News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Blog Anonymously. Parent comment

Re:Blog Anonymously by DuskStar on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:05PM (#23797101)
"People who will use this access in an abusive fashion do not exist in significant numbers" is a valid rebuttal. "We can just add gender-neutral bathrooms" is either saying that the trans-rights folks "win" (situation #1) or that JK Rowling's side "wins" (situation #2), which is IMO not a valid rebuttal. (since it's either saying that changing labels will make things magically work, or conceding the point and saying that women and trans women should not share bathrooms)

I don't have a horse in this race, but I dislike "that's a dogwhistle" getting used more and more to end arguments.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blog Anonymously by zzo38computer on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:36PM (#23797386)
Well, I think the washrooms should be gender-neutral. That way, if one of them is full (or out of order), you can use another one. And if they only have one customer, then they don't need more than one washroom.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blog Anonymously by joshuamorton on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:08PM (#23797126)
I specifically said only gender-neutral restrooms, not additionally ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blog Anonymously by DuskStar on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:22PM (#23797269)
Right, that's what I was putting as my scenario #1. #2 is adding gender-neutral restrooms and not allowing trans women in women's restrooms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blog Anonymously by joshuamorton on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:30PM (#23797331)
Ah, then I'd clarify that gendered restrooms based on self-identification are a different option distinct from calling all existing restrooms gender neutral.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blog Anonymously by DuskStar on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:33PM (#23797361)
Well, of course! But the two scenarios were due to the upthread (GGP? something) suggestion that adding gender-neutral restrooms like SF did would resolve Rowling's complaints.
[ Parent | on HN ]