Apple's Tim Cook, other executives urge Texas not to pass anti-trans 'bathroom bill'

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    spacekid said:
    Soli said:
     This is out of control! Use the damn bathroom for the gender you were born as!    Isn't everyone tired of the scammers out there saying that they're a woman when they are really TS or TG?!   Enough is enough! 
    No one is born a gender. Gender is a cultural construct. What you're thinking of is sex.

    Based on your comments I'm guessing you'd be unhappy if a male dressed as a woman came out of a bathroom for men, and yet you stated you seem to want that person to use the bathroom for men. Should we assume that you also want that person to dress in a way that makes you feel more comfortable regardless of how it makes them feel?

    What about naturally intersex individuals. Do they get no bathroom rights because they are born with both male and female genitalia or are you saying that the percentage is so low that we can disregard their existence in society altogether because it doesn't fit into a neat the simple like construct that make us feel safe?
    Restrooms are currently constructed based on biology. Are urinals going to be required in all restrooms? What about someone claiming they're a third sex? Will governments and businesses be required to provide some facility for them? Where does it stop?
    Wait, you're saying that all men's restrooms have urinals? I never grew up with a urinal in my house and yet I got by just fine.
    netmagedysamoriajroylordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 22 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member

    There's only 2 genders. Science.

    But lets throw that out the window for politics. Yay!
    1) In terms of biology, chromosomes are important to understanding sex. Science.

    2) Sex v gender is a pretty fucking standard concept. Science.

    edited May 2017 dysamoria
  • Reply 23 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Gender is a cultural construct.

    If gender is a social construct, then there is no such thing as a “gender binary.” If this is true, how can one “transition” between “genders” or be “genderfluid?”

    1) I's because it's invented that makes it possible. It's sex that can't be fluid, at least not in organisms as complex as humans.

    2) Just because some are just now realizing the shadows on the cave wall aren't all there is to see doesn't mean this is new ground. Societies throughout time have had multiple genders to suit various needs of cultural traditions and resources of the environment. If you can't wrap your head around that then consider the social construct of marriage. There's nothing natural about it for humans as an animals, but in society there are reasons why it makes sense religious texts to make this a requirement. Why it behooved the Mormons to engage in polygamy and Tibetans living on a resource deficient plateau engage in polyandry (a woman taking multiple husbands). You may say these are wrong, but would just be you imposing your narrow view of society on the rest of the world because it doesn't conform with your comfort zone.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 24 of 84
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Soli said:
    Wait, you're saying that all men's restrooms have urinals? I never grew up with a urinal in my house and yet I got by just fine.
    Honestly, has there ever been a urinal designed that doesn't splash back on you? They're pitched as being more convenient, but how is that the case when they're messier? OH, wait a minute. I found an analysis once that showed urinals are significantly cheaper to install and maintain than regular toilets. That must be the reason. Women are lucky they even get extra stalls where our urinals are.
    jroy
  • Reply 25 of 84
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Soli said:
    1) I's because it's invented
    The implication is that it isn't. It's utter nonsense. Gender describes the articles that go in front of nouns in languages which gender them. 
    Societies throughout time have had multiple genders to suit various needs of cultural traditions and resources of the environment. 
    Yes; men hunt, women nest. Because of their biology. Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn’t create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That’s what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those predispositions. Society is not active, it is passive. Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn’t actually push back or move the stick around itself–it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression. Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.” Most men don’t want to be nurses, because it would bore them. Most women don’t want to be engineers, because it would bore them. Out of free will–a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves–we reenforce gender roles. To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it. And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women’s Studies, etc. And what are those? People-oriented tasks. Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
    ...consider the social construct of marriage.
    Yes, let's.


    There's nothing natural about it for humans as an animals…
    And the species of animals who are monogamous for their entire lives? There's nothing natural about them? You can't have this both ways.
    macseekersweetheart777
  • Reply 26 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Wait, you're saying that all men's restrooms have urinals? I never grew up with a urinal in my house and yet I got by just fine.
    Honestly, has there ever been a urinal designed that doesn't splash back on you? They're pitched as being more convenient, but how is that the case when they're messier? OH, wait a minute. I found an analysis once that showed urinals are significantly cheaper to install and maintain than regular toilets. That must be the reason. Women are lucky they even get extra stalls where our urinals are.
    They are more efficient for getting a large number of men to pee quickly. Urinal troughs date back to at least the Romans.
    jroy
  • Reply 27 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member

    Yes; men hunt, women nest. 
    That ridiculous statement alone shows you're not prepared for a conversation on biology, psychology, anthropology, or sociology.
    dysamoriasingularitylordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 28 of 84

    Make all public bathrooms single occupancy only. I only pee or poop in public out of necessity and don't care to do it with ANYONE, regardless of their gender identity.

    tallest skillordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 29 of 84
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    holyone said:
    I don't mean to sound naive or careless, I live in a different country where this would be an odd discussion but, how is this even a problem, I get the point about identity, but aren't restrooms divided on mechanical lines ? As in you go to the bath room that matches you're equipment, in part boys stand and girls sit, no ?, I mean if I was a guy trapped in a girls body not being able to wiz standing up would bother me more than not being allowed in with the fellers no ?
    Both bathrooms have toilets that accommodate anyone. No one HAS to use urinals. It's not a matter of mechanics.

    I'm a guy. I don't like urinals. I wish they didn't exist because men are sloppy and piss all over the floor. 

    As for the rest, it really shouldn't be an issue. Enter the bathroom, go to the stall, close the door behind you. Do your thing. Finish and leave to the sink to wash your hands. No one is being assaulted by transgendered people in restrooms. The conservative and religious republicans are just trying to control people and punish them for being anything other than what religious books and dogma proclaim to be the "only way".
    jroyrobin huberlordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 30 of 84
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    And the species of animals who are monogamous for their entire lives? There's nothing natural about them? You can't have this both ways.
    There are no such things as animals who are monogamous for their entire lives. It's a myth promoted by humans who think they need to prove monogamy is natural (while ignoring everything about nature) and "necessary".

    Here're some references for you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQdLhOQf5c&list=UUeiYXex_fwgYDonaTcSIk6w&feature=c4-overview

    Albatrosses:

    "These life-long partnerships give the impression that the albatrosses are monogamous, remaining strictly faithful to their partners. But the evidence says otherwise. In 2006, a genetic analysis showed that more than 10 per cent of chicks had a sire from outside the parental pair-bond.

    The latest study found an even higher level of infidelity. Genevieve Jones and colleagues of the University of Cape Town in South Africa followed the Marion Island colony for three years, and found that 18 per cent of chicks had an extra-pair sire." Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22063-zoologger-inbred-wandering-albatrosses-sleep-around/

    Angelfish:

    "Well, if they are mine aren't! I basically have a community tank w/tetras, angels, cories, bn pleco and gold algae eaters. My two females are taking turns with the male." Source: https://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/threads/are-angelfish-supposed-to-be-monogamous.229835/#post-2399504

    Then there's this beast (Angler):

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler

    Bald Eagles:

    It seems there hasn't been a study on bald eagles similar to the ones that have shown the other formally assumed monogamous birds are actually sexually non-monogamous, but the likelihood is good that they have similar behavior, based on what is being seen in other avian species.

    Beavers:

    "Beavers are generally monogamous and mate for life. They usually only take a new partner after losing one, but occasionally practice other mating strategies."

    i love the language here: "...occasionally practice other mating strategies"... That means they have sex with non-social bonded partners. They can't stand to say it directly. Source: http://www.landscouncil.org/beaverso.../facts_on_beavers.asp

    General:

    "Researchers in animal behavior have long known that monogamy is uncommon in the natural world, but only with the advent of DNA "fingerprinting" have we come to appreciate how truly rare it is. Genetic testing has recently shown that even among many bird species -- long touted as the epitome of monogamous fidelity -- it is not uncommon for 6% to 60% of the young to be fathered by someone other than the mother's social partner. As a result, we now know scientifically what most people have long known privately: that social monogamy does not necessarily imply sexual monogamy." Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/opinion/la-oe-barash22-2009nov22

    Penguins:

    "Emperor Penguins are serially monogamous. They have only one mate each year, and stay faithful to that mate. However, fidelity between years is only about 15%." Their domesticity lasts only for the current breeding season. Source: Wikipedia.

    Swans:

    "Swans have long been renowned as symbols of lifelong fidelity and devotion, but our recent work has shown that infidelity is rife among black swans," said Raoul Mulder from the University of Melbourne's zoology department. Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Myth-of-Monogamous-Swans-25965.shtml

    Well written article about monogamy's unnaturalness:

    "Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment -- the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries -- when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world.

    But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance.

    The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage -- regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations."

    [...] "The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth "practice any form of monogamy." In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/index.html

    Solijroylordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 31 of 84
    thedbathedba Posts: 758member
    True story here:
    Was at a theatre recently and there was a long lineup outside the women's bathroom during the intermission. 
    This girl had to pee I guess and walked right into the men's room, entered a stall, did her business, washed her hands and went back to her seat. 
    Didn't bother any of us guys in the least bit. I guess in some states she would've been arrested? 

    I also saw a comment about choosing to be gay. Well in that case, can that person give us the exact date he/she decided to be heterosexual?


    jroydysamorialordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 32 of 84
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,932member
    justme12 said:
    Hey Cook - you have not once had enough supply to meet demand of idevice launches - try and concentrate on your so called "genius of the supply chain" instead of homosexual politics. But we all know it is too late for that. You will never be competent enough to meet supply of the Apple market place for your devices. Apple Inc. truly has lost it way.
    Gee, haven't heard this meme before. 
    fastasleepsweetheart777
  • Reply 33 of 84
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Soli said:
    Urinal troughs date back to at least the Romans.
    THOSE! Yes, you're right about those. The troughs in the super fancy locales that have water running down them constantly; they'd be able to stop splashback.
    They are more efficient for getting a large number of men to pee quickly. 
    I just had the most horrible thought/correlation about Golden Corral's fondue station… *shudder*
    Soli said:
    That ridiculous statement alone shows you're not prepared for a conversation on biology, psychology, anthropology, or sociology.
    Uh huh. Sure. Where do you imagine people came from, exactly? NOT A FUCKING ARGUMENT. No matter a person's interpretation, the same conclusion is reached by taking things all the way back to the beginning.
    dysamoria said:
    There are no such things as animals who are monogamous for their entire lives.
    I can't be the only fucking person on Earth who does research before spouting off on shit. I can't. I refuse to believe it. I know that liberals don't do it, by necessity, because they're driven solely by emotion and a mental delusion (lol they think that relativism is legitimate) that would destroy their worldview if they believed in objective truth. But non-liberals–there ARE plenty of those. Fucking hell. Even Wikipedia proves you wrong. This took me less than ten seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals#Monogamous_species

    Feel free to update the page, since obviously it's wrong. See how long it stays up before it's reverted. That's the real test of truth these days, isn't it? What the majority (or what you are told the majority) thinks is "cool"? What hurts the least feelings; that's true, definitely.
    It's a myth promoted by humans who think they need to prove monogamy is natural
    We all know you're talking about something else. You're also wrong about that, too.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 34 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Where do you imagine people came from, exactly?
    That's your reason for making the absolute statement men hunt and women nest? One, that's not how procreation works. It's not even how society works. Two, your mindset does shed light on your previous comments suggesting that women should be considered no more than chattel.
    singularitydysamorialordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 35 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    I can't be the only fucking person on Earth who does research before spouting off on shit. I can't. I refuse to believe it. I know that liberals don't do it, by necessity, because they're driven solely by emotion and a mental delusion (lol they think that relativism is legitimate) that would destroy their worldview if they believed in objective truth. But non-liberals–there ARE plenty of those. Fucking hell. Even Wikipedia proves you wrong. This took me less than ten seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals#Monogamous_species

    Feel free to update the page, since obviously it's wrong. See how long it stays up before it's reverted. That's the real test of truth these days, isn't it? What the majority (or what you are told the majority) thinks is "cool"? What hurts the least feelings; that's true, definitely.
    1) Says the guy that claims that men are designed to only hunt and women to only nest. Says the guy that doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

    2) If humans were designed to be monogamous then we wouldn't need so many religious/societal rules governing our sexual relations.
    dysamorialordjohnwhorfinfastasleep
  • Reply 36 of 84
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    Q: I'm a guy, can I go into the ladies toilets?

    A: No.

    Q: Why not? The ladies' is cleaner.

    A: It would make them uncomfortable.

    Q: You mean facilities are gender-specific for the comfort of the majority?

    People may identify as something they're not but that doesn't mean we all have to identify them as something they're not. Perhaps they should have received psychiatric help not surgery for their denial/delusion/defiance. Either way, majority interest should prevail.
    edited May 2017 buzdots
  • Reply 37 of 84
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 452member
    mcdave said:
    Q: I'm a guy, can I go into the ladies toilets?

    A: No.

    Q: Why not? The ladies' is cleaner.

    LOL, every ladies bathroom I have ever been in is a friggin mess!
    (Don't read anything into that)
    9secondkox2
  • Reply 38 of 84
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,568member
    Men and women should use separate bathrooms. Period. there is freedom for those who want to "identify" however they please. Great. 

    But it shouldnt trample on the values values of others. No daughter should have a mans sexual way of identifying himself, surgically or otherwise, invade her privacy and vice versa. 

    Apple amd and other tech companies shouldn't be voicing their CEOs personal values in trying to influence state governments in such matters. 
    edited May 2017 linkman
  • Reply 39 of 84
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,568member
    Soli said:

    There's only 2 genders. Science.

    But lets throw that out the window for politics. Yay!
    1) In terms of biology, chromosomes are important to understanding sex. Science.

    2) Sex v gender is a pretty fucking standard concept. Science.

    ...and yet..."transGENDER..."

    allmypeople is correct. 
  • Reply 40 of 84
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Men and women should use separate bathrooms. Period. there is freedom for those who want to "identify" however they please. Great. 

    But it shouldnt trample on the values values of others. No daughter should have a mans sexual way of identifying himself invade her privacy and vice versa. 

    Apple amd and other tech companies shouldn't be voicing their CEOs personal values in trying to influence state governments in such matters. 
    1) It's odd that you don't mention sons.

    2) What about someone of the same sex doing something unsavory in front or or toward your child in a bathroom, or do you think that the LGBTQ community are the ones that  diddle children? The Jerry Sandusky's are the people you need to worry about, not people born whose plumbing doesn't match their programming.

    3) What does a father or mother do when they need to help out a child of a different sex? Are they suppose to go in the bushes outside a public bathroom because you see the  placard on a single-occupancy bathroom as canon? Or maybe fathers should never spend time with daughter or mothers with sons?

    4) What about a man/woman identifying and looking like the opposite sex using the bathroom of their birth sex but not looking like the "identification" you've prescribed for that bathroom? Are you really going to force them verify they do or don't have a dick before you let them relive their bladder and/or bowel? Did you even think about these scenarios? Why the fuck are people so concerned about people taking a shit and piss that they'd want to shit and piss all over the rights of other human beings. We're talking about using the potty, not measuring dick size so there's no need for all the insecurity.
    dysamoriaStrangeDaysfastasleep
This discussion has been closed.