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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by tryitnow »

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…

You're assuming people know what type of genitalia other people in the restroom have.

I don't understand the type of restrooms you use. When I use the restroom I do not inspect the genitalia of my fellow men. I'm pretty sure women don't do that either. If this is happening in the restroom you utilize you need to find other restrooms.

Under your rules someone who looks, acts, and dresses like a man will be forced (by law!) to use the women's restroom. This actually causes all of the problems you mention. I do not understand your reasoning.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

nsxwolf wrote: post #51
partiallypro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by ceejayoz »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #64
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would also like to think like this but it is more complex issue. I see that there are at least 3 aspects: physiological comfort, hygiene and security. I think that your proposal falls into physiological comfort category but I am afraid that changing personal attitude does not change the other two aspects. So I would assume that women are a little better off with separate toilets in the given state of the society. W…

Let's break that down, then.

What's the hygiene threat here? Transgender people know how to use the toilet just like cisgender people do.

What's the security threat here? As the now popular meme notes, at least three Republican Congressmen have been arrested for lewd conduct in bathrooms. There don't seem to be any verifiable incidents of transgender folks doing nasty stuff in bathrooms warranting these laws.

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

#75

Post by mikeash »

carsongross wrote: post #10

The lack of self-awareness is pretty funny. Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment". At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.

This is only weird if you think that people who hold to traditional religious morality don't watch porn. But of course those people do, a lot, and I'm sure xHamster knows it. So this is more of a "hey dummies, here you are watching porn while you pretend to be moral with your stupid laws."

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

#76

Post by pigpaws »

coldpie wrote: post #70
pigpaws wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Washington State (or Seattle) having an issue with this? Men (who are not trans) going into and using the ladies' room? In the end, you're leaving it up to the person's "feelings" as to where to use the restroom. Hell, I belong to a gym that has a separate section for women only . How would most women feel if a trans* walked in and started 'working out'? While I have to agree with individual liberty - live howe…

> Isn't Washington State (or Seattle) having an issue with this? Men (who are not trans) going into and using the ladies' room? No.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/states-rul...

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/washington-state-opens-womens-bat...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wa-man-women-bathro...

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

#77

Post by return0 »

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.

I wonder what is the legal basis for having separate bathrooms at all. The separation seems to be a cultural one. Most of us have shared bathrooms with our family. What practical needs does the segregation solve ?

For example, if "penis sighting in the urinal" is a "problem" that the segregation solves, then self-identified gender is irrelevant.

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

#78

Post by jmcgough »

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"

Fun story time: I went to the Santa Cruz boardwalk a few months back with some friends. It was packed and the line for the woman's restroom was massive, so I figured I looked androgynous enough in jeans and a black tshirt that I could get away with using the men's room.

The whispers started immediately after I made it to a stall. "Whoah, did you see that? There's a girl in here!"

Now, by your definition I was using the restroom appropriate to my physical gender (since you seem fixated on genitals or genes or something). I'm also a tiny 5'5" thing and transitioned a decade ago in my teens (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfx0a8fUAAAfsoW.jpg). These men were twice my size, and I was mortified and a little scared.

I did my business and got the hell out. It was a lovely day at the beach other than that.

Anyways, if I lived in NC, I have no idea where I would actually use a restroom if I was out in public. Is that not insane? Why should a bunch of conservative men be able to pass a law and restrict a basic bodily function that we all need to deal with? I'd be stuck having to find gender neutral bathrooms where I could.

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

#79

Post by ethanbond »

mc32 wrote: post #35
ethanbond wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Yes, I agree. It can. Just like film can encourage aggressive behavior. Or video games or music or fashion or art literally anything.

But to act like none of those can equivalently be used for good is pretty unfair.

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

#80

Post by return0 »

coldpie wrote: post #53
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://tw…

That tweet espouses way more stereotypes than it's supposed to mock.
Post reply on HN