Porn Giant xHamster Blocks North Carolina Users Who Support Anti-LGBT Law (usatoday.com) 766
An anonymous reader writes: Due to the state's law preventing cities from banning discrimination against the LGBT community, popular porn site xHamster.com is blocking some North Carolinians' access to its material. xHamster tweeted on Monday that is was "blacking out access for North Carolina" because of newly passed House Bill 2, which also dictates which public restrooms transgender men and women can use. North Carolina users will be asked if they support the anti-LGBT law. If they support it, their IP address will be blocked from the site. "We blacked out the access to our website because we want to draw the attention of millions of people to patterns of human rights violations," xHamster Cheif Marketing Officer, Alexander D. Hawkins said. He added the company plans to stand their ground in the "fight for equality." xHamster may be one of the most recent businesses to publicly oppose North Carolina's House Bill 2, but they're not alone. PayPal canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and Bruce Springsteen canceled a scheduled show in North Carolina as well.
two for T (Score:2, Interesting)
Does the NC law affect any part of LGBTQXYZ other than T?
Re:two for T (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. It says that local jurisdictions within NC cannot have broader protections against discrimination (against anyone) than those of the state legislature, which are basically none when it comes to LGBT people. The "trans bathroom issue", which is merely a consequence of that broad legislation, is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
And thus we reach the heart of the matter! Keeping the populous fearful and therefore unreasoning is the true purpose of these sorts of laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no true purpose to these sorts of law. They are random turds from people with diarrhea, dribbling down their pantlegs are random times.
Re:two for T (Score:4, Insightful)
The science is showing us that the relationships between sex, gender, psychological identity, and physical nature are very complicated. That's why there is a push to abandon the 2 bathrooms for 2 genders thing, it's way oversimplified.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever seen what happens when a trans-women walks into the bathroom "equipped for people with dicks" ?
They tend to end up bleeding... or dead.
The single biggest reason not to force them to do that is because it kills them. There's no reason to fear them in the other bathroom but THEY have every reason to fear going into the one you want to force on them.
The fear that drives this is utterly unfounded as well - there has literally never, ever been a single case of a man raping a woman who dressed as woman - it is borderline impossible for it to happen. The kind of men who rape women, would consider it demeaning to look like one. Male-on-female rape is largely an act of sexual dominance driven by a desperate desire to prove a fragile masculinity... putting on a dress would defy the very purpose of the crime. It's never happened and probably will never happen.
And even if you're telling the truth about yourself, that was the reasoning of most people who supported this: to protect people from a non-existent threat by taking one of the most vulnerable and highest-risk-of-assault-and-murder groups and putting them at greater risk.
A person's choice should not be limited between "get arrested" or "get killed".
Re:two for T (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
That's not the law in North Carolina. Very explicitly not the law. If you had a dick when you were born, use the men's toilet, even if you don't any more. If you had a vagina when you were born, use the women's toilet, even if you have a dick now.
Try to pay attention.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... [kinja-img.com] http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co... [zimbio.com]
Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.
No - she's had the complete changeover She has no tallywhacker.
Putting that aside, they could walk into a ladies room and no one would care unless they told them, but they've had enough work that it wouldn't cause a problem because they're not obviously men jammed into a dress. That's not, however, even close to the norm and you know it. If that was the average man who is trying to look like a woman, then I doubt anyone would care. That's not the case. You don't make the law for the ones who manage to get reconstructed into reasonable looking facsimiles of females.
But dear sir, I'm not making the argument, the people who are moritifed and believe that men are suddenly going to go harass women in bathrooms and then claim they identify as women is what they and probably you are so fearful of.
And as for getting beat up in bathrooms, and your horror, just imagine what gays and transgenders go through. I doubt they'd have much sympathy for the stramen of the fearful.
MOck might be killed for going into a men's room, and you brush it off like so what? Welcome to not only being consumed by fear, but pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when you consider that the entire "bathroom mandate" makes zero sense even if you are so terrified.
If a transgender man (born female, identifying as male) uses the men's room, that person will invariably use a stall, and therefore no one will know the person is transgendered. For a transg
Re:two for T (Score:5, Funny)
"If we allow people who *identify* as the opposing gender from what their anatomy implies, to use the restroom of the gender to which they identify as, it opens the door for any number of creepy dudes to follow a little girl into a womans restroom and eye her through the crack in the stall door, and when the police ask him about it, all he has to do is say "Oh, well I sexually identify myself as a woman, so i'm allowed to be in there."
90% of the cases, that is the argument in their minds.
is it a good argument? maybe, maybe not. To some degree, its a straw-man built to support this legislation, but to some other degree, it is a fairly logical fear.
Now, is mandating that, as you stated, that a man who dresses like a woman, acts like a woman, and looks like a woman must use the mens room the right response? Probably not, but clearly there is some sort of middle ground that must be reached. The problem we are having right now is, one side is saying
"having a man in the woman's rest room makes me uncomfortable"
while the other side is saying:
"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"
Figuring out how to make both groups feel ok is probably impossible, but as it turns out, the universe was not set up for everyone to be comfortable, and our country was set up to make the majority (or whoever has more money) feel comfortable.
My own hairbrained scheme for this is to create a panel, composed of 9 child judges under the age of 10, and show them pictures of people who feel they belong in a different restroom than their birth anatomy dictates. These innocent children young enough to be relatively free of bias, based only on the appearance of the individual, will state their perceived gender of the individual in question, The majority opinion of the panel is used and that will be the restroom that individual may use for the next 6 months, at which time they may re-submit their profile for gender assignment. Child-judges are only allowed to serve for 3 months at a time, as to prevent the development of bias. This program could operate as an in-school program, with parents being able to opt their child out of Judge duty if so desired.
Sure, its a retarded idea, but based on my vast experience watching the Fine Brothers: Kids React(not my tm, don't sue me) episodes on Youtube, I believe you would get an honest, innocent, and fair answer each time.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"
No, not exactly. Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety. It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
The women's safety is not at risk, as all the data show. [mic.com]
Basically, you're asking me to put myself in real danger in order to avoid other people being made uncomfortable because of ungrounded fear.
Re: (Score:3)
The link I posted referred to any and all problems with the ordinances, including non-transgender people pretending to be transgender. Did you miss some of the quotes from officials in states with transgender protection laws?
"No problems since passage of 2011 law." - Las Vegas Police Department
"Has not resulted in increased sexual assault". - William Hoshiijo, Executive Director of Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.
"No factual bases for sexual assault fears." - Amy Snierson, executive director of Maine Hu
Re: (Score:3)
The best solution is probably the one already taken by a few cities - mandate only unisex bathrooms. It's expensive, but it solves the problem - and it also means all the bathrooms get stalls. I'm a cisgender mostly-heterosexual male and even I hate the damn urinals... who the hell thought men would like to stand in a row and pee? No wonder nearly a third of men have shy bladders.
Unisex bathrooms solve the problem once and for all - one bathroom for people, with private stalls for doing your private busines
Re:two for T (Score:5, Informative)
That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.
The data from multiple jurisdictions [mic.com] show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.
And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy [skoll.ca] would be forced to use the ladies' room.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
So a woman who is concerned about sharing a bathroom with someone with a penis has a brain taken over by fear? How about, for example, middle school girls? That's an age where they are very mixed up about a lot of things and can be quit frail. Are they supposed to share the locker room shower with a penis because otherwise they are closed minded bigots?
I do not support the NC law, but those arguing against it are ignoring the rights of too many people in their zeal. To put it simply, your rights end where they stomp on my rights. The transgender bathroom situation is definitely entering into some tricky territory.
Re: (Score:3)
This is similar to the argument used against discussing homosexuality with kids. i.e. that it will confuse them. If you simply explain it to them it won't confuse them at all, they will just accept it as the way things are.
Also, how do you think gay boys handle school locker rooms? Surrounded by other naked boys, might even have a crush on one of them... In fact, since about 1 in 20 people is gay there was probably at least one in the locker room with you when you were a kid. It's never been a major problem
Re:two for T (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, you gave him the wrong idea when you kept sucking his dick. I mean, the first couple of times, I get it. Mistakes can be made. But the teabagging incident was definitely leading him on a bit.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ask him nicely to stop? If so, then it wasn't a problem of him being a 'gay guy' but being 'an arsehole'. Arseholes come in many, many alignments and persuasions and permeate our culture. Lets ban THEM from using any bathroom, because the last thing you want to see, in a bathroom, is an arsehole...
Re: (Score:3)
So you were so utterly unaffected by his flirting you didn't even know it was happening till other people told you ?
Look, if he was harassing you - then you had a legitimate reason to complain, if his flirting didn't even register with you then you suffered no harm and have no cause for any response - let alone to justify laws that target the vast majority of other LBTGI people whom you've never even met for something they've never done.
Just how homophobic do you have to be to feel threatened by one gay per
Re: (Score:3)
Because of his lisp? Do you live in the 50s, where these ridiculous stereotypes are not considered laughably outdated and inaccurate? Your bizarre stance on the modern world makes a lot more sense now, as it appears you are stuck in the past. It must be really scary to realise that people will point out the lazy reasoning you frequently use to judge people.
Re:two for T (Score:5, Insightful)
And your experience differs in what respect from some guy continually flirting with a girl in his college class, despite a clear lack of interest on her part? Is unwanted flirting more tolerable because the flirter and flirtee are of different genders? If the behavior crosses the line, harassment laws would apply equally to a same-sex harasser as to a harasser of a different sex.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?
Not at all, and quite frankly I find your position completely irrational. Fact: The majority of complaints regarding transgender restroom use is when masculine females use the woman's room. It is such an easy search I am not going to bother with a LMGTFY link. I can tell you that I have worked at 4 companies in the last 10 years where people with penises were reprimanded for using the woman's rest room after several warnings. Women were uncomfortable in their own rest room. Fact: The majority of actual
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen women in the men's room (for its intended purpose), and men go into the women's room, and I, a man, have gone into the women's room as well. It's a courtesy separation, not a prohibition against "I need to shit or piss somewhere -- now." Every reasonable person understands this. They might not like it, they be incensed, they may flee the scene, but at the end of the day, they understand.
People determined to invade someone's privacy, or sexually harass, assault, or rape someone else will not be deterred by a law prohibiting their presence in a bathroom. It doesn't even begin to hold up to simple scrutiny, even if it were reasonably enforceable, which it is not, and it punishes people who actually need to use, you know, the bathroom. It's the most ridiculous fucking idea I've ever heard, or will hear this year, unless someone starts a campaign to prohibit some other bodily function that can't always be regulated, like hiccuping in public because children might be scared by the noise. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with us?
Re: (Score:2)
And? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I've had girls I'm not interested in and gay guys I'm not interested in flirt with me. Sometimes it can be a bit of fun, sometimes it can be a little annoying, but I've never felt any kind of threat or danger.
Re: (Score:2)
At the worst they're not exactly dangerous
Seems unlikely. At the worst, I'd assume they're just as dangerous as any other dangerous person.
This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you.
Not really sure what that's got to do with the topic, but OK... unwanted flirting from either gender is intrusive if it goes overboard. But if it's not, flirt back and have some fun.
Re: (Score:3)
"I have seen many a gay guy purposely make bigotted people uncomfortable because its fun." So a gay male bullying a straight male is "fun" and to be encouraged? And that attitude is evidence a double-standard in exactly what way?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, imagine how an attractive woman would feel trying to take a college computer class, with like... over half the class trying to flirt with her all the time, even when she's asking a technical question.
It is pretty freakin' harmless for a gay guy to flirt with you, or me, because gay people are a small minority, so the total amount of unwanted flirting is really small. Even if you have a pretty face, like I do, and tend to attract some attention.
Even if I go to a gay bar and have a drink, and sit alone,
Re: (Score:3)
"This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience."
That's not because he's gay, it's because he's an asshole. Now you know how women feel when some dickhead keeps coming on to them even after being told no. Put simply, some people are assholes, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, colour or creed.
Re: (Score:3)
How the hell did this get modded "interesting"? People deal with getting hit on all the time. Gay people, straight people, men, women, most of the world's population get hit on at some point. Take it as a compliment, tell the person you're not interested (if you aren't) and move on. How is your experience any different than any girl you've tried to chat up in class? What is the slightest bit interesting about being hit on my someone?
Re:two for T (Score:4, Informative)
Reaffirms the provision in the new law that gives businesses and local governments the right to establish non-discriminatory policies for their own employees.
That sort of thing is usually considered a bad thing when it comes to rights, since "right to establish your own non-discriminatory policy" generally just means "right to discriminate." Much as "right to teach your own version of science" really just means "right to teach something that isn't science and call it science." But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it. (not about bathrooms though)
Re: (Score:2)
But it does seem as though local jurisdictions will be able to pass greater protections if they feel like it.
For citizens? Or only for employees?
Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of reading it with the spin and bias someone told you to have, check other laws at the State and Federal level. The majority of State laws are written to have authority over lower levels of Government. Federal laws are similarly written to supersede State laws on the same subject matter. If you are supposed to have a power structure from the bottom up, how do you suppose the upper levels have any power when lower levels could usurp their laws?
I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can find literally hundreds of cases where men are caught doing that to women, many of which include the men dressing as women to gain entry.
How were they "caught" if it's not illegal? Oh wait they were caught because it already IS illegal, and so a new law which discriminates very heavily against transwomen is not needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious... have you ever read the Patriot Act?
The preamble states in no uncertain terms that "the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected". Who could possibly argue with a law based on that intention? Sign me up for some of that!
Re: (Score:3)
My point is merely that the officially-stated intent behind a law may not align with the true motivation of some of its backers, or its (perhaps unintentional) consequences.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but it makes it a bit easier to prove bad intentions. If the law gives men access to the women's bathroom, then the fact that a man is in the bathroom is no longer grounds for suspicion. That removes one barrier for ill-intentioned men. The fact that proponents of allowing transgendered men into women's bathrooms and changing rooms can't see the potential problem because "transgendered men aren't interested in women" tells me quite a bit about such proponents. The biggest being that they are lacking in any imagination because non-transgendered men have already been caught lurking in women's bathrooms so anybody who can't imagine that others might have imaginations and can pretend to be things they aren't shows a huge lack of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.
Re: (Score:3)
While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.
Post-ops can get their birth certificates changed to match the new physical gender. (apologies if phrased inappropriately)
Re:two for T (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that Johns Hopkins no longer performs gender reassignment surgeries because they did enough studying to determine that the surgery does not stop the dysphoria or other self-hate thoughts in a large majority of people might be a clue that there is a consensus among a subset of experts on the subject.
Re:two for T (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's more info on that guy, Paul R. McHugh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Seems that his research frequently nicely supports a religious-right agenda.
In more recent news.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the legislation is destined for a very short life. I suspect a number of NC politicians are beginning the slow process of realizing that NC is not the sum total of the universe, and that they don't sit in a vacuum where they get to do anything they want.
And really, if this corporate pressure is enough to see the bill trounced, it may very well save the state from the real embarrassment of having Federal courts throw the law out on a challenge.
Re:In more recent news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
unintended consequences (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
The "right not to associate" is not some sort of absolute principle. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 have already created that precedent. You can't defend refusing to serve black clientele at your business by proclaiming "That's my right to freedom of association". What is happening now is LGBT individuals are being afforded the same rights and protections as other minorities. And what's your problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually your discriminating competitors will go out of business.
This sounds suspiciously like an argument based on the axiom that the free market is infallible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that only works if the number of LGBT and supporters is enough to drastically shift the balance against the business which acts against the group in question. Otherwise, they will go, "Good, all the gays and their supporters have left, and when this blows over, we could probably just do a sale and get a quarter of the non-gay supporters back too."
So, I suspect that a boycott like that in NC is probably not a dire threat. And the xHamster situation is more a statement than anything else. After all
Re: (Score:3)
"Vote with your money" didn't fix segregation. The Supreme Court and the National Guard did. In other words, left to its own devices, it appears that Jim Crow would have kept on going for years, largely because African-Americans were a minority, disadvantaged economically, politically and judicially. Arguing that the free market would have fixed it is like arguing that an army of talking penguins would have fixed it.
Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion. People may privately pretend to be a man, woman, dog, batman or whatever, but forcibly imposing their imaginary identity on other people isn't right.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Gender is a social property, like a rank or title, or membership in a subculture (nerd, goth, whatever). The biological thing you're thinking of is sex.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
The word has been redefined into the desired meaning by those who use it in that manner. It is a synonym for sex (anatomical) that was useful for the new concept that it is being used to express.
That said, there is nothing wrong with that, since word redefinition does happen over time. Let's all just not pretend that the dictionary gets to define reality and we'll all be on a lot firmer ground.
The real argument is whether Gender (as defined as meaning one's image of one's self) is a concept that makes sense from a legal, ethical, and health perspective. And the definitions aren't going to help with that, since everyone has decided to use their own.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like marriage. No one knows what the fuck it means anymore because anything other than everything is "discrimination"!
This society is so screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point completely. You are talking about a thing called sex, not a thing called gender. There are sex-change operations, but not gender-change operations. Sex is that biological thing having to do with what genitals you have and such. Gender is a social thing, different from biological sex, in the same way that, say, ethnicity (social) is different from race (biological).
(Although both race and sex themselves are not as nicely compartmentalized as you'd probably like to think of them, either).
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps to sharpen your point: there are two concepts here, one of which is biological and the other of which is social. It doesn't matter how you label each of these concepts, the important question is which is relevant in any particular situation (e.g. which bathroom to use).
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about sex again. There are practical biological definitions of sex that shouldn't be thrown out. There are arbitrary social constructs that are arbitrarily associated with sex. But those arbitrary social constructs though? Those are what the word "gender" refers to. Not to the same thing as sex.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2, Funny)
What about marking doors "xx" and "xy"?
Re: (Score:3)
You going to invent and then provide every bathroom with an on-the-fly sex chromosome tester?
And even if you do: are you going to tell the woman with AIS that she has to use the men's room?
What about that guy with Kleinfelter's, which room will your magic chromosometer let him into?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even know what a straw man argument is.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't a simple biological fact. There is decades of research on gender dysmorphia. You may not like what that research has to say, but you are not free to just simply invent your own "facts" to win the argument.
What you're writing is qualitatively the same as all those bigots in the Jim Crown era who insisted black men had to be kept away from white women because of the animalistic lust that could occur. This is just another example of a bigot trying to justify their bigotry through oversimplificatio
Re: (Score:2)
What about marking doors "xx" and "xy"?
Well, for one thing, around 1.5-2 of 1000 people have XXY, XYY or XXYY.
But what about someone born as a female and then having surgery and testosterone treatments so they have both a penis and a beard? They should be allowed access to the ladies' room, while someone who's gone the other way and don't have a penis but does have breasts should not be allowed?
Personally, I wish we could get rid of the Victorian segregation and go back to common lavatories that are for all. That used to be the standard before
Re: (Score:2)
That would probably end this debate. I don't see a good way of doing so otherwise. Everyone gets their own stall, although it would be annoying to now have to share a bathroom with women because the lines will be ungodly long at the bar.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
The funny thing is that a business is denying service to some customers as their way of saying that denying service to some customers is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Logic at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
So do we need to have separate areas for xxx, xxxx, xyy, xxy and all the other mosaic chromosomal. Or what about Pinki Pramanik. Which toilet should she use?
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you do for the occasional chimera? I propose mushing them up into a goo and feeding the result through a flow cytometer. Then you can divert the cells to the appropriate restroom.
What you wish for (Score:2)
I confess to not being well versed in North Carolina law, but for we all know this law might prove to be the lesser of two evils.
So wait.... it's legal to discriminate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm conflicted by this (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm conflicted by this action, and other recent actions in the news.
On the one hand, I'm four-square in favor of human rights, and against these sorts of laws. (So don't bother explaining the situation to me.)
On the other hand, I don't like going outside the process to overturn a result you don't like.
So for contrast and comparison, how is this different from people asking Amazon to drop Trump-branded merchandise, because they want to stop him from running for president?
How is this different from Visa and MasterCard blocking payments to Wikileaks [rt.com], which seriously crippled them?
How is this different from credit reporting companies putting "terrorist" on their credit reports for certain people? (As mentioned by John Oliver last Sunday.)
In all cases, it's having a powerful entity hurt someone or some group because they don't like what they stand for, and without oversight or judicial reason.
I was also a little uncomfortable with overturning proposition 8 in California. I could 'kinda justify negating it because it tended to favor *less* control of one set of people by another. It shouldn't be up to one group to dictate what another group can do, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
Is that the answer here as well?
So... I'm just a little conflicted.
Can someone lend me a machete to help me through my mental thicket?
Re: (Score:2)
On top of all that, this transgendered empowerment seems to truly be an hysterical fad, with some people irrationally supporting something they have clearly not thought carefully about, and other people irrationally supporting something different that they haven't thought carefully about either. Right now people are lumping together lifestyle choices (which society has no obligation to enable) and medical conditions (which do merit accommodation within reason).
Re:I'm conflicted by this (Score:5, Insightful)
Now someone feels uncomfortable that a person of the opposite sex is in their presumed unisex bathroom, but suddenly their feelings don't matter and it's the intent of the other person in the bathroom which is important? A little consistency would be nice.
Re:I'm conflicted by this (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that in this case, the people making the decision aren't the ones implementing it. They aren't asking, they're forcing. A business that decides to make people use the bathroom they (the business) believe is appropriate is a qualitatively different situation from the business being told by people with guns and badges which bathroom is appropriate, regardless of what the business, or their customers, might think.
Paypal is hypocritical (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Confirmed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So is the summary merely incorrect about the IP-blocking, or did someone from the site themselves put out incorrect info?
Re:Confirmed? (Score:5, Funny)
Eh, it'd be more interesting if you answered yes and it locked you into a version of the site that only had videos of a married couple having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation (not even a money shot at the end).
Re: (Score:2)
As the law doesn't prohibit sex *not* for procreation nor specifies a specific position, your argument doesn't count. Besides, Wifey is hot.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is the first time I've yet heard the 20th century referred to as some backward bygone era, rather than more-or-less the present.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet the 1920s really were a pretty long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1900s were even longer ago!
Re: (Score:2)
I get it. I'm an old man living in the past, too.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why traffic has gotten so bad lately, we're letting babies drive cars now!
Re: (Score:3)
This crossed my mind, too. Built on scamming porn from the copyright holders, all of a sudden they are a paragon of rights.
Re: (Score:3)
In today's lesson you learn that things are usually neither perfectly good nor pure evil. The world consists of many shades of grey. Sometimes bad people do good things and good people do bad things. Just because someone you don't like says something doesn't automatically make it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to xhamster to verify it, but I expect they have way more worse stuff than real porn.
They certainly do have worse stuff.
Malware-infecting ads, for one thing. Combined with pop-unders.
Re:Choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the ciswomen in the women's room will have no problem with the burly bearded transman coming into their restroom, once he unzips his pants and shows them the vagina he was born with.
And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone starts a comment that way, you know it's the windup for something really homophobic.
You can find it filed directly under, "I've got nothing against black people..."
Re: (Score:3)
Out of control in what respect? Do you have some evidence of a large number of issues with trans people using the washroom of the gender they identify with?
Think about this very fucking hard. You have a pre-op trans woman; she's dressed like a woman, she's going to be acting like a woman, and you want to force her to use a men's washroom. What do you suppose is going to happen?
Re:Oh NO! (Score:5, Funny)
We're all friends here. You don't have to pretend with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Because apparently unisex washrooms makes Baby Jesus cry, and Baby Jesus is an angry, jealous god who will punish those that dare go against His commandments. Thank Baby Jesus there are good Baby Jesus-fearing politicians in North Carolina who know how to preserve that state from the wrath of Baby Jesus.
Re: (Score:3)
(1) Women insisted. The bathrooms have always been "women" and "other", so all this angst over bathrooms was completely unnecessary all along.
(2) Urinals are specific to a particular anatomy.
Re:Delusion of "transgender" (Score:4, Informative)
Except the experts on things like delusions-- you know, the mental health profession-- has determined that gender dysphoria is not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
Its in the freaking *manual* of the scientific and medical community that's responsible for diagnosing and treating mental health.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap. Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.
Such as by attaching a furry tail, whiskers, and retractable claws [mirror.co.uk]?
And that's a red herring. You managed to cut out the point where the mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition, not a delusion, not a belief.
Further, the condition is not a mental disease or disorder. Its not something that can be treated with medication or therapy (though therapy and medication are often used to ma
Re: (Score:3)
It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability. Cosmetic surgery is already done for a plethora of other reasons, many without truly therapeutic value other than a sense of well-being: Cleft palate. Breasts subjectively too small. Breasts subjectively too large. Scar tissue removal. Cosmetic fat removal. Skin tightening. If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignmen
Re:Delusion of "transgender" (Score:4, Informative)
There are simply men and women
The facts in evidence - starting with chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or chimeras who happen to be about half XY and about half XX, then going on to body-doesn't-match-chromosome situations like a baby who looks like a girl on the outside but is genetically XY or babies born with visually-ambiguous genitalia - prove this statement false.
I haven't even gotten to the people whose "mental gender" mis-matches their external body parts, their genes, or both. I don't have to. All I had to do was demonstrate that the core point of your argument - the claim that "there are simply men and women" - is not true. Once that is proven false, the rest of your statements are no longer logically provably true without help. If you expect the reader to believe they are true, you should replace the now-disproven first sentence with statements that are both true and sufficient to prove the rest of your posting.
Since you asked for a definition of the term man (which I take to include boys), I will give you one. I assume you also want a definition of a woman, which, by the definition I am using, is NOT "any human being who is not a man/boy."
By the way, here's a "minimalist" definition of "man" and "woman" - I say minimalist because I don't think anyone would argue that those who meet this definition are men or women:
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy). These include but are not necessarily limited to genetics (XY, XX for women/girls), internal and external sex-dependent characteristics (testicles/penis, ovaries/vagina/etc.), and, where the person has the capacity to meaningfully assert it, a claim that the person is completely male or completely female.
Any person who lacks any of these things may be neither a man (or boy) nor woman (or girl). This includes those with XXY genes, chimeras with both male-gene and female-gene cells, those with visually ambiguous genitalia, and those whose mental self-concept differs from either their genes, their sex-related appearance (penis or vagina), or both.
This doesn't mean that a person who is lacking in one or more of these things MUST be neither, only that this person MAY be neither. The definition presented is intentionally incomplete in that it doesn't attempt to define such people as either a man (or boy), a woman (or girl), or neither/in-between/both. It doesn't attempt to do so in large part because there isn't a universal agreement about what the definition should be (see intersex [wikipedia.org] and third gender [wikipedia.org] as well as the references in these articles for further discussion).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy).
Ah, thank you! Finally we have something.
This definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example — yet they are referred to as men by everyone.
I don't follow your statement "this definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example."
That is false - to the extent that a gay man is XY, has male body parts, and self-identifies as male, the definition applies. I do acknowledge that some people with XY genes and male body parts who are sexually attracted to men think of themselves as female or something else other than a male (e.g. a "third sex"), and that those in this group who "present themselves to the public" as gay men (as opposed to presen