Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google Lobby Against Texas 'Bathroom' Bill (arstechnica.com) 587
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Executives from some of the globe's leading technology firms are demanding that Texas not adopt "discriminatory" bathroom legislation. On the table in Texas is a law similar to one enacted -- and later partially repealed -- in North Carolina. The tech companies have aligned themselves with critics of the bill who believe the legislation is unfair to the transgender community. "As large employers in the state, we are gravely concerned that any such legislation would deeply tarnish Texas' reputation as open and friendly to businesses and families," the companies wrote Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. "Our ability to attract, recruit and retain top talent, encourage new business relocations, expansions and investment, and maintain our economic competitiveness would all be negatively affected." Pending Texas Senate legislation would prohibit transgender people in Texas from using restrooms matching their gender identities. The House on Sunday passed its own bill that would apply the bathroom limitations solely at schools. The tech companies, however, aren't threatening to pull out of Texas, like some did over the same issue in North Carolina. The letter sent to Gov. Abbott was signed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon chief Jeff Wilke, IBM head Ginni Rometty, Microsoft President Brad Smith, and Google's Sundar Pichai. There were 14 companies -- including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Silicon Labs, Celanese Corp., GSD&M, Salesforce, and Gearbox Software -- signing on to the letter. "Discrimination is wrong and it has no place in Texas or anywhere in our country," the companies wrote.
Corporations are people (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, yes, let's have for-profit corporations serve special interests to undermine the actual public's will.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The corporations don't care either way, I'm sure. They are simply afraid of boycotts — and worse [pjmedia.com]. Because, when you are fighting for the rights of the delusional to persist in their delusions, all means are just and noble...
Few companies' management have the testicles (sexist metaphore!) of the Chick-Fil-A's one — most are like Mozilla's...
Public controls public bathrooms (Score:2, Insightful)
Every once in a while females get [pix11.com] raped [pennlive.com] and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics — by "regular" perverts.
For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.
Not "the
Re:Public controls public bathrooms (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid they should arrest people under any of the hundreds of other laws that such behavior would violate (assault, indecent exposure, loitering in a restroom with intent to commit lewd acts, peeping tom laws, etc.).
1.6 gallons is actually plenty of water for flushing a toilet if the toilet is designed correctly and the drain pipes actually slope downwards at a sufficient angle to carry sewage away. Clogging is almost invariably caused by toilets that are designed badly. And trust me when I say that there were plenty of badly designed toilets before 1992 as well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither of these two can be prosecuted pre-emptively.
It is not "loitering", if the offender follows the victim there. And that "intent" can not be proven until after the assault — there is no reliable mind-reading. With the law on the books, police can book the pervert. Without it, he can not be touched until an assault takes place.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Intent can be proven just as easily by a foiled attempt at assault.
If the pervert actually did anything, or even attempted to do so, or even started to do so, the police can book him or her anyway. And if the pervert d
Re:Public controls public bathrooms (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know that the Constitution prohibits pre-emptive prosecution? Is that really what you want to argue for here? "Pre-emptive prosecution?"
Isn't "pre-emptive prosecution" the ultimate nanny-state?
Re: (Score:3)
I live in a state where transpeople have been able to use the bathroom of the gender the identify with for YEARS. (Over a decade in fact.) There have been zero incidents of Ãoesome molester/rapist/perverts throwing on a dressÃoe that you describe.
In fact I know of zero cases nationwide whereà a non trans person has done such. I even know someone who checked lexis/nexis and there were zero incidents of a Ãoemolester throwing on a dressÃoe.
Do you know why?
Rapists/molesters tend to be
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms. This is more common than men who get sex-change surgery.
There's no way to allow "trans women, but not male perverts dressed as women" into bathrooms. If you want to keep the sex offenders out, you keep all the men dressed as women out.
No one is complaining about post-op transsexuals here. It's not about " transgender". It's about a penis in the vagina room.
Re:Public controls public bathrooms (Score:5, Insightful)
Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms.
Not only do you need to prove that this is true (spoiler alert: it's not), you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this.
The real context around this law is
1)"Social conservatives" lost the battle against the gays, so they are starting a new battle against a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.
2)"Small-government conservatives" resent the federal governments above, and local school districts below, having sane policies about transgender student bathroom use. Notice that the law ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (and even that has some expections). If there was an epidemic of cross-dressing rapists, wouldn't it make more sense to have this law apply to private businesses as well?
3)The author of the bill, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, is a minor-league Rush Limbaugh that somehow got elected to high office. He's a grandstanding idiot that doesn't care how many transgender teens commit suicide, so long as he can rile up his base with this fake crisis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
" you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this."
You mean like gun-control laws?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel the same way about religious people, but hey, you can't always get what you want.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're asserting that straight men don't bother dressing as women before raping women in restrooms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much as I detest "whataboutism", what about lesbian rape? Gay rape? Or is it only penis in vagina rape that gets the Puritans riled up?
Re: (Score:3)
I live in a state where transpeople have been able to use the bathroom of the gender the identify with for YEARS. (Over a decade in fact.) There have been zero incidents of Ãoesome molester throwing on a dressÃoe that you describe.
In fact I know of zero cases nationwide whereà a non trans person has done such. I even know someone who checked lexis/nexis for such cases and there were zero incidents of a Ãoemolester throwing on a dressÃoe.
Do you know why?
Rapists/molesters tend to be t
Re:Public controls public bathrooms (Score:4, Informative)
So instead you're going to force this dude into the ladies room ?
http://i216.photobucket.com/al... [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms.
Even if that were true (it isn't), this law will make the imaginary problem worse. Instead of having to put on a dress and shave off their beard, now they can just walk in and say "I was born a woman".
If the goal really is to stop crimes in bathrooms, surely the most effective method would be to install panic alarms in there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Grow a brain.
The primary purpose of the law is to make it possible for men to be evicted from women's restrooms. As the GP posted, we want to prevent rapes. There are already too many rapes, and the laws punishing rape have been in existence for a long time. A law that allows men in a women's restroom encourages rape and lewd behavior.
Re:Public controls public bathrooms (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you point us to some statistics that show
a)there's an epidemic of men in women's bathrooms committing assaults?
b)making extremely feminine transgender women go into men's bathrooms will somehow reduce assaults?
c)a law that only applies to SOME GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS will have any effect on this "epidemic"?
To put it bluntly, you've been duped by Dan Patrick and his hate squad. Don't kid yourself-this law does nothing to protect women or any victims of sexual assault. Do you think that bush-league Rush Limbaugh gives a shit about whether or not women get sexually assaulted?
It's mainly an impotent revenge play on the federal government for dictating that transgender students can use the restroom of their identified gender (a policy that is strongly supported by local school districts). If it passes, it will do untold economic damage to Texas, and INCREASE sexual assaults.
If you are a Texan, make sure you know how your state lawmakers voted, and make sure you tell them they're getting VOTED OUT if they supported this petty, oppressive law that has no place in the freedom-loving state of Texas.
Sophistry (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a typical tactic used by you people.
"Where's the issue? It's NOT Happening!"
Well it's not happening now because there are laws, regulations, conventions, customs, that keep men from using women's facilities. (This is also a deception by you people...it's about ALL women's facilities, not just bathrooms).
If a guy goes into a woman's facility now, they will be chased out, the police might be called, and the guy possibly arrested for disorderly conduct or something.
Wit the laws that the Left is trying
Re: (Score:3)
This is a typical tactic used by you people.
"Where's the issue? It's NOT Happening!"
Well it's not happening now because there are laws, regulations, conventions, customs, that keep men from using women's facilities. (This is also a deception by you people...it's about ALL women's facilities, not just bathrooms).
If a guy goes into a woman's facility now, they will be chased out, the police might be called, and the guy possibly arrested for disorderly conduct or something.
Wit the laws that the Left is trying to pass, this could not happen. Further, they write the laws so poorly that ANY guy could simply declare he identifies as a woman and walk right in. There is no "Trans Card" or anything else to prevent that. Get that? Any Guy, Any Time, merely needs to declare, and it's an all access pass.
So the bottom line is you would be opening up a very target rich environment for perverts who could enter a women's facility, unquestioned, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they could not do anything absent some evidence like a camera, or inappropriate behavior.
You've got it completely, entirely, 100% backwards. The "Left" is trying to maintain the current status quo in which transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they appear as, and there aren't any required laws. The Right is trying to force big, burly bearded men to go into the women's bathroom.
Specifically, as you note, right now if someone who looks like a guy goes into the women's room, they will be chased out, police called, etc. But with this law, someone who is transgender and, say, looks like
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue.
A bill that dictates who can use the bathroom is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue?
What color is the sky in your world?
Re: Public controls public bathrooms (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right though, anyone passing these laws obviously needs psychological help.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever stopped for a moment do consider why the suicide rate among gun owners is so high?
Re:Corporations are people (Score:5, Interesting)
To expand on West Wing's comment on the subject, they want government just small enough to fit into your bedroom and bathroom.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
To me, it is quite apparent that most people, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and Independents alike are ALL against big government when they don't agree with public policy. Republicans, generally don't like big government in terms of social services... unless they receive benefits. Democrats, generally don't like big government in terms of the military/police... unless the police come to their aid. Libertarians, generally don't like big government in terms of regulations... unless said regu
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, one can generalize that Republicans are against big government but want government to dictate who can use which bathroom. Perhaps they are only in favor of the monitoring because it appears the government will monitor the bathrooms in the same way they would to protect their own sensibilities. However, lets no kid ourselves into thinking this generalization applies to all Republicans and not to anyone else. All parties do it and this topic isn't black and white in terms of opinions aligning with party affiliation.
I don't know about the rest of the country, but here the Republicans want to allow businesses to determine who can use what bathroom instead of having it dictated by the state government.
why separate bathrooms? (Score:2)
In that case, why are there separate bathrooms for men & women? Just have 1 giant bathroom in every facility, w/ a few urinals and a few commodes, let people go in as they wish. Women can use the commodes, men can use either, and I wonder whether women will get to do their makeup in front of the men
Nobody wants government to monitor bathrooms. Just that Leftists want government to force every public organization to allow transgenders to use bathrooms of their choice. It's one thing if individual
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you are so close to figuring this whole thing out, you know that?
Plus, a lot of public places don't have separate bathrooms for men & women. And guess what? There's been no spike in sex crimes in those bathrooms.
There was a time when in certain states (that voted for Trump) there were separate water fountains
Re: (Score:3)
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
You ever wonder why men aren't allowed in women's bathrooms? Why there are laws against men going into the wrong bathroom?
You think men asked for separate bathrooms?
Seriously, you're a fucking moron if you think women are going to agree to non-women using their bathrooms!
It isn't bigots, or homophobes, or transphobes who want a female-only bathroom, it's women. Normal women, lesbian women, old women, young women, thin women, fat women...
Why don't you be the first to stand up and tell women that they must a
Re: (Score:3)
If men and women are equal, we can share a bathroom.
As for rapes and violence in bathrooms, I'm pretty sure men's and ladies' toilets never helped with that anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
How many "famous and tragic" cases of some gun nut going into a school and shooting a bunch of first graders will it take before strict gun laws are enacted everywhere?
Not one of these bathroom bills has anything to do with kids' safety. How much horseshit do you have to be fed before you push the plate away?
Re: (Score:3)
Bathroom stalls also have nothing to do with the right of the people to resist their government from tyrannical overreach also.
Obvious straw-man argument is obvious.
Also, off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Strict gun laws don't work in the places where they exist. Now if you wanted an outright ban you might have an argument, though not one I would agree with.
Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Why is this an issue? The real issues involve transgender people being perceived as duplicitous and being treated as if they're perverted. The whole thing of asking if you'd like your child using the restroom with a transgender person who hasn't had the surgery yet is ridiculous. It portrays transgender people as perverts without regard that someone of the same gender of the child is just as likely to harm the child. It doesn't affect me if a transgender person is in a public restroom with me, rents from me, or is employed by me. Let them be, don't discriminate against them, and focus on the real issues. This might be surprising coming from a conservative like me, but let's worry about the economy and foreign policy, and let transgender people be.
- snruter rotsac
Re: (Score:3)
It's an issue because people are trying to restrict usages. No one cared, until someone tried to take the transgender people's freedom away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are heterosexual males that will use this as an excuse to enter female bathrooms and use the law as an excuse.
It's not an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are transgender men or women (pre or post surgery) who already identify themselves by dress and attitude and who want to go to the bathroom they think they belong in.
Neither viewpoint is 100% right or wrong. There will be people who abuse the right to trans bathrooms, and others who use it as intended.
Personally, I have two young daughters who I am of course immensely concerned about protecting from predators. Yet I believe that there are plenty of laws already in place protecting them from being filmed, approached sexually or otherwise that keep them safe. I'm in favor of trans bathroom protection because I'm willing to believe that the benefit to trans people is greater than the risk from hetero pervs. (Data may prove me wrong.)
But it's wrong to think that this is a one-sided issue and that everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong. It's a valid concern. I disagree with the Texas/North Carolina measures. But I'm not willing to say that those who oppose trans bathroom rights are just awful people. I understand the instinct to protect one's children at all costs, even if this specific measure isn't borne out by my experience.
Slashdotters in general pride themselves on being rational people, and I think they are (moreso than the general population). But empathy for opposing viewpoints is a rare skill, even among the highly intelligent. Maybe we can use this place as a model for trying to talk rationally about the pros and cons of both approaches? I have much higher expectations of seeing a well thought out argument on either side - couched in terms that could actually sway minds instead of just stoking flames - here than I would expect in the comments of the Washington Post or Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you can be hurt or killed in the men's room and have the police take you away or worse labeled a sex offender in states like Arkansas depending on their bathroom laws
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are laws against reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. Those laws are to prevent deaths and injuries. Not all instances of reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway cause death or injury; the laws are still proper.
A law against a man in a lady's restroom is to prevent sexual assault. Not all cases of a man in a lady's restroom result in sexual assault, a law preventing a man in a lady's restroo
Re: Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those driving laws are because no further volitional act is required for death and injury to result. Luck of the draw will decide if it comes out OK or not.
The case of the 'man' in the women's bathroom results in no harm unless/until a further volitional act occurs.
Here's one to jam the works. A father is out and about with a young daughter and she needs the bathroom. Should he take her into the women's bathroom, take her into the men's bathroom, hand her over to a woman he has never met before in his life, or tell her to go pee on the potted plant in the corner?
Perhaps, rather than a law, we all just need to learn not to get so triggered in the bathroom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people with nothing better to do have decided that people different to them must be punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, that one. These people cause a significant amount of the pain and suffering in the world and do so without good reason. Not even greed, just because they have an issue with somebody else not being like them.
Re:Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
does using the wrong pronoun count?
or.. having your employee use the wrong pronoun?
Re:Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's the reasoning among those who only consider the scenario which supports their ideological beliefs.
If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.
The resolution for the whole thing points to unisex bathrooms, with a separate partitioned area for urinals, and the stall walls extended to go from floor to ceiling so you can't peek over/under them. That would also settle the arguments about there needing to be more toilets allocated to women because they take more time so the lines are longer at womens' bathrooms. Though I suspect there will be pushback by businesses since walls extending to the floors will increase the amount of janitorial labor needed to clean multi-stall restrooms, and extending walls to the ceiling will require each stall to have its own vent.
Re: (Score:3)
If you consider all possible scenarios, you realize it's possible for a perverted heterosexual (presumably male, though it'd be sexist to assume so) to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender by pretending to be transgender.
Man are you going to get a surprise when you realise it's possible for a normal man dressed as a man with all men bits to also go into a women's bathroom.
And what are you hoping to achieve? Watched dressed women wash their hands and do their makeup? *HOT*. I'd masturbate to that but I'm sure masturbation in public is already on the banned list. Or maybe I want to look under a bathroom stall, though I'm sure a women dressed as a women with all the woman bits would also find herself afoul of a law if she did
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like trying to legislate a birth certificate into a bathroom license due to a rare corner case?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is part of the issue... not directly, but ironically.
I as a man have been raised in a society where multiple times a day, every single day... wherever I may be, I or the the people around me make comments or have discussions or make jokes that define a person who is in possession of their very own penis makes use of it as a secondary brain that is occasionally dominant and able to preempt logical thought process.
It is extremely clear to most people tha
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that Bathrooms and Locker rooms are public places where we do private things. And unfortunately the mindset of a lot of people haven't evolved much from middle school thinking if it is private then it must be sexually arousing. While real life it is rather boring. Any Nudity would be brief, and if a transgender person would probably take steps to insure their differences in plumbing isn't flaunted or even shown for any gender restroom. The risk of assault or compromising with transgender isn'
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Have you no critical-thinking skills?
Chester the Molester does. He figures this will be a pretty sweet opportunity to go into the women's bathroom after your little girl goes in by just saying he identifies as female today. Good times for Chester.
Bad time to be a child needing to use public restrooms, though.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Have you no critical-thinking skills?
Chester the Molester does. He figures this will be a pretty sweet opportunity to go into the women's bathroom after your little girl goes in by just saying he identifies as female today.
Aw, are we trying critical thinking today?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for re-replying, cleaning up my formatting and adding more about why this Child Molesters will love this bill:
--
Before the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: I love Texas! I can grope whoever I want and not go to jail!
--
After the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: Extremely feminine transgender women and 7-year-old boys are forced to use the men's room by themselves in a subset of government buildings!
No one has a job because every tech company pulled out of Texas, but...I'm applying for every government job I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?
So what you're saying is that you want Chester to be allowed the right to enjoy equal-opportunity molestations?
How very...Progressive...of you.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?
So what you're saying is that you want Chester to be allowed the right to enjoy equal-opportunity molestations?
How very...Progressive...of you.
Strat
I think the point was "if you're going to be pedantic, ignore realities, and argue that making a useless and discriminatory law will prevent Chester from molesting, then the counter-argument is that Chester can still molest, this law doesn't prevent that."
After looking up the numbers, I have to agree. The vast majority of physical attacks are against trans-gender people, not by them, and the law does not noticeably impact the child-molesters. My common sense reiterates that, knowing that most child-mole
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't even make any sense. This law would require a guy to enter the women's bathroom to trim his beard, because he happens to have been born female.
Re: Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:4, Informative)
No, you're trying to wrap up blind prejudice as sense, but it won't work.
It's a clash of ideologies. The majority of women by a large margin are going to object to men using their bathroom.
Women didn't get their own bathroom because men were afraid of cooties - they got their own bathroom because they wanted privacy from men.
They take their tops off in the bathroom. They discuss feminine issues in the bathroom. They occasionally even change clothes in the bathroom. They do not want to do all of this in front of men. They tend to be okay doing it in front of other women, though.
The are two possible solutions:
a) Make all bathrooms unisex (good luck getting women to give that up), or
b) Require that anyone who is obviously male use a male bathroom and anyone who is obviously female use a female bathroom. You have a beard? Go into the mens. You're wearing lipstick and fill out a bra? Go into the womens. You're androgynous? Go into either.
The "solution" of saying you are what you identify as is stupid. It's better to say "You think you're male/female? You'd better look like one"
Re: Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:4)
How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?
Obviously it increases the molester's attack space.
(I've already read -- not from Christian fundamentalists -- about men going into women's bathrooms and perving out. The women were too cowed to say anything, afraid that he would claim to identify as a woman; then the women would be the "bad guys" even though he was obviously a guy in there just perving out.)
Re: (Score:2)
And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us. Watching while they fixed their makeup? Or what?
Re: Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us.
Why should I have to justify to you what creeps women out?
In fact, here's the link: http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom [thegetrealmom.com]. Ask her yourself.
Another link: http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111 [king5.com]
It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.
And another: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html [huffingtonpost.ca]
The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.
Two women showering in Whitney Hall, a residence at U of T's University College, reported they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them, in two different incidents, police Const. Victor Kwong told The Toronto Star.
"The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."
Re: (Score:2)
A perv would feel less restricted in doing things that he would be inhibited from doing where there are cameras and/or men who would protect a woman. Exposing himself. Standing between a woman and the toilets, blocking her way and asking "Do you fuck?" "Can I watch you?" "C'mon, just a little feel." Standing next to her while she's at the sink, breathing on her neck and drooling. Masturbating.
Do you honestly think those things won't happen, or is it that you want them to happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep up the good fight, BlueStrat. The idiots are thick in here tonight, but their minds are weak and logic will prevail as it always does.
Hah! Thanks! These idiots are operating with the same level of cognition as the idiots protesting racism by demanding...racial segregation. 0_o
MLK Jr.'s spirit weeps.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
You are the idiot Blue Strat, and no amount of sock puppet up mods...
ROFLMAO!!!
Dude, really!? See my UID? It will be legally old enough to marry in some States soon, if not already. That's how much of a comment history I have. Anyone can plainly see I've never engaged in sock-puppetry or any other shenanigans.
Look at the average mod score of my comments. I don't *need* to boost my moderation scores with bot accounts. I get up-votes the old fashioned way: I *earn* them by having a brain and using it.
You should try it some time.
Strat
Think of the bakers (Score:2)
It's all about protecting such snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I find cake to be highly sexual. I'm thinking of a flourless chocolate cake with dark chocolate syrup drizzled over it right now and I'm extremely aroused.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Danger is something that is perceived, not necessarily something that actually hurts someone. So yes, some may see a danger.
If you can prove to everyone that it's impossible that anything could ever go wrong, you should hurry up and do that. Otherwise expect people to be protective of their children.
On the other hand, what's the benefit to the other 99.99% of society if transgender people feel comfortable about their bathroom use? And why does their comfort override parents' comfort? (These are genuine
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, if we had gender neutral bathrooms, fathers would feel a lot more comfortable being out and about with their young daughters. Bizarrely, in order to protect the children, a father out with a young daughter cannot go into the bathroom with her. Same for a mother out with a young son.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The vast majority of transgenders were abused as children and as such have an extremely high chance of becoming abusers themselves. The number of transgenders who rape, kill, molest etc vastly outnumber "straight" people when adjusted for population.
They are dangerous people to be around, period.
Citation?
Re:Who cares about bathrooms? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a complete fabrication which probably stems from your complete ignorance how this works. Might as well claim all ACs were abused as children, that has about as much factual basis.
Re: (Score:2)
You are sick. Probably you are much more of a danger to others than the typical trans person could ever be.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a small child. What exactly am I supposed to be concerned about?
Re: (Score:2)
And what, please tell us, could happen to that small child here? Some wrong sex-rays being projected through a stall wall or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Rape, or molestation. It's not uncommon as sex crimes go. This isn't about tans-anything, it's about a rapist or molester throwing on a dress in order to find a victim isolated in a somewhat private space.
Re: (Score:2)
Go Wherever you want (Score:2)
Re:Go Wherever you want (Score:4, Informative)
You can be hurt or killed in the men's room or thrown in jail if you use the ladies and even be registered as a sex offender in states like Arkansas if caught
Re: (Score:2)
These hypocrites do business in Middle East (Score:5, Insightful)
so they have no problem with gays being stoned to death apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
so they have no problem with gays being stoned to death apparently.
Do you believe that if those companies had real power to affect change in those countries that they would not? The middle east is an entirely different culture with an entirely different set of values. Stop things where they can be stopped.
Re:These hypocrites do business in Middle East (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies have no problem supporting boycotts of state and companies trying to stop men from going into the bathroom with little girls, but they have no problem with Muhammed using facetime to broadcast a wall being pushed on Steve because Steve is gay.
Apple, Paypal, Google, Amazon, and the rest have no problem making money in countries where gays are killed, little girls have their clitorises cut out, women are "honored killed" for talking to a random man, and women are raped as a matter of a daily schedule yet they have no problem taking money out of the hands that throw stones and acid.
It is nothing but pure hypocrisy.
Revulsion is and will remain an issue. (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to go to a bar where a guy who had both a dick and tits was a customer every so often.
To me the presence of this person was visually revolting. I was not in the least afraid of this person,
however I go to a bar to enjoy myself and the presence of this person impinged on my ability
to enjoy myself. So I quit going to the bar. This was no loss for me, because there are other bars
where such freaks do not show up. Many people don't want to hang out with such weird shit, and if
you doubt this then you need
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"I used to go to a bar where a black guy was a customer every so often. To me the presence of this person was visually revolting. I was not in the least afraid of this person, however I go to a bar to enjoy myself and the presence of this person impinged on my ability to enjoy myself. So I quit going to the bar."
Damned minorities, ruining your bar by existing. It shouldn't be allowed.
But, but, but ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Texas legislature says the bathroom bill is about privacy . Aren't Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google in favor of privacy????
Actually, yes.
They don't want anyone but them to know about your secrets.
Individual stalls/showers/changing areas (Score:5, Insightful)
Forced group disrobement is obsolete because nobody can agree on what the groups should be. I have visited and participated in nude beaches, but group showers for men in a local community center frankly feel weird. Why should anyone watch me washing my junk? And for anyone with kids the preferable solution is to give them privacy from others of any gender.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? When I was in school (high school and college) men's communal shower rooms in dormitories and (US-style, not ancient Greek) gymnasia were de rigueur.
Re: (Score:2)
No forced exposure != no exposure. Nudists should be allowed and encouraged to use private spaces to provide healthy exposure to a variety of human bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Never been to an art museum, have you?
While we're on the subject, most swimwear doesn't leave much to the imagination.
stop being distracted by symbols. (Score:2)
This is about an issue that quietly gets handled appropriately by the few people it actually involves, without much fuss or muss, in the individual environments of schools, office buildings, businesses, etc. And nobody cares that much, until one side decides to make it a big political battle, trying to relate it to some big symbolic issue that it in reality has very little to do with. Or when some dumb suburban parent with more volume than common sense thinks their kids or "va
I'm not seeing how this is like the NC one (Score:2)
If there's a better article which discusses exactly what this bill covers, could someone direct me to it?
Context around the law (from a Texan) (Score:5, Informative)
As a Texan, I've been reading about this bill for almost a year now. Here's some context around it:
1) Texas still has some of the most molester-friendly groping laws in the nation (anything short of penetration is a class C misdemeanor, you won't even go to jail for it). This bill does nothing to address it.
2)The driving force behind the bill is revenge on the federal government for dictating that transgender students can use the restroom of their identified gender (a policy that is strongly supported by local school districts). That's why the bill only applies to government buildings (and a subset of those, at that!).
3)The bill's author, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (not the sportscaster) got his start as a bargain-bin Rush Limbaugh. He realizes that the "social conservatives" lost the fight against gays, and he's using this to target a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.
Incredibly simple answer (Score:2)
I see the people for and against open bathrooms just talking past each other, ignoring very real issues.
There is a answer so simple it stuns correctnesss.... the answer is this. You have a penis optional room, and a vagina mandatory room.
Now women who are concerned can feel safe, because they maintain the cherished separation of old.
Meanwhile, men do not care WHO is in the bathroom, as long as they are quick. Vagina room too full? Come on in. Transgender in flux? No-one cares anymore if you are dressed
Tech Firms don't understand Texas (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Had my first experience with the consequences of this culture war over the weekend; a fast food place with two unisex restrooms. After a brief befuddlement I picked one, walked in and instantly felt sorry for all females. It's basically a typical piss-on-the-floor men's restroom with a toilet in a stall for the women.
Now, I don't imagine that women's restrooms in a fast food place were ever that great, but I'm willing to bet they were generally better than what men dealt with, if only because their "aim
Re: (Score:2)
And that would not happen in, say, a waiting queue or a crowd of people or in an elevator? Oh, wait, it usually does not. News for you: Most people are not animals. I guess you do not qualify, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been about 40 years now, but I read an article about a rock concert held in a baseball stadium. Being a place expecting far more men than women, there was more capacity for men's restrooms than women's, and the women's lines were seriously long. One woman couldn't wait and went to the men's restroom and was raped multiple times.
By your way of thinking, someone among the several men in that restroom would have protected her. Looks like your way of thinking is wrong.