Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by theoh » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #105

theoh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the bathroom issue, but responding to your question about physical gender. I'm in favour of permissive laws about this and similar scenarios. The bigger problem here is things like so-called TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) in which high profile feminists who display contempt for transgender people are unfairly lumped in with innocent people who are merely aware of the limitations of c…

My question was rhetorical, intended to point out the difficulty of even using that term in the first place. Seems to me that the bigger problem is bigoted legislators who think it's OK to force their religious values on other people, not some group of radical feminists I've never even heard of before and who I'm guessing have very little power.

FWIW, I'm mentioning the TERF label not because it's "radical" but because I think, in the psychological battle for tolerance on all sides, it's near the front line, and it's very emotive.

If you aren't near the front line, in whatever way, I agree that it may seem less important than protesting intolerant legislation.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/10/why-i-no-longer-ha...

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

#122

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

wehadfun wrote: post #85

coldpie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We could outlaw using meth. But if is legal to sell, import, produce, and store meth. Then it is too easy to break the using meth law. We could outlaw getting in car accidents. But if it is legal speed, drive drunk, and run red lights. Then it is too easy to break the car accident law. My point is sure we outlaw harrasement but for those that may want to do that, allowing them to go into a room where women are alone…

This prophylactic argument might be a reasonable one if there were an epidemic of transgender women (or, for that matter, cisgender men) harassing cisgender women in the bathroom. But, instead, it is virtually unheard of. The empirical evidence is that, today, the combination of informal social norms and retrospective laws against, e.g., lewd conduct and sexual assault are more than enough to discipline' people's bathroom behavior.

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

#123

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

ElComradio wrote: post #106

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…

Having no law at all and all unisex bathrooms is certainly a possible solution. It would be consistent but it would require people to get over certain hangups they may have.

Note that you can still have gender-segregated bathrooms without laws that get down into the weeds of who can use which bathroom. That, in fact, is the status quo in most U.S. jurisdictions. So while I'm not necessarily against unisex bathrooms, doing away with gender-segregated bathrooms isn't really what I had in mind.