TEXAS: IBM Publishes Full-Page Ads Opposing Anti-Trans “Bathroom Bill” In Advance Of Special Session

The Dallas Morning News reports:

IBM is upping the ante in its fight against Texas’ so-called “bathroom bill,” dispatching top executives to Austin and waging an ad war against what it calls the “discriminatory legislation.”

Before state lawmakers reconvene Tuesday for a special legislative session, the technology giant is taking out full-page advertisements in The Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News and Austin American-Statesman opposing the legislation they say discriminates against transgender Texans.

IBM will also send 20 employees, including top executives like Senior Vice President for Human Resources Diane Gherson and Chief Diversity Officer Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, to the Capitol on Tuesday to express their opposition to the bills in person.

More from the Texas Tribune:

In an internal email sent Monday to thousands of employees around the world, IBM’s human resources chief outlined the New York-based company’s opposition to what the letter described as discriminatory proposals to regulate bathroom use for transgender Texans.

IBM sent the letter to employees the same day it dispatched nearly 20 top executives to the Lone Star State to lobby lawmakers at the state Capitol. A day earlier, it took out full-page ads in major Texas newspapers underlining its opposition to legislation that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and a cadre of far-right lawmakers have deemed a top priority.

“Why Texas? And why now? On July 18th, the Texas legislature will start a thirty-day special session, where it is likely some will try to advance a discriminatory ‘bathroom bill’ similar to the one that passed in North Carolina last year,” wrote Diane Gherson, IBM’s senior vice president for human resources. “It is our goal to convince Texas elected officials to abandon these efforts.”

  • How many people does IBM employ in Texas?

    • BobSF_94117

      More than they should.

    • johncAtl

      They don’t publish numbers, but it is substantial.

      • John30013

        Yep. They have a huge presence in Austin particularly.

  • Bluto
    • Todd20036


    • TheManicMechanic

      Lion, bear, tiger! Sulu!

      • Beagle

        Oh, my!

        • TheManicMechanic

          I realize it’s meant to say, “Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!” but I took it literally. 😉

  • Very proud to be a sys admin for an AIX system today!

    • Frostbite

      Just one system? Ok. How many LPARs?

      • Just two. It’s a host system for a mid-sized credit union, so we’re not doing anything too heavy.

  • Joe in PA

    Wow, how the world has changed. I worked for a tech company back in the late 70s…IBM was one of the MOST conservative places to work (next to the one I worked for). Good for you IBM!

    • Frostbite

      I have several friends who work for various divisions of IBM. They all say how diverse it is these days. Good for IBM.

      • John30013

        I work for IBM (although I do not speak for them). I can attest that they are very committed to diversity in their workforce. There are plenty of things to complain about related to IBM’s treatment of its workers, but its commitment to diversity definitely is not one of those things.

    • Todd20036

      It’s no longer profitable to be bigoted.
      In that much, the world has changed dramatically.

  • Frostbite

    Anti-trans today, anti-gay tomorrow, anti-minority the next day. IBM sees where this is going. Good for them to take a stand now.

    • Jonathan Smith

      shouldn’t that read “Anti-Trans today, anti-gay today, anti-minority forever”?

      • Todd20036

        In thought, yes. In deed… maybe.

        • Dorothyjgreen

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa88d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash88MediaClubGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa88l..,.

    • Scott G Slanda

      Have you even READ the bill? I have, and would be interested what specific provision you find problematic.

      • Hanwi
        • Scott G Slanda

          Excellent! And what provision do you find problematic? That was my sincere question.

          • Hanwi

            Specifically segregating facility use by biological sex.

          • Chicago joe

            Someone wandered over here from brietbart……best to,let them wither away from lack of attention

          • Hanwi

            I agree that it won’t do any good but I’m not afraid to debate someone with a differing opinion. The far left has largely lost the ability to debate, that is why they lose politically. The ability to debate carries with it the ability to change minds. Blocking people who disagree with any opinion and riding off on ones percieved moral high horse is not the answer.

          • Leo

            As if the far right hasn’t lost the ability to debate too – your moral relativism is part of the problem. Not tolerating intolerance is not a moral high horse. What exactly is your answer?

          • Hanwi

            I agree the far right is an inverse of the far left, they are both diseases. Getting rid of political radicalism would be a good place to start although it seems that is where we are at in this politically polarizing time.

            Talking to people and rational compromise is the only way forward.

          • -M-

            And, obviously,
            1) some people won’t listen or debate in good faith but
            2) you’re never going to reach those who might if you refuse to address differing points of view.

            In other words:
            3) Yes, obvious troll is obvious but idiotic talking points can still be pointed out and addressed so that their illusion of plausibility isn’t left unchallenged to confuse the issues for those who might listen to reason.

            So, far from exhaustive and in no particular order:

            The gender on your birth certificate or ID is not a biological fact.

            ‘Biological gender’ is a meaninglessly vague term on its own. Unless you specify what you’re referring to, it could mean external anatomy, internal anatomy, hormonal, cytological, chromosomal, or genetic gender – and that’s before getting into questions of gender identity or physical transitioning. We can’t really suppose it’s right or possible or constructive to force men or women whose karyotype or internal anatomy don’t match their appearance to discomfort themselves and others by choosing gender segregated facilities based on invisible attributes.

            This is intrusive legislation, harassing innocent people, serving no legitimate purpose, that complicates the situation rather than simplifying it, by having one bad and not necessarily simple to implement standard for government facilities (government offices, public colleges etc.) and no general standard for public facilities on private premises (malls, stores, private sector workplaces…).

            As long as we have men’s rooms and women’s rooms, the ‘poor weak frightened womenfolk’ these bills are allegedly intended to protect are going to have to share with either transwomen (as they have been doing without any significant problems for the cis-gender women and as the transgender rights protection ordinances would have it) or transmen (as these antitrans, identity politics, bathroom bills would have it). Making people who look like and live as men use the women’s facilities would if anything make it harder to protect women from the predatory men who are supposedly willing to claim trans identity in order to peep. And also numerically most women who look like ‘a man in a dress’ and get harassed for it are going to be cis-gender women, so you’re throwing them under the bus along with the transgender people just for the sake of right-wing political correctness regarding gender.

          • prixator

            Excellent response!

          • The_Wretched

            “sincere question.” <—bs, you're concern trolling.

          • Frostbite

            Those would be Sections 7 & 8.

          • Scott G Slanda

            7 and 8 are definitions, if I’m reading it right, for “Single-occupancy bathroom or changing facility” and “State agency”. Correct me if you’re referring to a different part of the proposed law. These definitions are used in other parts of the doc but don’t actually allow/forbid anything.

          • Frostbite

            SECTIONA7.AASection 250.008, Local Government Code, as added by this Act, applies to an order, ordinance, or other measure adoptedbefore,on,oraftertheeffectivedateofthisAct.

            SECTIONA8.AASection 271.909, Local Government Code, as added by this Act, applies only to a contract awarded on or after the effectivedateofthisAct

            I’m on mobile, pardon the bad copy and paste job. These sections invalidate existing protection laws enacted by local governments and prevent future ones from being passed. Pages 11-12.

          • Scott G Slanda

            We’re probably getting to the root of a philosophical difference.
            The first part of the statute forbids any government from ordering a private establishment how to its facilities are to be used (250.008(b)). No one can tell a business owner he has to allow transgenders in, nor that he can’t. In such a situation, one plus is if the owner is a bigot then it will clear for all to see and his business can face the scrutiny of the public. It’s little-known that Plessy v Ferguson (where SCOTUS said racial discrimination was OK) was a suit brought by the railroad company who didn’t want to pay for separate facilities for their black and white customers. The problem was the state (Louisiana) wanted to force discrimination when the market was trying to end it. SCOTUS saying private businesses have to be free to respond to the public demands of the market would have kept us out of this mess entirely.
            Now, the law DOES say “biological gender” and make requirements for government facilities like schools (769.051), but such institutions under this law are free to create single occupancy facilities that are NOT labelled for any gender, but are open to all.
            I know this is the point where we might diverge most. But thanks for addressing the facts and not falling into the apocalypticism that seems so prevalent in these discussions.

          • The_Wretched

            “No one can tell a business owner he has to allow transgenders in”

            Time to play bigotry roulette:
            “No one can tell a business owner he has to allow blacks in”
            “No one can tell a business owner he has to allow jews in”
            “No one can tell a business owner he has to allow christians in”
            “No one can tell a business owner he has to allow bald people in”

            As for your other point about bigots being weeded out by the market, the history of Jim Crowe shows that’s not true.

          • Scott G Slanda

            Actually, I’d agree with all those statements.
            The problem here is I think your history is backwards. Jim Crow laws were inflicted by legislatures on businesses that did NOT want to discriminate. Freedom is inherently anti-discriminatory, which was the point of my Plessy v Ferguson example: it was private industry that tried to overturn these discriminatory laws because they’re stupid, expensive, and actually counter-productive.
            I don’t think a Muslim bakery should be required to bake a gay wedding cake, and I don’t think a gay photographer should be required to photograph a Klan rally. But as current trends go, both soon will be.

          • The_Wretched

            “But as current trends go, both soon will be.”
            It’s been steady and regular law that businesses don’t get to discriminate.

          • Scott G Slanda

            Except when the law forces them to discriminate, which is my point.
            They just make a mess of things. And don’t think the law will always boss businesses around in the correct way. Soon, they’ll be bossing businesses around in stupid ways again, because legislatures are not forums of wisdom, they’re mobs. My wish is to have large swaths of civil society where they just have to butt out.

          • The_Wretched

            They can “butt out” by not passing this piece of misleading legislation.

          • Frostbite

            Here’s the meat of my issue with this. If you open a public business, to take advantage of all of the benefits of operating a public business, then you agree to adhere to the rules of operating a public business, one of those being you serve the public. All of the public. You don’t get to pick and choose who you get to serve. The public pays taxes that fund the police who protect your business, the fire department who will put your burning business out when it’s burning down, or the judge who will protect your business from a frivolous lawsuit and a whole lot more don’t get to discriminate against you, you don’t get to discriminate against the public.

            If you can’t agree to the rules, don’t open a public business. Plain and simple. Don’t open one and claim you didn’t know the rules afterwards, if you’re that stupid you shouldn’t be in business to begin with. Running a business is not a “right”, being treated equally and fairly is. Discrimination is not a “right” either, and should not be for a public business that takes advantage of public dollars. I certainly don’t want my taxpayer dollars assisting any business that discriminates against anyone.

            The GOP is all for “less regulation” unless it’s something they want to regular against, then they’re all for it. This law is nothing but discrimination wrapped in a “save the children” disguise. Last week I read about yet another pedophile priest who took photos of young females in bathrooms. I have yet to see a single law prohibiting clergy from bathrooms.

            PvF was decided in 1896, we’ve come a long way since then. I highly doubt that case would have the same outcome if brought before the court today.

          • Scott G Slanda

            You make a good point about public businesses being beneficiaries of public expenditures. I’ve always said, if you take someone’s money, they get to call the shots. I’ll have to consider the point you make, which I hadn’t considered before.
            The PvF point I was making was, really, private enterprise doesn’t like or want to discriminate. We should encourage that tendency. And, from principle, if society can get rid of an evil without compulsion (i.e. law and its penalties), that’s a better way to go.

          • Frostbite

            If these businesses were opened as a private organization and didn’t depend on public funds for things, I wouldn’t have a problem with their discrimination. They didn’t agree to a contract with the public in exchange for publicly funded services, benefits, protections, etc. As you say, the public then doesn’t get to call the shots. The private members, or whoever is funding them, gets to.

            We might not all like all of the public, or agree with all of the public, but it is what it is, we all make up the public, white, black, asian, straight, gay, and everything in-between, every race, color, creed, religion and political affiliation, etc. In a “perfect” society we’d simply get along with each other and not have any of these issues.

          • northern_neighbour

            “Sincere”. !!! Fascist minded TROLL, is about ASS sincere as P.T. Barnum, or as Cheetolini, Prez. *45 aka dRUMPf.

            But hey, I wouldn’t wanna Slanda ya, … troll. but hey again, fuck off anyhow. You’re about as effective here as a tit on a bicycle.

          • John30013

            OK, since you asked. (Page/line numbers reference the PDF Hanwi linked to above.)

            – Page 1/Line 17 (section 2(b)): removes local control from municipalities to require equal access for all citizens.
            – 2/2 (sect. 3(b)): same as above.
            – 2/14 (sect. 4(a)(1)): my objection to this section (“definition of biological sex”) depends on whether and how Texas allows a person to change the sex shown on their birth certificate.
            – 3/20 (subchapter B): same as section 4(a)(1), since it’s based on the same definition of biological sex.
            – 3/26 (sect. 769.052): prohibits equal treatment of trans students (schools are required to force trans students to use alternate facilities or to use a facility that does not correspond to their gender identity).
            – 4/26 (sect. 769.101): removes local control.
            – 5/7 (sect. 769.102): prohibits equal treatment of trans individuals.
            – 6/11 (sect. 769.104(2)(A)): why 8 years old as the cutoff? This seems arbitrary and the bill does not state any evidence supporting this age.
            – 6/26 (sect. 769.152): any citizen can file a complaint under this bill, without having experienced any “harm”.

            So those are my specific objections to this bill. More broadly, though, this bill by its very existence implies that the State of Texas believes there is inherent danger (presumably to cisgender people) whenever any transgender person uses a public restroom or changing facility that is not designated for use by the biological sex listed on their birth certificate. It completely ignores the following facts:
            1) that there are no documented cases of a transgender person assaulting a cisgender person while using such a facility;
            2) that there are plenty of documented cases of a transgender person being assaulted by a cisgender person while using the “correct” facility.

          • Scott G Slanda

            Great, thank you.
            You made a long list, and I hope I’m not disrespecting your efforts to take the first one.
            section 2(b) prohibits a political subdivision from mandating how their bathroom or changing facility is to be used. In other words, it leaves the private business to make that determination based on their perception of what’s best for their business.
            I’m not sure why this would be objectionable. If a business is run by a bigot, I’m actually glad to know it, so I can frequent some other establishment. If an owner hates people with tattoos, I’d rather know that up front so I can take my money someplace else.
            Besides it seems to defeat the point of private property and the market to say you have the legal ownership of the property, but someone else is going to tell you how to use it.

          • Diogenes Onionpants

            Please do not pretend that this is about providing “choice,” or that you are interested in invidious discrimination. As the text makes clear throughout, this is about restricting bathroom use in schools, targeting the most vulnerable population.


            (1)”Biological sex” means the physical condition of
            being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.


            A political subdivision or state agency…shall develop a policy requiring each multiple-occupancy bathroom or changing facility located in the building [sc. under their control] to be designated for and used only by persons of the same biological sex [as determined by birth certificate, according to the definition above].

          • Scott G Slanda

            Enough ad hominem attacks. I have yet to throw one at you.
            I agree with your description of the intent of the law “this is about restricting bathroom use in schools”
            Given that, perhaps you can agree that the intention of the other side is to ostracize those who do not think transgenderism is normal or acceptable.
            Such accommodations as these have NOT been the norm for the vast majority of American history, and the suicide rate among trangenders now is 41% (National Transgender Discrimination Survey). So apparently, if we’re trying to prevent such tragedies, there’s something other than bathroom discrimination to blame.

          • tempus

            No ad hominems from Diogenes at all; truth, in case you do not know, is a complete defense. Many concern-trolling attempts by you to drag in the Big Nanny State (as is always the case with Rethug bigots of your ilk: big government to enforce our own irrational prejudices and small government when those pesky Feds get in the way and actually want to regulate things like antitrust laws, civil rights, etc, ad infimitum….rather like your view of the ‘gawud’ who hates every single person you do and is therefore omnipotent…) to protect those poor lost transgendered souls from *themselves*. Wonder if that suicide rate could have anything to do with Rethugs just like you attempting to legislate hatred at every turn, not to mention Rethugs just like you enabling the climate of outright homophobic violence which has worsened markedly since Il Douche’s stolen ‘election.’ Hmmm…..

          • Scott G Slanda

            Clearly, you don’t know what an ad hominem is. And it would be better if you’d stay out of the convo between Diogenes and me which, at least from my view, was done more intelligently and with more restraint than most on this medium.

          • tempus

            Clearly, you know nothing of basic logical terms and fallacies, including but not limited to straw man, begging the question, *and* ad hominem; your rather hysterical use of terms such as ‘apocalypticism’ does also tend to create massive cognitive dissonance with your diaphanous pretenses of civility and ‘restraint.’ Also, as ‘The Wretched’ and others have demonstrated, you are either lying about the bill’s contents and fine print or have not even read it–neither of which is a strong logical position 🙂 And it would be better if you stayed out of this kitchen altogether since you obviously can’t take any heat.

          • John30013

            I do try to be thorough :-).

            We obviously disagree about the meaning of “public accommodation”. If businesses were required to conspicuously post their bigotry, I might agree with your position. But this bill does not require that. Even if the business accepts the customer’s business, if they insist on discriminatory bathroom practices *after* the customer is in the store, the customer will feel humiliated. They might never shop there again, but the damage had already been done. This is something that cisgender people simply don’t have to worry about, and it smacks of privilege, which automatically makes me suspicious.

            Businesses are never totally free to do what they want; there are plenty of laws, regulations, etc. governing their behavior and how they conduct their business. I don’t see why local regulation in this particular area should be looked at differently.

          • Scott G Slanda

            I think we’ve boiled it down to an old debate about whether injuries should be prevented criminally or remedied in tort. Tort is a much more common law (and therefore flexible) instrument, if only because it goes through civil court where a simple majority of the jury prevails.
            I don’t think it’s the government’s job to prevent many/most/all injuries. Life is dangerous, and government slowly gets to the point where every injury is preemptively made impossible, and life is (for one thing) just less fun. See the disappearance of diving boards at swimming pools.
            I need to work out a statement of principle for cases where I think government bossing around of businesses is justified. That’s not something I’ve devoted a great deal of energy to. But my default position is: better less bossing around than more.

          • John30013

            “Bossing around” is a broad term that can encompass a lot of things that most people would agree government should not compel a business to do. I understand where you’re coming from, but I do think “public accommodation”, with its fraught history in this country, deserves special consideration. Businesses operate within the context of a community, and there is a well-recognized notion of “community standards” that governments routinely enforce (think of zoning laws, restrictions on where adult-oriented businesses can locate, etc.). If a community, via its elected officials, has decided that dignity and equal treatment of trans people is an important community standard, I think there’s a strong argument to be made for that community being able to promulgate that standard through its regulation of businesses that operate within that community.

            Note that I’m in favor of this sort of regulation, whereas I would not be in favor of its opposite: if a community decided that discriminating against trans people was an important community standard, I would not agree that the government should be allowed to do that. I don’t think the government’s ability to “enforce” community standards is an automatic “good”; I definitely think it depends on who is impacted and how. I am generally in favor of expanding civil rights and bringing more people under the protection of the law; I am against government action that excludes certain groups from enjoying the same freedoms that others enjoy–especially when there is no compelling interest to do so.

          • Scott G Slanda

            lol I’m from Houston, we have no zoning laws 🙂
            I’ve been considering your points, which are good ones worth thinking about. Don’t have any reply to them just yet.
            But your last paragraph is important. If you favor government using its power in one direction and not the other, at least you’re not a nihilist, and feel that laws should reflect some higher order of justice, and not be self-referencing (“legal positivism”). Probably why you’re about the only person here I’ve been able to have a conversation with. Thank you.

      • Frostbite

        Well, maybe the part about undoing any local protections cities and towns have already enacted? Maybe the part about prohibiting cities and towns writing laws to protect trans-gendered people? I’m sure the list is even longer but those two alone are sufficient for me. I also don’t think IBM would object if the law was nothing to worry about.

      • ceeenbee

        “. . . the Texas senate passed a bill obliging people in public buildings such as schools and universities to use restrooms and changing facilities that comport with their “biological sex” as written on birth certificates.”

        There has NEVER been a documented case of a transgendered individual sexually assaulting another person in the bathroom. The entire premise of this hateful and discriminatory legislation is without merit. There have been countless documented cases of clergy and republican shenanigans in bathrooms. The latest being http://www.joemygod.com/2017/07/15/florida-youth-pastor-busted-350000-child-porn-images-secretly-filmed-girls-using-bathroom/

        If texas was truly serious about protecting people from assault in bathrooms, it would be writing legislation banning clergy and republicans from entering bathrooms with your children. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b0ac564cc4f8acb95640a9bcd2cf6f6946d3b2fecab271234ce67f44d46f8b4.jpg

      • Diogenes Onionpants

        Have you even MET a transgender person? I have, and would be interested in what specific aspect you find threatening.

      • Diogenes Onionpants

        You want a “problematic” provision? How about the requirement that Buck Angel use the women’s bathroom, in conformity with the sex listed on his birth certificate. Please explain how forcing this man, as an example, to use the women’s keeps anyone safe. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f97f3e353cc41fb923939bfd0f98ee087fef99e3178e07cd4183ed766739633.jpg

        • Scott G Slanda

          I was asking for a specific provision of the law, which you haven’t given. You’re just quoting news stories, so you’re getting info second hand.
          Under what circumstances and in what places would the law require the person above to use a women’s restroom?

          • Diogenes Onionpants

            Sorry, I thought you had read the bill?

            Since you obviously haven’t, please see §769.001 (1) and the consequent restrictions following from the definition of biological sex stated there.

            Since Buck Angel was listed as female on his birth certificate, he is legally required to use the women’s room in Texas should this pass.

            That’s quoting the bill, not “news stories.” If you have a rebuttal, please likewise quote the bill, and not whatever you drag out if your ass.

          • Scott G Slanda

            In the vast majority of cases, he is not. That’s why I’m asking you to state where there is such a requirement. In fact, the first part of the bill prohibits government from imposing any law forcing any person to use any particular facility. 250.008(b)

          • Diogenes Onionpants

            Completely incorrect reading. The provision states:

            (b)A political subdivision may not adopt or enforce an order, ordinance,or other measure that relates to the designation or use of a private entity’s bathroom or changing facility or that requires or prohibits the entity from adopting a policy on the designation or use of the entity’s bathroom or changing facility.

            That does not “prohibit government from imposing” restrictions. (Did you honestly not notice that the rest of the bill consists precisely in such restrictions?) It prohibits local government (“political subdivision”) from legislating independently of the state legislature.

          • Scott G Slanda

            Yes, The rest of the bill has restrictions, but only for government funded institutions (schools and universities are the ones I see in the text).
            As for your other point, you’re right the bill forbids local government from legislating independently on this matter. It does leave the state government to impose restrictions on private businesses in the future, but such restrictions are not in this bill. So far, it’s leaving businesses free to cater to their clientele.
            Constitutionally speaking, it’s impossible for the city or county to legislate “independently” of the state legislature, because those things are creations of the state. So the state legislature in ANY state has the right to restrict local legislation.

          • The_Wretched

            See my other comment and cease your lies. The operative bit the haters want is in the definitions.

          • ceeenbee

            If there is a SINGLE case where he is then there is an injustice.

            Why have you not answered the question and stated for the record that you want these “biological males” to use the men’s restrooms and these “biological females” to use the women’s restrooms? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2ffb97a9ec02b114baf41d081f4295a8d300b25670334921060a8fbadb1056c.jpg

          • ceeenbee

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/000eb34aaa43c3e03fc9e62ce96939329863c964606e219f460278f79b1290f4.jpg 2 hours. Still no answer.

            Please state for the record that you would like “Buck Angel” to be forced to share the bathroom with your mother [wife, sister, daughter] because he was born a biological female.

            I’m waiting.

          • tempus

            ‘The vast majority of cases?’ According to *you*? That’s rich. So all trans people should be forced to have a lawyer in tow in order to use a bathroom legally, because this might just be one of those pesky exceptions. Lovely choplogic there–almost as good as your lies about the coercion buried in the ‘definitions’ in the bill (otherwise known as fine print.)
            Conservaturdism really is a terminal disease, isn’t it? Many many commenters here have engaged with your alternative facts and soundly debunked them all, but you’re still trotting out the same irrational hate, repeating yourself ad nauseam, and doing a very poor concern-troll schtick.

          • Scott G Slanda

            I have not once trotted out “hate”, unless you call asking questions “hate”
            How’s this: Law is based on raw power, and whoever is most powerful should have their way.
            That seems to be the dominant political philosophy these days, rather than any careful, logical engagement. If power (see the Athenians at Melos) is the new model, let’s stop arguing about what’s right or wrong and just embrace it.

          • tempus

            Now we’re getting to the root of a ‘philosophical difference’ here; you want to espouse and advocate hate and bigotry , but in ostensibly polite pseudo-legalese sophistries which you hope cover your ass even as you argue for the legislation of discrimination and outright fascism against LGBTs. Hilarious. I believe your ‘law is based on raw power and whoever is most powerful should have their way’ perfectly sums up the atrocities of McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of the Rethug obstructionists. Nuclear option? Refusal to do their jobs and govern for eight years? The theft of a SCOTUS seat? Endless waste of taxpayer money on witch-hunt ‘hearings’ on such pet targets as Planned Parenthood and Benghazi? Comey’s felony violation of the Hatch Act? Attempts to ram through Trumpcare without any public hearings or input from the opposing side? There is no end to this catalogue of bad faith and bad acts, to say nothing of *mens rea*. No Greek state vaguely compares with our current Congress and White House for blatant, unapologetic fascism in every sphere.

          • ceeenbee

            “. . . the Texas senate passed a bill obliging people in public buildings such as schools and universities to use restrooms and changing facilities that comport with their “biological sex” as written on birth certificates.”

            Buck Angel is biological female. He would be obligated to use the female restroom.

          • Dana W

            Unless he amended his birth certificate, I keep my amended cert on me whenever i leave the house.

          • ceeenbee

            But, you and he shouldn’t have to. It’s demeaning and unnecessary.

          • ceeenbee

            Here are a few more “biological males” in the top row who you would prefer in the bathroom with your sons and a few “biological females” who you would prefer powdering their noses next to your daughters.

            Really? That’s what you want? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2ffb97a9ec02b114baf41d081f4295a8d300b25670334921060a8fbadb1056c.jpg

          • Diogenes Onionpants

            You left out Laith Ashley, trans model and one of the most smoking-hot dudes you’re likely to see: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f5d5daeb31399e5d8236c17bc2d64813cf319b0e7410dcebacb568c51de2650e.png

          • ceeenbee


            Maybe you and this “biological female” could go get a mani-pedi after you use the restroom together.

        • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

          This is what I’ve been saying. Nobody focuses on forcing female to male transgender people to use women’s rooms.

          I’m sure it would upset the women who support this bill to find a guy with a bushy mustache washing his hands at the sink.

      • Professor Barnhardt
    • The anti-trans bills always have some anti-gay and anti-other people crap in them too. It’s just that they sell them on the anti-trans stuff and the idiots in the local media play along.

  • Rex

    If Texas passes this “Bathroom Bill” it will be out of pure animus, and should pay the price because hate always comes with a cost.

    • Scott G Slanda

      Have you even READ the bill? I have, and would be interested what specific provision you find problematic

      • Karl Dubhe

        I’ve read your comment history; Blocked.

        • Scott G Slanda

          Lovely willingness to engage with the facts there. Liberalism really is a religion for you, isn’t it? I guess that makes me a heretic.

          • The_Wretched

            Government controlling where people go the bathroom is the opposite of a limited government.

          • Scott G Slanda

            But the law explicitly states that government CANNOT control where people go to the bathroom in the vast majority of cases (private establishments), which is why I’m wondering if people have read the law.

          • The_Wretched

            Stop lying, it’s buried in the definitions:

            ACCOMMODATIONS AUTHORIZED. This subchapter does not prohibit a school district or open-enrollment charter school from providing an accommodation, including a single-occupancy bathroom or changing facility or the controlled use of a faculty bathroom or changing facility, on request due to special circumstances. The school district or open-enrollment charter school may not provide an accommodation that allows a person to use a multiple-occupancy bathroom or changing facility accessible to students that is designated for the biological sex opposite to the person’s biological sex.

            More language in the bill also stops local government from passing laws to stop this type of discrimination. Again, in the defintions.

            It’s shitty to hide the operative language in the definitions instead of in the operative part of the law. We are not stupid. This law is written with a maximum of inherent deception.

            Again, it’s your turn now. Why is this legislation needed? What will it change and how is that change a legitimate governmental purpose? Where is the legislative history showing that the ‘solution’ will fix a legit problem?

          • You claim to have read the bill. Why do you think it’s necessary for the legislature to pass that bill?

          • northern_neighbour

            Brainwashed intolerant hateful Pharisee, you hypocritically so called “Christian”, in reality, Fascist Idiot, … those all define YOU, Troll … and you are, trolling here way way out of your willfully ignorant league.

            The men’s MEN on this blog are informed, intellectual, sexy and scandalously funny. Sadly YOU are none of those.

            A bucket of ice water on you, then, and begone!

            Don’t let your tiny crinkled scrotal sac totally vaporize — as you float off into the vast black empty void within your own cranium.

          • Scott G Slanda

            Liberals are such delightful people.

          • northern_neighbour

            And ASSHOLES like yourself are not. You are a KKKunt, and at some level you are probably aware of the fact that you are a scumbag, the pathetic dregs of what a human can and should be.

          • Boreal

            Blocked for being a dumb kunt.

      • Hanwi
      • The_Wretched

        I see. You are concerned.

        Is there a legitimate governmental purpose to regulate the peeing of transgender people?

  • Adam Stevens

    Full page ads are no competition for full years of jesus-training.

    • Todd20036

      They are if you are a politician who wants to bring revenue to the state.
      Jesus is a false idol
      Money is the God.

    • BudClark

      Maybe not, but the CHAMBER OF COMMERCE listens!

    • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

      Ah, but when companies pull up stakes in Texas to move someplace saner, that’ll get their attention.

  • OdieDenCO

    “It is our goal to convince Texas elected officials to abandon these efforts.”

    you would have a better outcome commanding the tide to recede. at least you would be successful 2x a day

  • Silver Badger

    I would wager the Texas statehouse has tons of corners to pee in. If you are shy, pee in a jar and dump it in a corner.

  • Robert Adams

    Be it slavery, the franchise for women, or Jim Crow, the Conservative side in the culture wars never seems to understand that by the time the battle they are fighting becomes a major public issue, they have already lost that battle. Their vigorous rear-guard action only delays the inevitable for a relatively short time. Inclusion will always win.

    • Friday

      And make a lot of trouble for everyone in the process, so they can use public resentment to get people to vote against their own and the public self-interest.

  • Ceann Eltigh
  • I’ll believe they are serious when they start closing offices in Texas and moving them to a state with better laws. Plenty of companies moved to Texas to take advantage of the low taxes and virtual lack of regulation (what there is isn’t enforced). Are they willing to pay a little more to support equal rights for everyone? If not, there’s no reason the state legislature should give any fucks about an ad.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Hate isn’t good for business anymore.

    Clearly, the GOP didn’t get the memo or, more likely, they didn’t know how to read it.

  • JCF
  • FormerMainer

    Good to see, but given the state’s economic performance and the desire of people to move there, I worry that the legislators will see the threats of economic harm as empty.