:There is a massive need for FEMALE specific by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      That's only a problem if the toilets are in a single large room with stalls.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:There is a massive need for FEMALE specific by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That's only a problem if the toilets are in a single large room with stalls.

      That's like saying "This is only a problem if you don't want to incur the expense of redoing 90% of the public bathrooms in America while reducing overall toilets to 70% of what it is now".

      In other words, come on. In most large buildings (or buildings that are going to have a ton of people) you CANNOT have every bathroom be an individual room for a single person. That is insane and lines will be hundreds deep.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  41. Is it even posible ?? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    we are gravely concerned that any such legislation would deeply tarnish Texas' reputation

    I mena, hell, we're talking about Texas here. If it was some third-world shithole ful of gun-nuts and shit running down the street then it'd have some sort of reputation which could be tarnished. But Texas, FFS? What are you going to do to dirty up it's reputation? House Dubya bush there, or something?

    And in practical terms, the only consequence of this is that all new build (and any significant reconstruction) will only have unisex toilets installed. No urinals, no logos of people wearing pants or triangular skirts on the doors, just a logo of a shit can. Hand basins in the completely public areas, or hand basin in the individual stall. And no gabbling over the lipstick or whatever it is women-identifiers do in there. Because no building management wants to have to deal with the toxic shit that will come from both direction if the continue to have "gender-identified" toilets.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  42. Yet... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Yet, these companies have no problem hiring cheap H1B visa holders over real Americans!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  43. Re:Against my best judgements I must point out by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Liar. You seem to think nobody here has been to Europe.

    Coed bathrooms are only in places with single bathrooms that lock when you use them.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'