Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#31

Post by Cthulhu_ »

jwn wrote: post #24
ElComradio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar. I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually…

> A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with.

The problem with /that/ would be that non-transgenders would possibly feel uncomfortable with that - which I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, is why there's gender-segregated bathrooms in the first place.

The only solution would be, as the other commenter says, to only have unisex bathrooms and to tell anyone that complains about that to fuck off.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#32

Post by scrabble »

dave5104 wrote: post #13
scrabble wrote: post #5

I can't see this having a big impact on law makers. Is porn in limited supply now?

It seems to be aimed more at pushing constituents into action than law makers.

Are xHamster users going to be contacting their reps to complain that they can no longer access it? That's another situation that seems unlikely to me.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#33

Post by juraj24 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #18
ElComradio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

The standard should be "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?"

Most people do. Bsic decency should be maintained in human society.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#34

Post by falcolas »

jwn wrote: post #24
ElComradio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar. I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually…

> The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations

And some simply can't afford it. It requires a number regular sessions with a psychiatrist, and is difficult to get covered by health insurance. One friend quoted me their estimate of nearly $25,000, just for the surgery alone.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#35

Post by mc32 »

ethanbond wrote: post #8
liquidzoot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.

Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad? Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.

I think because in many cases porn can be exploitative and can perpetuate stereotypes of aggression in sex and set unrealistic expectations for many people who then develop complexes.

It's a complex issue. On the one hand sex is natural, on the other hand the way it's portrayed can have major influence on how young adults (and even mature adults) view sex which can be loving and consensual to violent and unrealistic. And it can lead some to objectifying people.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#36

Post by pdabbadabba »

ElComradio wrote: post #17
return0 wrote: post #9

Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

The answer is that there is no need for any legal standard at all.

I think the problem (illustrated nicely by your comment) is that, in reality, gender is too complex and varied to be adequately addressed by this sort of legislation. While its easy enough to this sort of law to work properly 95% of the time, its hard to come up with a real legal test that doesn't leave some percentage of people marginalized and legally required to use the wrong bathroom (either because its not the one they would feel comfortable using, or also in many cases because it would make the other users of that bathroom uncomfortable).

This being the case, and given a complete lack of any real problem with bathroom use today, one would think that this counsels strongly in favor of having no specific law on the subject at all, and relying instead on the usual social convention. (Bearing in mind, of course, that in the extremely rare event that someone really does stroll into the wrong bathroom for voyeuristic purposes, or to sexually assault someone, we already have laws to punish those people.)

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are normally so quick to declaim against any purported intrusion into individual liberties (note that I'm not necessarily talking about you here) are happy to uncritically accept the proposition that the government should have a role in telling you which bathroom you can and cannot use.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#37

Post by Cthulhu_ »

liquidzoot wrote: post #7
chirau wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the law or the porn?

I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.

> plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.

Do explain. Are you saying the porn industry pushes a certain ideology (e.g. only anonymous-male-on-model sex!1)? I'm pretty sure the porn industry is purely a capitalistic endeavour, as in, whatever sells - and non-traditional (if that's the right term to use) porn happens to sell.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#38

Post by jmcgough »

ElComradio wrote: post #17
return0 wrote: post #9

Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

SRS costs $20k+ and often isn't covered by insurance. Most young mtf can't afford it (assuming they even want it), so this isn't a real option.

So the law basically means that a subset of the people in NC can no longer use public bathrooms, which is insane.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#39

Post by falcolas »

coldpie wrote: post #30
liquidzoot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out. I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not. They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with th…

> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.

Personally, I disagree with his tone and "you do the research for why I'm right". It doesn't contribute to this discussion in any way.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#40

Post by bitJericho »

scrabble wrote: post #32
dave5104 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be aimed more at pushing constituents into action than law makers.

Are xHamster users going to be contacting their reps to complain that they can no longer access it? That's another situation that seems unlikely to me.

Maybe not but the lawmakers will notice it.
Post reply on HN