PayPal bails on North Carolina

[JoeBags7277 734]

So, Springsteen and Bryan Adams refused to serve paying customers because they disagreed with their views on an issue. Interesting.

[sips tea...]

actually they disagreed with the state government.. Paying customers were likely split on the matter, didn't give a rip or even unaware..

That state government is led by people who depend on wedge issues like this to pander to their base- a base that consists largely of... you guessed it... a lot of people who would have been in attendance at the shows.

Just one more reason why all of this is stupid. We get one of these every few months...

[homersapien 11,353]

So, Springsteen and Bryan Adams refused to serve paying customers because they disagreed with their views on an issue. Interesting.

[sips tea...]

actually they disagreed with the state government.. Paying customers were likely split on the matter, didn't give a rip or even unaware..

That state government is led by people who depend on wedge issues like this to pander to their base- a base that consists largely of... you guessed it... a lot of people who would have been in attendance at the shows.

Just one more reason why all of this is stupid. We get one of these every few months...

Bingo! We have a winner!

[quietfan 233]

Well this is an interesting twist:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gbt-law-n554771

Porn Site Blocks North Carolina Visitors Over Controversial LGBT Law

As major companies continue to pull out of North Carolina over its controversial LGBT law, porn enthusiasts are the latest to be put in a bind. Residents with an IP address registered in that state have been blocked from accessing the online sex site XHamster.

"We will not stand by and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage," said the adult site in a statement. "We respect all sexualities and embrace them."

Mike Kulich, spokesman for XHamster, stressed the hypocrisy inherent in the state's new law, pointing out that last month the site had "400,000 hits for the term 'Transsexual' from North Carolina alone. People from that state searched 'Gay' 319,907 times."

Users who were hoping to view the site's naughty content will see only a blacked-out screen. "Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one," said XHamster, adding that the site will eventually replace the blackout with a petition to repeal the law.

...

[aujeff11 6,243]

Well this is an interesting twist:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gbt-law-n554771

Porn Site Blocks North Carolina Visitors Over Controversial LGBT Law

As major companies continue to pull out of North Carolina over its controversial LGBT law, porn enthusiasts are the latest to be put in a bind. Residents with an IP address registered in that state have been blocked from accessing the online sex site XHamster.

"We will not stand by and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage," said the adult site in a statement. "We respect all sexualities and embrace them."

Mike Kulich, spokesman for XHamster, stressed the hypocrisy inherent in the state's new law, pointing out that last month the site had "400,000 hits for the term 'Transsexual' from North Carolina alone. People from that state searched 'Gay' 319,907 times."

Users who were hoping to view the site's naughty content will see only a blacked-out screen. "Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one," said XHamster, adding that the site will eventually replace the blackout with a petition to repeal the law.

...

That is hilarious. Leave it to the porn stars to be the beacon of light.

[Auburn4life 24]

Yea they really care about gay and LBGT rights!

[TitanTiger 20,471]

An open letter to Bruce Springsteen and his band.

Thoughtful and considerate and worth hearing out:

Dear Bruce,

As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likenedHB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click

and here and here.)

So, please allow me to ask you some questions.

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch

, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

And one final question.

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

https://stream.org/o...ringsteen-band/

[cooltigger21 0]

Apparently PayPal doesn't have a problem with Singapore and the way they treat transgendered and gay people. Malaysia doesn't bother them and neither does Dubai. Travel to North Carolina is banned for employees of some states but they can travel to Cuba.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Well this is an interesting twist:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gbt-law-n554771

Porn Site Blocks North Carolina Visitors Over Controversial LGBT Law

As major companies continue to pull out of North Carolina over its controversial LGBT law, porn enthusiasts are the latest to be put in a bind. Residents with an IP address registered in that state have been blocked from accessing the online sex site XHamster.

"We will not stand by and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage," said the adult site in a statement. "We respect all sexualities and embrace them."

Mike Kulich, spokesman for XHamster, stressed the hypocrisy inherent in the state's new law, pointing out that last month the site had "400,000 hits for the term 'Transsexual' from North Carolina alone. People from that state searched 'Gay' 319,907 times."

Users who were hoping to view the site's naughty content will see only a blacked-out screen. "Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one," said XHamster, adding that the site will eventually replace the blackout with a petition to repeal the law.

...

That is hilarious. Leave it to the porn stars to be the beacon of light.

Indeed it is hilarious. They really know how to get those social conservatives. One has to wonder which briar patches the bill’s opponents will throw their enemies into next. Perhaps Planned Parenthood will refuse to perform abortions until the measure is nixed?

[SaturdayGT 719]

[SaturdayGT 719]

Seems weird to me that Bruce Springsteen, Bryan Adams and this porn site are boycotting their fans in the region of NC because of what the state law decides. Seems like if they really care about the issue, they could side with the people in NC who agree with them and help open or change minds and attitudes. Its like they decided that every single person in NC are anti-gay homophobes because of the law, so they just decided to brush them off completely. Id be sort of pissed if I were a fan.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Well this is an interesting twist:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gbt-law-n554771

Porn Site Blocks North Carolina Visitors Over Controversial LGBT Law

As major companies continue to pull out of North Carolina over its controversial LGBT law, porn enthusiasts are the latest to be put in a bind. Residents with an IP address registered in that state have been blocked from accessing the online sex site XHamster.

"We will not stand by and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage," said the adult site in a statement. "We respect all sexualities and embrace them."

Mike Kulich, spokesman for XHamster, stressed the hypocrisy inherent in the state's new law, pointing out that last month the site had "400,000 hits for the term 'Transsexual' from North Carolina alone. People from that state searched 'Gay' 319,907 times."

Users who were hoping to view the site's naughty content will see only a blacked-out screen. "Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one," said XHamster, adding that the site will eventually replace the blackout with a petition to repeal the law.

...

That is hilarious. Leave it to the porn stars to be the beacon of light.

Indeed it is hilarious. They really know how to get those social conservatives. One has to wonder which briar patches the bill’s opponents will throw their enemies into next. Perhaps Planned Parenthood will refuse to perform abortions until the measure is nixed?

Right? The NBA All Star game is supposed to be in Charlotte and I know several public figures have already asked the NBA to move it.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Well this is an interesting twist:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gbt-law-n554771

Porn Site Blocks North Carolina Visitors Over Controversial LGBT Law

As major companies continue to pull out of North Carolina over its controversial LGBT law, porn enthusiasts are the latest to be put in a bind. Residents with an IP address registered in that state have been blocked from accessing the online sex site XHamster.

"We will not stand by and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage," said the adult site in a statement. "We respect all sexualities and embrace them."

Mike Kulich, spokesman for XHamster, stressed the hypocrisy inherent in the state's new law, pointing out that last month the site had "400,000 hits for the term 'Transsexual' from North Carolina alone. People from that state searched 'Gay' 319,907 times."

Users who were hoping to view the site's naughty content will see only a blacked-out screen. "Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one," said XHamster, adding that the site will eventually replace the blackout with a petition to repeal the law.

...

That is hilarious. Leave it to the porn stars to be the beacon of light.

Indeed it is hilarious. They really know how to get those social conservatives. One has to wonder which briar patches the bill's opponents will throw their enemies into next. Perhaps Planned Parenthood will refuse to perform abortions until the measure is nixed?

Right? The NBA All Star game is supposed to be in Charlotte and I know several public figures have already asked the NBA to move it.

I hear "Gay Day" at the Panthers game has been cancelled as well. That'll show 'em.

[Auburn4life 24]

If the NBA & these Artists are going to "boycott" N.C. then the NBA, these artist, etc... needs to pull out of all countries that don't treat homosexuals with equal rights or have laws to put homosexuals in jail or death. For that matter, why does HRC accept money from Algeria, China, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, etc...? I thought she is all for equal rights?

Where is the outrage when these artists perform in these countries?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

A cogent and well-reasonsed rejoinder.

They Still Ain’t Gonna Play Sun City

by Rod Dreher

Back during the anti-apartheid era, there arose a boycott movement among performing artists to avoid Sun City, a South African resort. Little Steven (Van Zandt) organized a protest video,

to publicize the boycott.

So, now we are to understand that North Carolina and Mississippi are the latter-day equivalents of Sun City. Bruce Springsteen (whose guitarist Little Steven is) started it off by canceling his NC show to protest the new law there, and now Bryan Adams has done the same in Mississippi. Jimmy Buffett is going to keep his NC date, but says he’s seriously reconsidering anything else there. (Side note: Hey Jimmy, I guess you’re going to order your Margaritaville restaurants to implement unisex bathrooms then, or to otherwise make it clear that transgenders can use the bathroom of their choice. Right? If not, why not?)

And, of course, that is their right. I think they are making a stupid mistake, but I believe they have a right to withhold their creative labor because to perform under these conditions would violate their consciences. Why do they get to do this, but florists, photographers, and bakers do not? Nobody is saying that florists, photographers, and bakers have the right to refuse all service to gay customers. The protection is to keep whatever minority of Christians in those professions who object to participating in a same-sex wedding from having to do so. I guess that some artists are more equal than others.

Here’s what I don’t get: if you check out the map on the Human Rights Campaign’s website, you’ll see that most of the states in the US have basically the same laws that North Carolina and Mississippi just passed. So why aren’t these artists boycotting the rest of America? It’s bizarre. But then, you are going nowhere if you expect logic and reason to guide this debate.

The fact is, it’s impossible to come up with a clean, perfectly logical, neutral position on public accommodations. I tend to be more libertarian on these matters, and would rather have to live with people discriminating against others, including myself, rather than have the power of the state force them to violate their own conscience, no matter how malformed I judge their conscience to be. I really do believe that a lesbian bar should have the right to refuse male customers, for example. I believe that a gay florist should have the right to refuse to provide flowers for the wedding of a Republican politician who campaigned against gay rights. Me, I would not want to buy a custom-made cake from a baker who was being compelled to sell it to me against her conscience, in part because I would be afraid that she might spit in the thing.

Anyway, I know that if this approach to the law were universal, anybody could claim a conscience exemption from having to provide any goods or services to anybody. That would be unworkable. I don’t believe that a Muslim cab driver, for example, should have the right to refuse to transport a woman, or a passenger carrying an unopened bottle of wine. But is it possible to draft a universally applicable, content-neutral version of this law? I doubt it.

Peter Tatchell, probably the UK’s most famous gay marriage campaigner, published a piece earlier this year saying that he had been wrong to support a Northern Ireland court’s ruling penalizing a Christian baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake. Tatchell wrote:

However, the court erred by

ruling

that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.

His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. Despite this, Judge Isobel Brownlie said that refusing the pro-gay marriage slogan was unlawful indirect sexual orientation discrimination. On the question of political discrimination, the judge said Ashers had denied Lee service based on his request for a message supporting same-sex marriage. She noted: “If the plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words ‘support marriage’ or ‘support heterosexual marriage’ I have no doubt that such a cake would have been provided.” Brownlie thus concluded that by refusing to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage wording Ashers had treated him less favourably, contrary to the law.

This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict. They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

Question for the room: In 2008, a supermarket in New Jersey refused to make a birthday cake for a kid named Adolf Hitler Campbell, the toddler child of white supremacists. I think the store should have had that right. I would not have made that cake had I been a baker. What do you think? If you’re going to compel a conservative Christian baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, by what right do you defend the right of anti-Nazi bakers to withhold their creative labor on principle?

UPDATE: St. Louisan nails it:

The North Carolina law is focusing where things stand.

If like the baker in Oregon you don’t want to provide services for a same sex wedding due to your deeply held beliefs, you are breaking the law and morally reprehensible. But if like Bruce Springsteen you don’t want to provide services for people who share a state with legislators whose law you dislike due to your deeply held beliefs, you are merely exercising your rights of conscience and of running your own business.

Four legs good! Two legs baa-aaa-d

http://www.theameric...-play-sun-city/

[homersapien 11,353]

Someday in the not too distant future people while we are trying to organize a too-little-too-late response to global warming and wars are being fought over fresh water, people will look back at this and be aghast at the attention placed on such a trivial matter.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Someday in the not too distant future people while we are trying to organize a too-little-too-late response to global warming and wars are being fought over fresh water, people will look back at this and be aghast at the attention placed on such a trivial matter.

And there are starving people in Africa. Just because there are bigger issues in the world doesn't mean that smaller issues aren't important.

And it takes two sides to fight. But the complete dismissal of religious and conscience concerns sort of makes crafting a narrow compromise rather difficult.

[homersapien 11,353]

Someday in the not too distant future people while we are trying to organize a too-little-too-late response to global warming and wars are being fought over fresh water, people will look back at this and be aghast at the attention placed on such a trivial matter.

And there are starving people in Africa. Just because there are bigger issues in the world doesn't mean that smaller issues aren't important.

And it takes two sides to fight. But the complete dismissal of religious and conscience concerns sort of makes crafting a narrow compromise rather difficult.

How is this a religious or conscience concern?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Someday in the not too distant future people while we are trying to organize a too-little-too-late response to global warming and wars are being fought over fresh water, people will look back at this and be aghast at the attention placed on such a trivial matter.

And there are starving people in Africa. Just because there are bigger issues in the world doesn't mean that smaller issues aren't important.

And it takes two sides to fight. But the complete dismissal of religious and conscience concerns sort of makes crafting a narrow compromise rather difficult.

How is this a religious or conscience concern?

I was thinking in the more broad sense of all of these laws that are coming up.

The bathroom aspect of this law is not a religious concern. It is a privacy and safety concern. Simply opening up locker rooms and bathrooms willy nilly to any penis-bearing human that claims to be transgender is no way to handle this though. There has to be more than just someone's claimed feelings and wearing a wig and dress to just give access. I think the points raised in an earlier link I posted are appropriate to consider:

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

******

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to

, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

You can dismissively wave off valid concerns like this if you like, but the rest of us don't have to and it's not bigoted to take them seriously. Until the LBGT side of things is willing to be honest about what is really at issue here rather than throwing out disingenuous and deceptive flak about how it's tantamount to calling transgender people 'predators', the pushback will continue. And simply yelling "bigot" every time and leaning on Hollywood and Corporate America to punish them doesn't cut it.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Meanwhile, here's next group in line: "gender-fluid". It's a person whose gender identity and expression is not fixed and shifts over time or depending on the situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/living/gender-fluid-feat/index.html

Excuse me while I go see a doctor. My eyes rolled back so hard they got stuck.

[homersapien 11,353]

Someday in the not too distant future people while we are trying to organize a too-little-too-late response to global warming and wars are being fought over fresh water, people will look back at this and be aghast at the attention placed on such a trivial matter.

And there are starving people in Africa. Just because there are bigger issues in the world doesn't mean that smaller issues aren't important.

And it takes two sides to fight. But the complete dismissal of religious and conscience concerns sort of makes crafting a narrow compromise rather difficult.

How is this a religious or conscience concern?

I was thinking in the more broad sense of all of these laws that are coming up.

The bathroom aspect of this law is not a religious concern. It is a privacy and safety concern. Simply opening up locker rooms and bathrooms willy nilly to any penis-bearing human that claims to be transgender is no way to handle this though. There has to be more than just someone's claimed feelings and wearing a wig and dress to just give access. I think the points raised in an earlier link I posted are appropriate to consider:

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

******

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to

, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

You can dismissively wave off valid concerns like this if you like, but the rest of us don't have to and it's not bigoted to take them seriously. Until the LBGT side of things is willing to be honest about what is really at issue here rather than throwing out disingenuous and deceptive flak about how it's tantamount to calling transgender people 'predators', the pushback will continue. And simply yelling "bigot" every time and leaning on Hollywood and Corporate America to punish them doesn't cut it.

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

[homersapien 11,353]

Who is restricting who goes into whichever restroom now? How do you know if a given "woman" or "man" going into the women's or men's restroom is actually a transexual?

[homersapien 11,353]

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

Did this predatory behavior start with the passing of any sort of legislation? We already have laws addressing sexual assault.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

Did this predatory behavior start with the passing of any sort of legislation? We already have laws addressing sexual assault.

Hard to say. But legislation like this certainly makes it easier. How do you know if the perp is in the locker room watching women change because of voyeurism or because he/she is really a trans person? Where before someone like him would stand out like a sore thumb a lot of the time and the women could demand that he be removed, the predator can simply claim trans status and threaten lawsuits for denying "her" the right to use the locker room or restroom that they feel they identify with.

Are these serious questions? Do you really have a hard time seeing how this exacerbates a very serious problem?

[homersapien 11,353]

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

Did this predatory behavior start with the passing of any sort of legislation? We already have laws addressing sexual assault.

Hard to say. But legislation like this certainly makes it easier. How do you know if the perp is in the locker room watching women change because of voyeurism or because he/she is really a trans person? Where before someone like him would stand out like a sore thumb a lot of the time and the women could demand that he be removed, the predator can simply claim trans status and threaten lawsuits for denying "her" the right to use the locker room or restroom that they feel they identify with.

Are these serious questions? Do you really have a hard time seeing how this exacerbates a very serious problem?

What's preventing the potential perp from doing that now (prior to such legislation)?

How often has it happened?

Your argument still appears mostly hypothetical to me.