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 On the table in Texas is a law similar to one enacted -- and later partially repealed -- in North Carolina.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

Comments

Who cares about bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Who cares about bathrooms?

[Nutria]

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.)

Re:Who cares about bathrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who cares about bathrooms?

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Who cares about bathrooms?

[Solandri]

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.

Re: Who cares about bathrooms?

[Nutria]

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."

Re:Who cares about bathrooms?

[schnell]

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.

Re: Who cares about bathrooms?

[sjames]

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.

Re: Who cares about bathrooms?

[goose-incarnated]

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"

These hypocrites do business in Middle East

[SensitiveMale]

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

Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East

[SensitiveMale]

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.

Re:Go Wherever you want

[Billly Gates]

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

Individual stalls/showers/changing areas

[iamacat]

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.

Re:Corporations are people

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Public controls public bathrooms

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Public controls public bathrooms

[Gizzmonic]

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.

Re:Public controls public bathrooms

[Gizzmonic]

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.

Context around the law (from a Texan)

[Gizzmonic]

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.

Re:Public controls public bathrooms

[PopeRatzo]

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?

Re: Public controls public bathrooms

[dryeo]

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

Re:Public controls public bathrooms

[silentcoder]

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