PayPal Pulls North Carolina Plan After Transgender Bathroom Law (reuters.com) 1095
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: PayPal Holdings Inc on Tuesday canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and invest $3.6 million in the area after the state passed a controversial law targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens. In a letter on March 29, founders and chief executives of more than a hundred companies, including Apple Inc, Twitter Inc, and Alphabet Inc urged North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the legislation.
PayPal is one of the first companies to protest the controversial measure requiring people to use bathrooms or locker rooms in schools and other public facilities that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity. "The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal's mission and culture," Chief Executive Officer Dan Schulman said in a statement. PayPal's original plan was to open the operations center in Charlotte and employ 400 skilled workers there.
What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they going question every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
Re: What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
Whenever I want to get a little private time with the opposite sex or get "in the voyeristic mood".... It causes me to identify with the opposite gender. In fact I find my gender swinging back and forth depending on my sexual desires. Could happen on an hourly basis.
Re: What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't happen. Nobody does that.
I work on a school campus that happens to have a gender-neutral restroom with about 12 stalls which can be utilized by both men AND women. Amazingly, nobody has been hurt and the sky has not fallen.
Re: What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
To clarify, I'm talking about a post-graduate medical college.
Sex with cadavers was never my thing.
Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Informative)
As a citizen of North Carolina, I am grateful to Paypal for standing up to protect people from discrimination. As bad as the treatment of transgender folks is in this law, the real impact is much broader. This law removes the right of all citizens to access state courts to sue for employment or housing discrimination based on age, race, national origin, or sex. The Republicans are using the bathroom stuff as cover because they think a majority of voters don't identify with transgender people. But the real impact is to legalize all forms of discrimination in North Carolina.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Interesting)
The new law (HB2) states that discrimination is not a cause of action in state courts. This reverses a 30 year precedent. The Republicans want to talk about bathrooms because they think (and they are probably right) that most citizens don't even know what a transgender person is. But citizens do know what jobs are.... so when companies like Paypal start reducing jobs in North Carolina, that message will get through. It will be painful to us to lose those jobs, but it is worth it to have a future where discrimination is not state policy.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Interesting)
Federal law has priority over state law and federal law does protect Race, sex, age, national origin and several other categories. The state can't bar these suits though they may be able force these cases into federal court where the legislature can't control the process. Seems pretty stupid on their part.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal law is severely lacking in GLBT protections though. Sure, we have marriage equality. That's great for people who've found the person they want to marry, and are willing to take the financial penalty every April that goes along with marriage. That SCOTUS ruling didn't amend the Civil Rights Act or Title 9 protections to include LGBT people though. And even ENDA... itself a very watered-down, insufficiently inclusive, and overall inadequate facsimile of those protections... has been stalled in congress for as long as I can recall.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal law has priority over state law and federal law does protect.....
OK, then, now that we have that cleared up.... Would you please explain what a "Sanctuary City" is, And "Legalized Pot" in number of states (That contradicts Federal Law) is?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gender identity disorders are strongly linked to schizophrenia. Diagnosis is almost always automatic.
What? This statement has no basis in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Federal law has same-sex marriage, but a few states have passed and more are proposing 'religious freedom' bills that undermine it by stating that no individual, company or (in some states) government official can be required to recognise a marriage against their religious values, or penalised for refusing to do so. It means that anyone who wants can simply deny your marriage exists with legal immunity.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Slavery was abolished a bit before that. The purpose of the civil rights act was to end segregation.
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion - but the people screaming about 'bathroom bills' would be even more horrified if they lost their precious religious right to defy the law any time the voices in their head tell them to.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Insightful)
If LGBT is a choice or a lifestyle and thus not deserving of any protected status, then nor is religion
Religion is spelled out as protected in the constitution; this is similar to the rights to your beliefs.
IF you want to say LGBT should be protected as Religion is, then I have no problem with that; It sounds perfectly sensible that THAT, as well as ANY peaceful 1st amendment exercise should have similar protections.
However, Religious beliefs do not exclude you from the law and rules of private institutions in regards to your comings and goings, And businesses don't have to make special accomodations for your religion.
For example: If the company provides free lunches which contain pork; Just because your religion says you cannot eat pork, does not mean you can force them to provide you a special pork-free serving.
Your religion doesn't force businesses to allow your required religious attire, and does not force businesses to let you use a special per-religion bathroom, Unless they choose to do so.
Businesses cannot deny you employment based on your religion; However, your religion cannot just start coming up with willy-nilly demands for them to meet.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens if you're in a small town and the grocery store decides to discriminate? Or if all of a particular type of business? Or real-estate people? They could bring back red-lining. The moment it's OK for one business to discriminate, it's OK for all businesses to do it.
As it is, there are many places in this country where people have to drive 100 miles to the closest grocery store.
What happens if the local religiously affiliated hospital decides to discriminate?
If you provide a service to the public, you must accept the public, you cannot discriminate who you serve within reason. (I.e. shirt and shoes required, or nicely dressed in a fancy restaurant). A public facing entity should not be able to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sex or LGBT. If you don't want to serve everyone, don't open a public business.
Re: (Score:3)
LGBT is not new. The only thing that is new is that people are now public about it. I know several transgender people. They basically are the sex they identify with. When they study the brains of transgender people, their brains are wired like their identified sex, not their biological sex. Some of it is likely genetics and some may be environmentally caused (look up the effects of BPA which is a very common plastic additive).
Not all are male to female. I know one person who went the other way. Other than b
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a new phenomenon,
No, it isn't, considering one of the seminal works about it was written over a century ago. And considering that various types of gender-variant identities have existed in various cultures across the planet for centuries.
proving it artificial:
No it doesn't prove that.
it is a behavior, a choice, and a lifestyle,
No, it isn't. Gender identity isn't a choice...did you choose yours? How one "expresses" that identity...well that's somewhat a choice.
Re: Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that most of the South is going to pass these laws, right? And having locations in the South is much cheaper. So you're going to find that most corporations will just move from one state to another. Sorry, but that's corporations for you. Fine taking a stand until they have to lose money and explain it to the stockholders.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a North Carolina resident.
I don't really care one way or the other about the law personally, though on a loose note I'm against it because its fucking stupid, but I'm happy it kept PayPal out of NC, and hopefully it'll keep Amazon and Facebook away too.
You see, heres the thing, I know that these high tech companies suck ass and do everything they can to be absolutely as little use to the locality they are in and keep all the money for themselves and use the absolute smallest staff they can possibly employ using automation (I write said automation for billing systems) so the benefit to the state from a practical prospective doesn't exist.
It is, in fact a negative when you actual look at the big picture instead of some random battle cry that you've decided is important.
PayPal is a shitty company and a couple hundred employees in one town is effectively NOTHING WORTH EVEN FUCKING TALKING ABOUT TO THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SO FUCK PAYPAL :)
So no, no one is going to give a flying fuck that paypal isn't here except the few politicians who's hands they aren't going to grease now.
You started your argument with the assumption we wanted PayPal in the first place. Your assumptions make you look retarded and wrong.
We're not going to miss the companies who 'aren't going to come to North Carolina' because of this. Those companies bring nothing of value. Data centers are WORTHLESS to a local economy. A couple hundred employees at a call center are MEANINGLESS in a state like this were we can't fucking build homes fast enough to keep people from living in hotels.
So when you're going to use these sorts of arguments ... you should make sure the people you using them against don't think of your reasoning as a plus rather than a minus. SOME OF US can actually think for ourselves and no better than to think PayPal coming is Gods gift to the state, you might want to get a clue yourself and find the ladder off your high horse, the fall isn't going to help your lack of common sense.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a gender issue, it's a sex issue. And for about 99% of human beings our genetic makeup falls distinctly into two categories (two sexes), male and female (we are a sexually dimorphic species). The other 1% have ambiguous sex resulting from genetic errors.
Gender, which is a synonym for sex but has recently taken on new meaning, is that which you imagine yourself to be.
If the bathroom you use does not matter (i.e. a unisex bathroom is fine), then what is the problem with using a same sex bathroom? It shouldn't matter. It can't not matter when you're using a unisex bathroom, but then matter when you're using a same sex bathroom. A transgender couldn't argue that they'd feel uncomfortable being in the appropriate same sex bathroom (instead of their chosen gender bathroom). They've made it abundantly clear that a unisex bathroom is fine and that the opposite sex should be perfectly comfortable with their presence in the opposing sexes same sex bathroom (i.e. it would be hypocritical) - so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd mod you up for pointing out the obvious if I had mod points, but pointing out the obvious to the oblivious never works. Scenario a) is an XY who identifies as female using a female bathroom, and feeling more comfortable, but at the expense of all the other female users of the bathroom feeling uncomfortable for a variety of reasons (not commenting on whether or not they are good reasons -- that's like commenting on whether or not laws requiring clothes in public are based on good reasons as part of a sp
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:5, Insightful)
Trans women can't feel comfortable pissing in a men's room because of the high risk of being targeted and attacked there. Don't get it twisted, the only risk to anyone's safety from trans women pissing in any particular location is if you force them to piss with men. Then they will be at risk of being attacked for making some redneck fuck feel uncomfortable in his pants.
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're half right. Some prejudice is irrational, but some is rational. Or at the least it may be rational to great swathes of people, and irrational to a small group.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Or even those words (prejudice and rational/irrational). It may be the custom of a society not to permit a woman to expose her naked breasts in public, it may be against the law for a woman to expose her naked breasts in public as determined by majority vote enforcing the custom, but it is not and will never be rational to have either the custom or the law no matter how many people agree with it. There is, quite literally no harm outside of cultural inventions and taboos and humans expressing unsane behavior in exposing the human breast, male or female to the gaze of other humans. There is no survival or evolutionary advantage to covering it up outside of obvious and irrelevant things like preventing skin cancer if it is sunny and you are fair skinned, staying warm if it is really cold out, avoiding age related droop for a bit longer if you have very large breasts. Many cultures have existed that did not have this cultural taboo, and they did not fail because of it.
Similarly it may be the custom to avoid sharing bathrooms with roughly half of the human race (unless you happen to be related to them in which case it is OK) but it isn't rational. Some customs may be rational enough -- customs that prohibit killing your neighbors if they play loud music late at night have some point to them -- but not this one. First of all, nobody parades around in a public bathroom naked, male or female. Second, there is a strong custom against "looking" at anybody in a public bathroom, male or female, already -- we try to give each other what privacy we can instead of (for men) craning our necks to see how big the penis is of the guy at the next urinal over, and feel uncomfortable if they guy in the next stall invades our space or stares at our junk, no matter how our self-imagined "genders" align.
Third, what is there to see? I literally cannot remember seeing anybody's genitalia in a public bathroom (as a male) in spite of the fact that urinals are basically standup affairs with no real visual barriers. Women use sit-down toilets in regular stalls, and you wouldn't even know a woman was in a men's room unless you watched her going out or coming in. Nobody can see anything "interesting" through a bathroom stall wall, nobody can see through my pants from the backside when I'm standing up at a urinal. You are no more "exposed" than you are walking down the street and visible only from the rear, and are LESS exposed than you are seen from the front any time, and are WAY more exposed to your spouse if you are married as most toilets have no stalls and married people usually share bathrooms without even thinking about it, at least once they are past their honeymoon. Ditto twice over for women: unless you have x-ray vision, you aren't going to see a damned thing "exciting" in a woman's bathroom and if you have x-ray vision, who cares about bathrooms in the first place as there is no privacy no matter what?
Having sex/gender segregated public bathrooms makes ZERO sense, and is (I'm sure) a major additional expense. The only group that it advantages is males, since men's rooms have both urinals and stalls and the latter take up less room and allow for a better match to the frequency of urination vs defecation and thereby allow men in and out with less wait time when the facility is crowded. A double size omnisex public bathrooom with the right balance of urinals and stalls would be cheaper, would functionally reduce female wait time by making the often-idle stalls of a men's room available, and would only slightly increase male wait time. All other sensitivities over the issue are cosmically, incredibly stupid and irrational, even as they are very real and connected to our bizarre cultural rituals and beliefs about sex, court
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how narrowminded and naive you have to be to think legally allowing trans-gendered people into women's washrooms is the equivalent of socially allowing anybody to go into any washroom. Oh wait, yes I do. You think men who are looking to rape and harm women were just taking advantage of the fact that the law before didn't specify that you were required to use bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity? Like, "whew, now we can stop this surge of men who've been wandering into bathrooms unimpeded because everybody knows that they might just be trans-gendered?"
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservative logic:
Gun laws don't work because criminals just ignore laws*.
*Except sexual predators; they'll wait for transgendered bathroom rights to be recognized.
-
BTW, the answer to the question is 0. 0 have been assaulted as a result.
And, clue, it's still a crime, even if person just "claims to be transgendered", because assault is assault.
Which is a far smaller number than the number of transgendered persons who HAVE been assaulted in the bathroom.
No, it's not a public safety issue.
And you're trying to frame it as one just makes you another one of the bigots.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they only have to "feel like the other gender"
That must explain all the times where guys got into the washroom by feeling like the other gender. And why it was such a problem before. And why a law had to be created to fight against this problem where men were entering women's washrooms, then assaulting them because people just were letting men into washrooms under the assumption that "hey, they were transgenered."
I'd love to hear anything from you that makes sense, but so far everything you've posted ma
Re:Not just a bathroom law (Score:4, Informative)
I live in Illinois where people can use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, for years now.
There have been ZERO issues. It's simply not a problem. The folks who want to assault women tend to be misogynists who would NEVER disguise themselves as "transgender" because
1. They consider women to be inferior.
2. They're homophobes and transphobes.as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? According to the newly-passed law, I can deny services to people who's religious beliefs do not agree with mine. It seems like the people of NC think that's okay...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that providing a good or service does not personally endorse the person or event that said good or service is used by/for.
These people need to get over themselves. Just like we want ISPs to be a 'dumb pipe' with no personal bias on data, companies should be providing their services equally, also with no personal bias.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
LGB ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I see how the law is targeting transgender people, but how the law is targeting lesbian, gay or bisexual people?
Re:LGB ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary and article leave out the fact that this law bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate.
Re:LGB ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your description isn't quite correct. What the law does is state the basis for protections of rights in employment and accommodations and make the law consistent across the state.
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS [ncleg.net]
SECTION 3.1. G.S. 143-422.2 reads as rewritten:
" 143-422.2. Legislative declaration.
(a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.
(b) It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the State of the fullest utilization of its capacities for advancement and development, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general.
(c) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law."
There is one other effect. Remember a week or two ago on Slashdot when the hot discussion was the FBI and Apple? The widely endorsed view was that the FBI and the court involved couldn't force Apple to modify its code to bypass the boobytrap it contained because of a Supreme Court precedent that said that code=speech and the general principle that government can't force people to engage in speech against their will. Most of the Slashdot audience was all about free speech then.
With this law it is unlikely that bakers in North Carolina will be forced to engage in speech and creative expression against their will as they have been in some other states by homosexual activists wielding local laws as a club with threats of high fines and other adverse consequences. The funny thing is I seem to recall that lots of people on Slashdot were against free speech in that case and were all in favor of using the law to bash people until they complied against their will in preparing creative materials and speech for use in gay weddings.
I guess freedom depends on how close you are to the 1%. Software engineers among the top 5-3% in income get free speech in the thinking of the Slashdot audience, but blue collar bakers don't. Free speech for me, but not for thee? I don't think that works out well in the long run.
Re: (Score:3)
With this law it is unlikely that bakers in North Carolina will be forced to engage in speech and creative expression against their will as they have been in some other states by homosexual activists wielding local laws as a club with threats of high fines and other adverse consequences. The funny thing is I seem to recall that lots of people on Slashdot were against free speech in that case and were all in favor of using the law to bash people until they complied against their will in preparing creative materials and speech for use in gay weddings.
Refusing to write gay content is one thing, refusing to write content for gays is something else. Refusing to make a gay cake (now, I want to see a gay cake contest, that ought to be hilarious) is one thing, refusing to make a cake for gays is another. Etc.
Re:LGB ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Social studies have the highest rate of unreproducible results of any, being essential bias confirmation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Blackmail to allow perverted activities? (Score:3, Insightful)
People need to remove the LGB from this discussion because there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate. Except that for positioning people conveniently lump those other groups into the lot. Here is your trigger warning, either go away or hold that rage for a minute. This is about people who dress like the opposite sex. The reasons for dressing like the opposite sex are varied, and can be perverse as well as due to any type of identity condition.
So you are a parent, do you mind if the
Re: (Score:3)
That's total horseshit because if somebody is perving in the bathroom, that can happen in whichever bathroom you require that they use. The whole argument is self-mooting.
You use fancy words like "blackmailing" and "social engineering" and "loonies," and you also engage in blatant lies like the idea that "99.9% of the population does not agree." Talk about "fantasy," geeze. And that's after making such a worthless argument; predators can be any gender, and can prey on any gender. If humans share restrooms,
Re:Blackmail to allow perverted activities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the transgender / bathroom issue is real, but its used largely as a smokescreen for the fact that this law is, in fact, a direct attack on the LGBT community as a whole.
The law doesn't just mandate bathroom uses, but also removes the ability for any local government to pass any anti-discrimination legislation that is broader then the state definition (so much for small government). Specifically, laws against employment and housing discrimination of gay people.
In most places in the country, you can be fired for being gay. You can be denied an apartment because you're a lesbian. Only a few states actually include sexual orientation in the protected classes, even though polls repeatedly show most people think they're already protected. They aren't. A few communities, usually urban ones, are (with support of business interests) trying to add local protections.
And every time one of those communities does it in the south, suddenly the proponents of small and local government freak out and passes a state law taking away the local right to legislate the issue within their communities. NC is only the latest, and they did it using the bullshit 'protect the children from perverts' smokescreen argument around the Transgender bathroom issue.
There has been basically zero cases of men dressing up as women to try to get into a bathroom to assault women or girls. Rapists are going to rape and this won't protect anyone. Its a non-issue. Its a complete lie, a complete fabrication because while more and more people have friends and family members who are gay and are more and more finding it impossible to justify discrimination against the LGB community, Transgendered people are still relatively rare and the idea gender dysphoria is hard to relate to, so they're made easy targets.
But the laws that allow discrimination against them are -- every time -- broader then they're made out to be, and actually target the any community that might not be enshrined in the state law. Which is the entire LGBT community.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in. You want to force her to use the men's bathroom, even though she's been on hormones and might be post-op, and think it would be safe for her in the men's room?
You want to force a transgendered man to use the women's bathroom? You think a genetically female person, who is on hormone therapy and has facial hair and dresses in men's clothes, would be welcome in the wome
Re: (Score:3)
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in.
What about the women who want to use a bathroom and feel safe in?
Their rights don't count?
I see a whole lot of people worried about less than 1% of the population and in a really big hurry to stop caring about the 50% of the population affected by this.
By your own admission, your wife would object to the latter -- and threaten violence, in fact. You think that's sane or safe?
If someone walks into a restroom and looks like a man, he/she/it/whatever needs to leave.
You think my wife should just say, "oh gosh, we have new rules, I guess any man who "feels like a woman" can come in here now?
No, not gonna happen.
As for violence, if a m
Re: (Score:3)
> If someone walks into a restroom and looks like a man, he/she/it/whatever needs to leave.
Except this law doesn't do that, at all.
This law REQUIRES that a transgendered man -- genetically female, appearing male -- use a womens restroom.
It REQUIRES that a transgendered woman -- genetically male, appearing female -- use a men's restroom.
Re: (Score:3)
Your arguing AGAINST this new NC law.
Under the law, someone who was born a woman but now looks like a burly, bearded man HAS TO use the bathroom together with your wife.
The law FORBIDS that person from using the men's room, and DEMANDS that person walks in with your wife.
If she says "please leave, this is the woman's bathroom", she is in breach of the law.
Re:Blackmail to allow perverted activities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you ever notice that people who are experiencing panic over transsexuals or gay people love to talk about having stuff forced down their throats?
Seriously, I don't know what people like you do when you go to the bathroom, but transsexuals, gay people and even blacks pretty much just go to do their business, wash their hands, and then leave. They do not want to look at your shriveled dick.
Re: (Score:3)
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of the largest research parks in the world, but its been largely a pearl in an otherwise very salty oyster. Its home to Cisco, Redhat, Microsoft, and NetApp among others.
You are assuming that these companies will follow PayPal in leaving the state but that's not a sure thing.
PayPal wasn't yet moved in, but for those who are already there If the cost of moving outweighs the cost of lost business / reputation then they'll stay right where they are.
I don't trust corporate conscience when it puts 'shareholder value' at risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone complains about corporate interests manipulating government. The second common sense shows up, they lose their minds. This is an example of a company trying to exert pressure on a government entity. Where is the outrage?
It seems people are capable of seeing the difference in businesses fighting for social justice and businesses fighting for corporate profits. The concept of lobbying is not a purely evil one; it can be used for good and for bad. This is a case of corporate pressure being used for good, therefore the lack of outrage from the left.
Corporations are merely organizations of people, and it is a good thing when they have a moral code. If that moral code tramples on civil rights the government should step in, such
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What are you even talking about? So me disagreeing with this person and justifying it is some how rude? Perhaps you're the unpleasant person to talk to, wading into a debate on political philosophy and just start name calling? That doesnt make you very pleasant to talk to.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, that has become the modus of all sides of national debate.
I Like To Shit Next To Women (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shows the limits of freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
People who want to go into the weeds on this issue might not like the natural solution that cuts through all the various bullshit. One restroom.
Actually they'll love it once they get used to it, because it shifts the demand from segregation to simply having more private stalls. I don't care who is in the stall next to me, but I do prefer having a large urinal divider to just dangling it over a shared trough.
Why is it that people with one view seem to claim that people with an opposing view are only "0.001%?" If that was true, this wouldn't even be an issue. And yet it is an issue. Did you possibly comprehend that: A) the transgender population in the US is at least 0.2% (lowest reasonable estimate) and B) a huge number of birth-gendered heterosexuals support the rights of transgendered people to use whichever restroom they're comfortable with.
Why put fake numbers to your fantasy that transgendered people are unicorns, or that people who support their rights and dignity are unicorns?
I'll bet the local equal rights laws that the State law overturned were supported by more than 0.001% of the respective City Councils. Somehow it seems likely they had over 50% support, even. Do those cities add up to only 0.002% of the State?
Re:Shows the limits of freedom (Score:4, Informative)
Why would a transgendered man want to use the women's restroom? That is the complete opposite of what they want, and that is what this new law is mandating, contrary to their wishes.
Oh wait, I see, you just don't know how to use the phrase "transgendered man" correctly. Hint: a transgendered man is someone who was born female and now identifies as a man.
Although to be fair, many women would probably be uncomfortable with such a person in the women's room, but not because they're transgendered; because they're a man. Which is why such a person should be free to use the men's room instead, where he will fit in, which this law prohibits.
paypal politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, this is the same company that excludes its users from commerce in legal but politically incorrect products & services.
https://www.paypal.com/ca/weba... [paypal.com]
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Unisex bathrooms.
And make them with closed stalls. So nobody will know which way the feet are pointing when they take a leak.
Thank You (Score:5, Interesting)
When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.
Ah, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Where aliens will be found, computers will be sentient, brains will be uploaded, and Linux will have a year on the desktop, all believed with the fervent faith of a religious nutter...
but the idea that gender identity is an innate function of the brain, which may not always develop to the identity dictated by chromosomes or genitalia, is just too damn mind blowing for them to handle, despite oodles of scientific evidence.
Anti-Transgender? Try Anti-Father (Score:5, Interesting)
No one is talking about the baby changing station. Think about it. You're a guy. People already look at you funny if you're with your own child and the mother is elsewhere. Now you can't even use the baby changing station, because it's in the women's restroom.
Or maybe you can, after all, people understand right? Baby needs a new diaper. It's obvious. So you take a chance. You go in, and a nice lady inside smiles at you because she finds the image of a young father with a baby adorable. And so you're in there, changing the babies diaper, you come out and...
You're surrounded by cops, (or worse, Asset Protection.) Wait, what?
Onlookers, confused, and trying to fill in the missing data, assume the worst. Because it would be asinine (but correct) to assume it has to do with your chromosomes, they make more reasonable assumptions like, "he stole a baby," and "he's a peeping tom."
Welcome fathers, to the future! You're now officially a creep until proven otherwise.
Hey PayPal, what about Saudi Arabia? (Score:3)
Re:Discrimination against who exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery. Alternately, have you seen the photos that some trans men have posted--bodybuilders, with no way you could guess from appearance that they were born any different? Yeah, by this law, they have to use the ladies' room.
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
Re:Discrimination against who exactly? (Score:4, Funny)
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH.
Ever heard of 'born again'? Hallelujah! Praise the lawd!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes? The Seattle case was done as a stunt by a guy specifically protesting the law.
The Toronto case, as you say, happened even before the law existed... so not having the law offers women no protection whatsoever.
OK, now please tell us: In that time period, how many women were assaulted or harassed by "normal" guys who didn't claim to be trans? Hint: In Canada alone, over 400,000 per year.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
In general terms they rely on the courts to overturn the laws. Then they can go to the bigots that form their base and say "We tried to help Jesus, but those pinko Liberal activist judges interfered!" There'll be a whole lot of whining about activist courts, how none of the Founding Fathers wore dresses, how "family values" are being destroyed, as the bigots donate money to their re-election campaign.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno... let's ask them. 'cause women had little part in producing this cheap-ass, smoke-screen, dog-whistle law (women make up only 22% [ncsl.org] of the NC legislature, sponsors Dan Bishop [thenewcivi...vement.com] and Paul Stam [newsobserver.com] are men, and, of course, the governor is a dick). In fact, this law pre-empts [theatlantic.com] a local Charlotte law [npr.org] that was passed by that city's elected officials... so it looks like all that GOP noise about respectin' the people's will is a load of shite when a state politician sees a tax-free chance to get himself some TV time and name-recognition.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Peeping toms have been around forever. This is no different than attacking gay men by somehow linking them to pedophiles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If the person identifies as male, and looks like a male, but is forced to use a women's restroom, it'll probably create more problems than just letting them use the gender bathroom they identify with.
Exactly, it's not like they're going to put a guard on every toilet checking birth certificates.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
How many women do you think would want some dick next to them in the bathroom regardless of what's in their mind...
How many women considered that a problem before this law was passed? This law was designed to appeal to bigots, not address an actual problem.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, AC... Gender is not defined by your thoughts.
Isn't it? I thought the point of the modern concept of 'gender' was to distinguish what exists at the level of narrative, from 'sex' which exists biologically? Gender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter). Or?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Sex is not defined by chromosomes, it is defined by anatomy. There are women, who were born women, with vaginas and all, grew breasts at puberty, and have always identified and been identified by others as biologically female, who just happen to have XY chromosomes and a genetic insensitivity to the androgens that that Y chromosome produces, so they develop as female anyway.
It's rare, but it happens, and if you pin sex to chromosomes, you end up having to call such people male; and also say that most of the time we have no fucking idea what sex anybody is.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Although both are rare, I'd suggest that gender isn't as binary as some simple-minded people choose to believe it is. There really is such a thing a "in between".
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Yes indeed, thank you. Before gender as something separate from sex even gets involved, sex itself is already more complicated than two jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive boxes.
In fact, the sociological concept of gender as something apart from sex was coined by John Money in 1950 specifically to address the way that intersex people in the middle of that spectrum of biological sex still get categorized into one of those two binary social gender categories.
In other words, it's the "MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN DAMNIT!" people who have always been denying the complexities of biology and trying to force artificially simplified social categories onto people whose biology doesn't fit them.
And now that society is starting to acknowledge more complexity in its artificial, imaginary, socially-constructed categorization scheme, those same people are rebelling against that and trying to retreat to biology, ignorant of the fact that that biology has always been more complicated than they would like, and the social overlay on top of it is only just now catching up to it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it?
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
Yes, I'm aware a very small number of people are born with both, but they are so unbelievably few in number that it just isn't a concern.
And generally they should use the mens room.
Re: (Score:3)
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
No, that is sex. Gender is (metaphorically) do you play with toy cars or do you play with dolls.
"Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (WHO defn)"
The moment we theoretically separate the concept of 'gender' out from sex it becomes a logical possibility for biological sex and cultural gender to become inversely aligned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and beyond that, decades of research have shown gender and sexuality are fluid. Clearly you feel very threatened by someone not conforming to your views of sexuality, but that's really too bad. Just like racists half a century ago, you're just going to have to get with the times or become a member of an increasingly marginalized and impotent group of malcontents.
And really, how does any of this harm you? Are you have secret thoughts that are awakened by someon
Re: (Score:3)
It causes a ruckus because religion has long been used as a cover for all sorts of bigotry and abusive behavior. There were lots of dedicated Christians out there lynching black men for the evil sin of having sex, or even being alleged to have looked like they might have sex with decent god-fearing Anglo-Saxon women.
Your right to your religious beliefs is protected. Your right to use your religious beliefs as a shield to deprive other people of their liberties are not.
In the North Carolina situation, what w
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
"Maybe according to the Newspeak Wordsbook of the SJW, but not according to a real dictionary"
Let's test that theory.
Dictionary.com says that gender is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior" while sex is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions."
Let's try the Oxford English dictionary.
Gender: "The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way."
Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
All emphasis my own.
So, no. You're just wrong about this, and if you're going to pedantically claim that the dictionary supports you, you ought to be arsed to check your dictionary first. The dictionary supports the modern distinction of gender and sex.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The law specifies DNA, but DNA doesn't specify sex. That part where the Bible says male and female he created them... turns out, wrong again Bible.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alice... [ted.com]
DNA absolutely specifies sex for the vast majority (around 99.9% last I looked) of the people out there. XY is male, XX is female. There are a few disorders (note: they are *disorders*) that may cause XX to be male or XY to be female (see that one WNBA player as an example), and there are also issues such as chimerism that can cause sexual ambiguity.
That has little or nothing to do with someone like Bruce Jenner wanting to use the women's room.
Re: (Score:3)
The use of DNA to determine gender was discredited decades ago [wikipedia.org]. Too many false positives, too ambiguous.
Sorry. I know you were hoping that there was a simple and irrefutable way to determine sex, but there isn't. And in any case, sex is irrelevant to bathroom use, only gender matters.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think forcing someone in a dress to go in a men's room is some sort of demonstration of freedom? What happens, do you suppose, when the first North Carolina transgender teenager has the s--t beaten out of them by the sons of the neanderthals this law is meant to court? I'll tell you what happens. A Federal civil rights challenge that will see NC taxpayers pay out huge amounts of money. And then the court challenges that see the NC Attorney General defend a law that everyone, in particularly the lawma
Re: (Score:3)
Real bars don't have attendants.
Re:You moron (Score:5, Informative)
Stop bullshitting. It was done to ensure individual communities couldn't pass laws that prohibit discrimination. In other words, the Jesus-yokels in the state house said "We're looking at YOU, Raleigh, Charlotte, and especially you hippies in Asheville, and we don't like you getting all fag-friendly and whatnot."
The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is, instead of all this double-talk about "different and contradictory laws" in different communities. What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
Re:You moron (Score:5, Insightful)
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding Jeebus up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Family Values" types try to claim that all gay men are pedophiles. Now suddenly all transexuals are actually peeping toms who want to wear dresses.
Re:You moron (Score:4, Insightful)
The same crime he was always convicted of.
Let's imagine for a moment a female sex predator sneaking a peak at young girls in a women's washroom, or a male sex predator doing the same in a men's washroom. Are you saying these individuals cannot be prosecuted because they have the right bits under their clothes?
Re: (Score:3)
Inn Seattle, just after a LGBT friendly law was passed a man walked into a women's changing room at a pool and undressed in front of young girls. He was wearing standard men's clothing and after swimming he returned to the dressing room and repeated the process. At no point were any police called because he said he 'identified' as female and the staff were unable to prove otherwise. He was told he could use a separate room but he refused and they were not legally allowed to force him.
It's not going to ha
Re: (Score:3)
If we as a society weren't irrationally concerned with people seeing other people's bodies outside narrowly defined, culturally relative bounds of acceptability, that would be a complete non-issue.
There are nudist colonies where children of any sex can see adults of every sex all the time and they're not psychologically traumatized by it.
There are and always have been societies around the world where all sorts of people routinely see all sorts of people naked and nobody fucking cares.
Our culture's hangups a
Re: (Score:3)
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all trans because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules?
All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every trans person because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
Re:You moron (Score:4)
So your wife has bought into the bullshit fear-mongering. Lucky you and lucky her.
Re:You moron (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it isn't. We have separate public toilets as a remnant of a policy of excluding women from public life and enforcing class divisions. Female public toilets did not exist until the early 20th century and were still rare well into the 20th century.
Additional fun facts: In West Virginia, women were barred from jury service until 1956 because courthouses didn't have female toilets. In the US Capitol building, there were no toilets for female senators until 1992.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Re:You moron (Score:4, Interesting)
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
When I go to the ladies' room, I'm not trampling anyone's rights. What the hell are you talking about?
I've had precisely one comment from a woman in a public washroom. And her comment was: "I really like your necklace."
And secondly: You and your ilk do not have the right to force me to risk my safety. You do not have the right to make it legal to deny LGBT people housing or employment.
Re:What are the facts? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gays and Lesbians - How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong; the law removes the right of local governments to pass any anti-discrimination laws that are broader then the state.
The 'bathroom issue' is a smokescreen and a scare tactic used to hide the usual 'its okay to discriminate against gays because religious freedom' laws that are all the rage in the south these days.
As there are NO state laws protecting -- for instance -- employment or housing with regards to sexual orientation on the state level, and there were local laws, this explicitly removes those local protections.