Hacker News Reader

Comment by Helmet | Hacker News Reader

>In short, I did not want to live in a state where the legislature had nothing better to do than fight the culture war to win votes for the next election.

California doesn't fight the culture war? California is the primary exporter of the left-wing culture. It just happens to conform to your political leanings, so you like it there. And THAT'S OKAY, I'm not saying you are wrong, you're just now on the side that you agree with.

>Yeah, I cant buy a house in san jose

Who cares about home ownership when you can use whatever public toilet you want!

View on HN

Who care about owning a house when you can't marry the person you want to live in it with. When you can't fill it with the kids you both want. When you can't sleep together.

Anti-gay sex laws were judged unconstitutional in '03 (yes shockingly late). You can have sex with whomever you want, above the age of consent.

The point isn't what the law is, the point is what some people would have it be.

California isn't denying people fundamental rights. That's the difference.

"Who cares about home ownership when you can use whatever public toilet you want!"

You mean they're allowed to exist in public? If you are not allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to your identity, you're basically not allowed to use the bathroom in public at all. Which means you're not really allowed to be in public at all.

You know, a couple weeks ago, I was reading a link (from HN, IIRC) about liberal (really!) feminists who didn't want to share a public bathroom with someone who was genetically male but self-described as female. They viewed it as males defining what female is.

The article went on to describe how feminists who hold such views have been subject to literal physical attack by others on the left.

I'm pretty sure I can paint something in that as "denying people fundamental rights"...

This is the sort of reasoning and rhetoric that pushes people like me, political moderates, away from the left.

If I’m following you correctly here, because you can’t use whichever public toilet you want, you are denied a fundamental right, stripped of all public personhood, and not allowed to even venture outside at all.

Are you being serious or are you trolling me?

I never meant me, personally. But a trans person, absolutely. Having to use a misgendered bathroom can not only be extremely uncomfortable, it can be extremely dangerous. A trans woman going into a men's room faces a very real threat of rape or assault.

And, quite frankly, being unable to empathise with those who are different than you kinda indicates to me you never were inclined to the left, and used that opening paragraph to drum up fake support.

Why not let anyone use any toilet regardless of identity?

If it's unjust to segregate public facilities on the basis of sex, it's certainly unjust to segregate said facilities on the basis of gender identity.

"Why not let anyone use any toilet regardless of identity?"

That's the idea behind single person restroom facilities, and it's a pretty good one. Unfortunately, in many places it just isn't feasible to renovate the existing facilities. And having a multi user restroom not be set up like that exposes people to the same dangers as if a trans woman was forced to use the men's room.

What does a single-person facility have to do with it? Why is it legitimate to segregate multi-person facilities based on gender identity but not on sex?

If men’s restrooms are dangerous for trans women then certainly they are dangerous for gay or gender-nonconforming men as well. These men certainly have as much right to avoid a dangerous situation as trans women do, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com