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 On the table in Texas is a law similar to one enacted -- and later partially repealed -- in North Carolina.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

[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.

These hypocrites do business in Middle East

[SensitiveMale]

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

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: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.