
Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law - acdanger
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/11/11410956/porn-site-xhamster-north-carolina-block
======
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.)

~~~
jobigoud
We had single-person restrooms at my previous work, shared by multiple
companies.

In one building they were gender neutral. As far as I can see, everyone was
fine with it. Then we moved to another building where the bathrooms had gender
pictograms on them although they were identical in every other respect. Some
males eventually went to the female-stamped bathroom when the other was
occupied. And someone attached a note in the female bathroom to remind
everyone that this was a female-only bathroom…

------
scrabble
I can't see this having a big impact on law makers. Is porn in limited supply
now?

~~~
coldpie
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.

~~~
partiallypro
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.

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

~~~
coldpie
The status quo _is_ what we had before. This law changes which bathrooms
people are allowed to use:
[https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144](https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144)

------
ocdtrekkie
Wouldn't the better stab at NC be to just offer LGBT porn in the state?

~~~
andrewclunn
Would restricting people to lesbian porn even be considered a boycott?

------
return0
Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation
before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.

~~~
ElComradio
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.

~~~
jwn
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
identifying with a given gender versus some guy who wishes to get into the
women's restroom.

~~~
wehadfun
The problem with that approach is women don't feel comfortable using the
bathroom with a man, regardless of what he claims to be. So who's rights are
more important? The born women's or the born man's?

~~~
ergothus
So then you introduce someone that has female genitalia, but looks from all
outward respects to be male (possibly including facial hair if they're on
hormone therapy). By law in NC this person is required to use the women's
restroom. Does that increase comfort for either of them?

Example:
[https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144/photo/...](https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144/photo/1)

Frankly, while I like being comfortable, one should always think twice before
passing laws purely for the purpose of increasing comfort. (Particularly in
this case, where the discomfort appears to be far more theoretical than
common). When I think of the society my grandparents, or even, heck, my
PARENTS found "comfortable", I would feel very sad to live there.

------
wnevets
according to reddit, its not actually blocking users. It displays a popup that
can be dismissed.

------
lbaskin
Assuming this is a positive development, I wonder where else xHamster is also
blocking access - what about large parts of the Middle East and Africa?

~~~
shas3
Shouldn't we all hold US to higher standards than MENA, etc.?

~~~
dudul
Because...?

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

~~~
dudul
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 the US have higher standards than, say, India, Australia, Italy and
Argentina?

I just wanted to understand the parent comment.

~~~
abiox
> _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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar)

------
tryitnow
I applaud their commitment to a good cause, but this seems kind of like a
double victory for the moralizers who passed this law.

------
liquidzoot
You say that like it's a bad thing.

~~~
chirau
Do you mean the law or the porn?

~~~
liquidzoot
I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something
ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers
fighting for equality is a joke.

~~~
ethanbond
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.

~~~
liquidzoot
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently
and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave
that to you to sort out. I think though that for one of several dozen
companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere,
republican or not. They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress
is fundamentally incompatible with their business.

~~~
coldpie
> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is
> inherently and irredeemably bad.

While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to
take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid
downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.

~~~
falcolas
Personally, I disagree with his tone and "you do the research for why I'm
right". It doesn't contribute to this discussion in any way.

~~~
liquidzoot
I realize that not everyone accepts that pornography is inherently harmful as
a medium, and thought to avoid that discussion (which has been going on for
longer than we've been alive) in favor of discussing how futile this act of
faux solidarity is.

------
idiocracy2016
What's next, whores say they wont provide prostitution to a state that bans
prostitution?

"You can't fire me, I quit!"

~~~
abiox
seems like a faulty comparison.

------
carsongross
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.

~~~
verandaguy
It may seem like a lack of self-awareness at first, but I'm almost sure this
is because NC is one of the states where lesbian porn is among the top
searches, according to PornHub's annual map[0].

So really, it's more just xHamster trying to cut down on hypocrisy.

[0]:
[https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg2...](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg21auxwsh.png?w=560&h=414)

~~~
fizzbatter
Exactly. Not that it would work, but if you could manage to cut out all porn
from NC, it would serve as both a protest against them while also making them
suffer in silence. Afterall, i doubt most of these conservative anti-gay
groups believe porn is okay - it's an immoral sin, just as being gay is.

As i disclaimed, it's a big if, an impossible if. As much as i'd love to see
these people suffer in this uniquely funny way, prohibition never works.

------
cristianpascu
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 ignore physical gender. If that will
ever happen.

My concern is two fold. One, for transgender persons, who will fear the
reaction they will get every time they enter the restroom. And second,
basically any person can claim to be of the opposite gender, and walk in to
fulfill a sexual fantasy, even a mild one.

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. Especially considering the high
rates of mental illness and suicidal thoughts and attempts among transgender
persons. This, for now, will only add to that. Do they really need to be
subjects in a future study that will show the impact of such laws? Or used as
ammunition for 'transphobia' accusations in the media or elsewhere? Will the
victims of the first line in the war of imposing a policy in the society be
really worth it, especially if that increases their chances of committing
suicide?

~~~
coldpie
> 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](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.

~~~
return0
That tweet espouses way more stereotypes than it's supposed to mock.

~~~
abiox
Care to elaborate?

~~~
return0
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.

~~~
abiox
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.

~~~
return0
I believe it's women who are more concerned about this than men.

