North Carolina Loses 400 Jobs as PayPal Pulls Facility over ‘Bathroom Bill’

So where do we put these?

Dragon lady: Tiamat is November 2012, before undergoing nose and ear surgery. She has had extensive cosmetic treatments and body modification, including facial tattooing and 'horns' on her forehead

Tiamat in February 2016: In recent years she had her ears removed as part of her quest to become a 'dragon'
Painful: Tiamat before (left) and after (right) her reptilian nose modification, with visible stitching. The procedure was carried out by professional body modification artist Emilio Gonzales in April 2015
In recent years she had her ears removed as part of her quest to become a 'dragon'
-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.
forked tongue to I guess.
before with his Mother



After transformed to female dragon

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: snowspirit

No, no, I am talking about physical women who think they are men. We are talking about people who are physically one gender but think they are the other and want to use the bathroom of the gender they think they are, not the one they physically are.

So, a the woman who thinks she is a man should have to use the men's room.

Are you telling me that this person would be safe as a physical female in the men's restroom?

a reply to: Freija


I would bet just about anything that less than 5% of all these extortionist have made special accommodations in all of their facilities.

a reply to: Annee

hmm... first I agree with the cost problem, but well, future stores, resturants, schools ect, could meet this need with no problem. second as we have it now, in the malls the mens and lady's bathrooms are down halls in remote places, each have a door, which well, shouldn't really be locked because it is shared space, then you have stalls next to one another, with open area on the bottom and the top, with doors that may lock, but might not. there is nothing whatsoever stopping someone from going into that bathroom anyways, and well, once they are in, they are in a nice space with on exit that they can easily block the person from exiting from... and well if it's at a slow time in the mall, there's a safe bet that no one will interrupt them. at least with my idea, you have your private little area, with a solid wooden door that you can lock between yourself and the rest of the world. and well, once you walk out of that area, you are facing the same risk as anyone who would be walking down that hall in the mall to get to the restroom! and those hallways are really that long, and there is a better chance that people might be walking by to notice that you are being attacked, the hallway is wider, the attacker can't block you exit as easily.

a reply to: TheBulk

but for anyone who is in that women's restroom when the person walks in, what are they going to see??? A MAN!!! or don't their comfort and security matter to you?

a reply to: ketsuko

Ahh, I think I get what you mean. Not transgendered but identify as the other sex?

I think they'd only be safe in a men restroom if they can actually pass for a man, short hair, no makeup, dress like a man, no breasts visible, etc.

If they still look female (different than feminine), they're not safe in a men's room.

So much relies on how a person actually looks.....

a reply to: dawnstar

Well done PayPal!

These backward fools in North Carolina were warned about this.
This bill is nothing more than a Conservative attack on the rights and freedoms of other Americans, it's a disgusting, hateful, ignorant attack on Americans and plenty of companies have made it clear that if such ignorant laws were implemented they would be leaving the state and reversing plans to invest there.

This is NOT about bathrooms.

This is about an ignorant government being led by ignorant Republican bible-thumpers in a desperate effort to maintain the hegemony they are losing all over the country.

This law, like others attempted in other states, will be reversed. If not, the state will continue to see investment leaving, the youth leaving, young families leaving.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: ketsuko

Ahh, I think I get what you mean. Not transgendered but identify as the other sex?

I think they'd only be safe in a men restroom if they can actually pass for a man, short hair, no makeup, dress like a man, no breasts visible, etc.

If they still look female (different than feminine), they're not safe in a men's room.

So much relies on how a person actually looks.....

Exactly! And when we are talking about people who identify as female but still look male who want to share the women's restroom, this causes unrest with the women. The laws being discussed don't differentiate between the fully transitioned and those who just sort of say "I feel like a woman" slap on a dress and go about their business before walking into a restroom, and if you ask someone who is blatantly masculine ... you open yourself up for accusations of discrimination because what if they are someone who feels like a woman?

There is no definition or delineation in these laws. They just seem to cover every category.

It makes people nervous and angry. Not to mention, if we are protecting them so they don't feel uncomfortable, what gives the law the right to make everyone else feel nervous and uncomfortable like they felt just to make them happy?

This is why the family restroom is the best answer that I keep going back to.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheBulk

but for anyone who is in that women's restroom when the person walks in, what are they going to see??? A MAN!!! or don't their comfort and security matter to you?

Hey, I've seen some Butch Lesbians that were born with a vagina.

Most transgenders seem to strongly value their appearance. They do not want to present their birth gender.

a reply to: Rocker2013

We'll see.

I'd like two or three states go down these routes and let the dust settle to see if true discriminatory armageddon actually does happen or if things actually aren't what people say they will be ...

You know ... kind of like how everyone was all in favor of letting Colorado legalize pot just to "show those zealots" that the world wouldn't self-destruct or something.

You know. This is sort of what federalism and the states are all about.

originally posted by: ketsuko

It makes people nervous and angry. Not to mention, if we are protecting them so they don't feel uncomfortable, what gives the law the right to make everyone else feel nervous and uncomfortable like they felt just to make them happy?

Other countries do it.

Once it becomes the norm, few will care. They'll just go about doing rtheir business.

a reply to: Annee

Other people jump off bridges and tall buildings too, but that doesn't mean I instantly feel compelled to go out and do so.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Transgender have been offered family or unisex facilities and turned them down as "discriminatory" here in the states. They WILL compel us to accept them in the restrooms of their choice or nothing similar to how gays will compel everyone to accept their marriages and participate or nothing.

Man, you are just FULL of bs!

Transgender people have demanded the use of the facilities for the gender they identify as. This means that someone who LIVES AS A WOMAN would use female facilities, and someone who LIVES AS A MAN would use male.

You people are so ignorant that you don't even understand what your ridiculous laws mean. Consider this for a damned minute and maybe that reasonably intelligence will kick in...

If a person is (legally) female but lives AS A MAN, they will be forced under these idiotic laws to walk into a FEMALE restroom looking like a man!
Can you not understand how utterly moronic this is?

By forcing these laws you are forcing people who LIVE AS THEIR PROPER GENDER into the WRONG facilities. Unless you're now going to start banning people entirely from using any restrooms, or start criminalizing clothing, what the f is your solution?

originally posted by: ketsuko
There is no concept of accommodation.

From the ignorant conservatives?
Yeah, you're right.

this kinda covers it.
a transvestite, someone dressing up as the other sex couldnt use opposite sex toilets.
transgender, going through the change, meds, operations could.
little billy claiming he wants to be a girl to shower with them wouldn't wash (pun intended).
as for the paedo argument, they usually prefer grooming and actual physical assault, rather than noncing on kids in toilets.
and they usually go for same sex kids to abuse making a confusing argument baffling.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The family restroom which happens to be freaking unisex. Ever heard of it?

PS, I am not a man. Get a clue.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course I understand and don't talk down to me like you do everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

I don't care what people do but when it comes to bathrooms the answer isn't so clear as you think.

The regressive left doesn't have all the answers even though they think they're morally superior.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'd like two or three states go down these routes and let the dust settle to see if true discriminatory armageddon actually does happen or if things actually aren't what people say they will be ...

Indeed, we're already seeing it

Events are being cancelled
Companies are reversing expansion plans.
More companies are planning to leave.
Other states are denying travel for their officials.
Sporting events are reconsidering their involvement there.

I know for a fact there are a lot of young people planning to leave. And why would they stay when there's going to be nothing for them?

College Student Educators International has just cancelled their planned event there, they thought they would lose out on all the hotel costs they'd already booked for but even the HOTEL CHAIN understood and let them off the cancellation charges, HELPING them to move the event to another state and still use their hotel chain

Even companies with a history in the state are disgusted with this law and are helping companies and individuals to boycott.

a reply to: snowspirit

I don't think it matters how they look as far as this law is concerned, what matters if what they were born as!! the fact that they wrote this law like they did not considering the fact that there are some who have had their bodies modified so that they are more the opposite sex in appearance, well that just tells me that it's a crappy law that really didn't have safety as an issue, or people's peace of mind as much of an issue period!! this was just them being religious bigots coddling other religious bigots! either that or it was written to further the gay's agenda, because believe me when I tell you that a law that forces someone who looks very much like a male into the lady's room is not gonna be received too well by the little old ladies in the state, no matter what sex they were born as!

someone posted a bunch of pictures of kids who were transgendered. I am not even gonna ask why some of those young kids are transgendered, at first I thought maybe they were those kids I mentioned before who were born with the traits of both sexes, but it appears not.. but well, many of those kids don't look like they were old enough to make a responsible decision as to weather or not they wanted to have their sex changed and have grown up as little boys and little girls, it's all they remember. and in the cases of those kids I asked about, hey this could be rather disasterous since well, I highly doubt that mommy and daddy have told them about how they chose their sex for them and they might not even remember it! there are saner ways to address the problem.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
The regressive left

That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

Hopefully more and more states will see sense and stop this stupidity.