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

51–60 of 123 posts

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

#51

Post by nsxwolf »

partiallypro wrote: post #45
coldpie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about raising awareness by generating headlines just like this one. Porn is a taboo-ish topic, so the news loves to cover it. More coverage of and negative pressure on these reprehensible laws is only a good thing.

The people introducing this bill aren't going to be the type to be sad that porn is being blocked in their state. If anything they'll see it as a win/win.

I'm willing to bet there are pro-porn people that also want to enforce the status quo on public bathrooms.

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

#52

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

Here's a simple idea that would render these "bathroom bills" null and void. Neuter them, if you will.

Stop building multi-occupant public restrooms with a gender designation, and instead build several single-occupant public restrooms with no gender designation.

Added bonus: Not only do we disarm these attempts to discriminate against transgendered people, we also avoid all the social awkwardness that comes from multi-occupant restrooms. Like the loud person talking on their cell phone. Or the smells of other people doing their thing.

(Retrofitting would be expensive, but don't make that part mandatory.)

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

#53

Post by coldpie »

cristianpascu wrote: post #43

So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ig…

> I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population.

I suspect you haven't really been paying attention and are just submitting your gut feeling here. For example, in attempting to prevent your hypothetical "sexual fantasy" scenario, here's one real consequence of this law:

https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144

The simple fact is any real problems caused in bathrooms are already covered by harassment laws. These new laws take away a freedom people already had, and I'm not really aware of any real problems caused by people having those freedoms. Are you? What problems have these laws solved? Hypothetical situations don't count.

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

#54

Post by venomsnake »

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?"

Then lets create unigender bathrooms and be done with it.

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

#55

Post by webbore »

cristianpascu wrote: post #43

So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ig…

If your establishment is big enough to have multiple person facilities, you can add a single bathroom as well. Even smaller restaurants seem to have a individual handicap or family washroom. Then label it "toilet" and who cares who uses it.

The whole "men identifying as women in the washroom with little girls" thing is a big red herring rally cry for a very vocal group (based on a single case of a male pedophile who did not id as a woman). So raising headlines against this, regardless if it's judged appropriate, is good as far as I'm concerned.

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

#56

Post by mikeash »

cristianpascu wrote: post #43

So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ig…

What is "physical gender"? If a person looks like a man, acts like a man, and thinks of themselves as a man, do women really want this person in the women's bathroom just because they were born with two X chromosomes?

How can such a person "simply avoid the psychological conflict" when a law mandates their choice of bathroom based on their genes? The bathroom of least conflict is illegal for them to enter!

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

#57

Post by nsxwolf »

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.

No. They'll switch to YouPorn and the others that will be happy to have xHamster's clicks. And if they all follow xHamster's lead, they'll learn how to use VPNs.

Then the whole thing will burn itself out from outrage fatigue and be dropped.

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

#58

Post by ryandamm »

cristianpascu wrote: post #43

So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ig…

I'm torn, because I don't really want to dignify this comment with a response... but here goes.

Your 'concern' for trans* people is transparently false, or at least misguided. I don't see how allowing someone to live with their gender identity is 'adding stress' to them: outing someone's trans status by forcing them legally to use the wrong restroom is... itself insane, and in no way 'protects' trans people.

But if you're arguing in bad faith, and are not merely confused... well, please don't try to wrap this up as an issue of concern for trans people; the law compels, it takes away liberty. Claiming it's somehow in trans* people's interests is about 50-100 years out of date: you don't protect people by taking away their rights! That's paternalistic and wrong. And somehow suggesting that the freedom to choose the bathroom of your gender is making people commit suicide... that's your argument, right? Well, I just hope you're being facetious and I'm missing the irony.

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

#59

Post by coldpie »

wehadfun wrote: post #50
coldpie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have laws against harassment. What are you trying to prevent from happening? Why are those laws insufficient?

There are laws against speeding, running red lights, drinking while driving, doing drugs, and all types of things that are done every day. Laws are not sufficient.

Then clearly we should live in an anarchy. Like, what's your point?

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

#60

Post by mbarrett »

mc32 wrote: post #27
jwn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's easy, make all stalls unisex; add a separator so the urinals are not clearly visible. Or more expensively, just have individual bathrooms. As an aside, if you are ever in other parts of the world, the East, many bathrooms are open to the world -no doors, and people do alright.

A company I have worked for tried this, changing a few single bathrooms from M and W to unisex. The women protested because cleanliness went way down. They went back to M and W after 2 weeks.
Post reply on HN