Live data from Hacker News

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

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

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

#111

Post by ElComradio » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #77

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.

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.

This is true for bathrooms but what about locker rooms?

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

#112

Post by return0 » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

abiox wrote: post #107

return0 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That a man entering a women's restroom is something to be feared of (!), that a woman's loyalty depends on somebody shielding her from strange men and that a husband's duty is to shield her By the same logic, mixed restrooms are dangerous.

this is the stance of the legislators. the point is to show they're fully in the "good intentions paving the road to hell" mode. they didn't want dudes in the ladies' room, so now they have dudes in the ladies' room.

I believe it's women who are more concerned about this than men.

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

#113

Post by return0 » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

ElComradio wrote: post #111

return0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is true for bathrooms but what about locker rooms?

until the day we'll all be comfortable with nudity i don't see them changing.

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

#114

Post by projct » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

revicon wrote: post #102

pdabbadabba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lega…

>(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.) How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym? If we're ready to take the step to say that there is no gen…

>How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym?

How does this law prevent anyone from doing that already?

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

#115

Post by Caprinicus » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

bitJericho wrote: post #40

scrabble wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If anyone is using xhamster it's lawmakers

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

#116

Post by jrmurad » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

projct wrote: post #114

revicon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(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.) How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym? If we're ready to take the step to say that there is no gen…

>How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym? How does this law prevent anyone from doing that already?

I'm not sure about this but my guess is that a man who refuses to abide by an establishment's rule of "no men in the women's showers" would be asked to leave. If he does not leave, he could be arrested for trespassing.

But given direction these new laws are taking, I'm further guessing that the Police should refuse to remove the man and instead arrest the proprietor for discriminating against this man based on his protected status of identifying as a woman?

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

#117

Post by eveningcoffee » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #109

eveningcoffee wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so let me try this again: "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?" The person in the next stall can be man, woman or whoever. But it actually does not matter who is in the next stall. What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall. If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would…

> What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall. This is already a crime, and one the new anti-trans laws do nothing to combat (unless you intend to require a birth certificate or a pat-down to enter the bathroom). > If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets. T…

All right, just to get things straight.

First of, I am not a US resident nor a citizen. Therefore I really do not care about the remarks about Republican Congressmen. Well, mostly.

Second, in my comment I mostly focused on the group who are physiologically women and also address themselves as women, i.e. women. If this was not clear enough, I am sorry.

I did also not mean or write that there is in my opinion an increased risk from transgender people in the case of unisex toilets or that it would increase the risk for the transgender people. I hoped that the meaning was clear enough, I am sorry again.

I am also not arguing against the opinions voiced here like "transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault".

I am not physician and I do not have any court statistics handy, but my hypothesis was that

a) hygiene in the men occupied toilets in general might be worse than in women only occupied toilets and sharing a public toilet with men might raise the risk of infections for women (it is a less problem for men because they mostly use urinal in the public toilets, if this was not clear enough),

b) women may be at higher risk to be sexually assaulted in the toilets shared with men (and please note, I know that this is already a crime).

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

#118

Post by abiox » Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #110

abiox wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if nothing else, the US tends to have fewer existential concerns diverting it's attention (economics, infrastructure, etc).

Seriously? I'll give you Africa of course, it makes sense. But the Middle East? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc? All these countries are almost literally wiping their ass with money. My question got downvoted a lot, but I was quite serious. Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism? And are we just talking about Africa or should t…

> Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism?

here's an example: i think most people would agree that every country should have a strong, maintained infrastructure to support their country's operations. but it is clearly a different situation for an economically challenged country to have bridges in disrepair, than for a rich country to have the same issue despite it having the resources available to it. "higher standards" doesn't necessarily mean "superior".

that said, i'm not completely clear on what the post you replied to was expressing.

if i were to guess, it was about so-called "social progress". north america/europe generally provides a better opportunity for LGBT peoples to live their lives as they see fit than other regions. MENA (such as Saudi[1] and Qatar[2]) have traditionally been seen as decidedly unwelcoming to LGBT, perhaps even supporting violence against LGBT, but this isn't exactly unique to MENA.

MENA's disinterest/lack of "progress" in this area is rooted in cultural, historical and religious norms. as such, it's perhaps "unfair" to hold them to the same standards (achieving "higher progress") of how they treat LGBT people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar

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

#119

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 1:22 PM UTC

revicon wrote: post #102

pdabbadabba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lega…

>(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.) How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym? If we're ready to take the step to say that there is no gen…

I think you're overcomplicating things. If a person walks into a public bathroom and starts leering at people, or worse, this is likely illegal regardless of the person's gender. Just ask Larry Craig. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal (The original charge in his case was for "Lewd Conduct" but he eventually pleaded down to disorderly conduct.)

A person's perceived gender (which will be a function of that's person's subjective gender identity, among other things) will play a major role in determining whether a person's conduct is perceived in this way. A woman in a women's bathroom would likely have to do something pretty overt to get herself in trouble. A person who appears to be a man will, presumably, be on much thinner ice. It seems to me that a combination of this and the prevailing social pressure not to wander into the wrong bathroom should be all we need. And, after all, nobody to my knowledge has ever presented a shred of evidence that there is actually a problem with people using the "wrong" bathroom to warrant the sort of legislation we're talking about--especially when that legislation will indisputably harm an already marginalized segment of the population.

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

#120

Post by cholantesh » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 1:55 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #36

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 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 lega…

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

As evinced by the fact that unisex bathrooms were the norm until the late 19th-early 20th century, and that rest stops and other establishments operate unisex bathrooms without any issue.

Post reply on HN