Dear Target, you made a mistake

[TemplarKormac]

This is about payback for the anti-gay bakery and the clerk in KY losing her fight.

 

[Pop23]

Do you think a 10 year old boy would be able to kick an adult's ass???

Yeah, it's called kicking him in the nuts. Next question?

So little boys should never be molested. But they are actually more likely to be molested by a stranger. Because people don't watch their sons as closely as they watch their daughters.

And do you think a grown woman can't defend herself, but a 10 year old boy can??? WTF?

Jesus H Christ

How many times have you read stories of abducted children where the parent said. " I looked away for a second......"

Any additional risk of that happening is not worth the cost!

NONE

Great!! So lets focus on busting pedophiles and leave the trans people out of it.

This is not about bathrooms and sexual assault. This is about payback for the anti-gay bakery and the clerk in KY losing her fight.

Bullshit, this is about retaining a legal standard called "simalarily situated" in tact.

I did not support the Baker because Of the same.

You dummies will destroy the very legal framework that was used to make Same Sex Marriage bans illegal so a few confused people can be enabled!

If in some stretch of the imagination you can produce a law allowing only a tiny subset of Males into woman's restrooms/ lockerroom/ showers, Without allowing all Men in YOU THEN OPEN THE FRIGGEN DOOR TO THE STATES ABILITY TO CHALLENGE OBERGFELL AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE!

Go for it, you may win the damn battle and lose the war.

Bravo dude, Bravo

 

[bodecea]

Those people are evil.

For the sake of clarity, which people?

Those crossdressers predatorizing in the bathroom.

Which ones are those?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law already forbids everything you've cited. Why would you need an additional law to prevent it?

It forbids sexual assault, it forbids what those people did in those bathrooms or locker rooms. But from what I see, it doesn't forbid them going into that bathroom or locker room in the first place. So, there is plenty need of additional law.

Something that goes like this

"It shall be a crime in this state for an individual born biologically male or female as specified on his or her certificate of birth, to enter a restroom or other facility designated for the opposite sex, this crime shall be punishable as a felony/misdemeanor, and (insert additional punishments here)."

 

[The Great Goose]

Those people are evil.

For the sake of clarity, which people?

Those crossdressers predatorizing in the bathroom.

Which ones are those?

The ones exampled in the OP. Didnt i just leave this party?

 

[MaryL]

This bathroom insanity has to be the most puerile, superfluous, asinine issue to be upset about right now. Wait! But, I'm not dismissing it out of hand, either. There is indeed a principle involved here. Men who "self identify" as women should not be allowed to use the women's bathroom. End of story. To be blunt, I could care less what any of you think about my standards of tolerance. This is where I draw a line. And while I feel for those who genuinely are transgendered, they cannot expect millions of people to sit by while a man is allowed to freely walk into a woman's bathroom.

Which leads me to what Target has done. At one time my grandmother used to love shopping there. I got one of my favorite Game Boy games there. Good memories, indeed. Anyhow, as you are all no doubt well aware, on April 19, Target instituted a policy which allows for transgendered individuals to use the bathroom or dressing room which matches their "perceived" gender. But the problem is that they (Target) have also committed a serious error. In response to this change in policy, the American Family Association started a petition, calling for customers to boycott Target. Since then (as of 3:55 AM EST), 953,000 people have signed it, along with committing to their boycott.

Ironically, there are those who believe these people are showing their bigotry by boycotting a store only trying to set an inclusive precedent. That Target is well within its rights to do whatever it pleases. But where was that sentiment when a small private business owner with deeply held religious beliefs chose not to serve a homosexual customer? Here's the kicker. Instead of suing Target, of taking them to court over their policy, these hundreds of thousands of people chose to exercise their right to boycott. They didn't have in mind the complete and utter destruction of the company. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Perhaps...wait no...absolutely. Instead of dragging a store or business owner through the mud, boycott them. But I digress.

When 950+ thousand people tell you that they won't shop at your store because of a policy you put in place, especially one which allows biological men to use the women's bathroom or dressing rooms, you've made a mistake. Are they all intolerant bigots? Or are they people with legitimate concerns? I am under the impression that there are some people who will dismiss those concerns summarily, simply for demanding tolerance and inclusivity. And for those people, I can only speak to the fact that they don't take the safety and privacy of women and children seriously enough to consider the ramifications of what they're demanding.

And for those rare cases say, Buck Angel for example (if you don't know who "he" is, Google "him"), "he" cannot be used as a means to set the standard for everyone else. It is supposed to be that conundrum, that trap; the counter to the argument that a person should use the bathroom that matches the gender on their birth certificate, in which someone will ask, Buck Angel is a biological female, which bathroom should "he" use? While Buck Angel is a biological female, "he" looks, for all intents and purposes, like a man on the outside, shouldn't "he" be using the women's restroom? In "his" case, using the men's bathroom would arouse (oops) no suspicion whatsoever, there's always a stall in the back, and nobody would be any the wiser. In this instance, "his" case is the exception, not the rule.

But as for those obvious men exploiting a state's transgender laws to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom, that can't happen. No way. Hey, I'll tell you what, perhaps I should go to Target. While I'm there, I'll buy some kitty litter, go to the pet aisle, dump it all on the floor, and take a giant crap on it. When they carry me away for public indecency, and evaluate me further for mental issues, I'll claim that I self identify as a cat and that they will soon hear from PETA about this infringement of my rights! Animals are people too!

See how stupid that sounds? I'm all for equality, but if this equality comes at the price of endangering someone's safety and privacy, count me out. You can decry my supposed bigotry, but I will gladly be a bigot if it keeps men (and some who know better, and all for want of fulfilling perverse desires) from using the women's bathroom. This is getting patently ridiculous folks. Now, can we move to something more important?

Oh, and lest I forget, for those of you who say there are "no examples" of men walking into the women's bathroom other than to answer that call to nature, to prey on women, I'll paste the links from the petition website (the link to that is below) to edify you of the consequences of your quest for inclusivity, should it succeed:

Inside NoVA: Cross-dressing man arrested for filming Alabama woman in public bathroom

NY Daily News: Seattle man undresses in women's locker room to test new transgender bathroom rule

Life Site News: Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter

KTLA.com: DA: Cross-Dressing Man Secretly Taped Women at Macy’s

Western Morning News: Cross-dresser branded 'high risk' to women

NBC Connecticut: Teen Coerced Into Food Court Bathroom for Sex: Cops

Abc7news.com: POLICE: CALIF. LOCKER ROOM SUSPECT USED DISGUISE

Purdue University: Purdue police investigate report of man taking photographs in women's restroom

The Mercury News: Sex offender wearing fake breasts, wig arrested for loitering in womens' restroom

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Greensburg man who photographed cheerleaders to be tried

UPI.com: Cross-dresser arrested in bath house

St. Petersburg Times: Cross-dressing man sentenced for battery

In my 60 years on this planet, this "restroom equality" issue is the most inane and pointless one ever, so far. We have two sexes, that is a fact. Secondly, Target, Wal-Mart and most other retailers have a third restroom called "family friendly" facilities that, given the sensitivity of this issue, just need to be renamed and would fit the bill. Call them "open restrooms", handicapped friendly, diaper changing stations and locks on the doors. And if necessary, bathroom attendants to monitor the situation. Do we really truly NEED this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why would we need laws preventing transgendered women from going to the bathroom?

I have been iterating that in many forms throughout this thread. Not passing such laws opens up the prospect that a fully biological male, who identifies as a male, could claim immunity under existing transgender law, or store policy when caught in a women's bathroom. While a transgender accommodation law does not allow someone to victimize little girls in the washroom, it allows any creep with knowledge of such a law or policy to walk right in, unimpeded, to do exactly that.

The former undoes the latter. What good are laws against sexual abuse and child molestation if you enact other laws and policies allowing transgendered women to use the women's bathroom? Not all of them will in fact be transgendered.

Nobody wants to consider the consequences, it seems.

 

[Skylar]

So why would we need laws preventing transgendered women from going to the bathroom?

I have been iterating that in many forms throughout this thread. Not passing such laws opens up the prospect that a fully biological male, who identifies as a male, could claim immunity under existing transgender law, or store policy when caught in a women's bathroom.

And if such an individual goes into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilties.......they can be arrested. As can anyone else. Its *already* illegal to take pictures of others in a bathroom, regardless of your gender identty or sex.

Why then would you need to create laws to forbid transgender women from uising the bathroom?

Your 'cause' and your 'effect' have no credible connection.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And if such an individual goes into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilties.......they can be arrested.

But what good is the penalty, if there is a law or policy allowing them to go in there in the first place? Like I just stated in my previous post, not all men are transgendered women.

It's *already* illegal to take pictures of others in a bathroom, regardless of your gender identty or sex.

Once again, you have one law, making such behavior illegal, but you have another law, allowing for transgendered women to use the women's bathroom. The latter enables a creep to engage in the illegal behavior of the former. It renders a law making sexual assault or taking pictures of women in the women's bathroom illegal pointless.

Have you stopped once to consider the possibility that not all of these "transgender" women, are in fact transgendered women? You can't possibly expect me to believe that every man who is allowed to use the women's bathroom is a transgendered woman.

Your 'cause' and your 'effect' have no credible connection.

I beg to differ.

 

[Skylar]

The law already forbids everything you've cited. Why would you need an additional law to prevent it?

It forbids sexual assault, it forbids what those people did in those bathrooms or locker rooms. But from what I see, it doesn't forbid them going into that bathroom or locker room in the first place. So, there is plenty need of additional law.

It forbids the use of a bathroom for something other than using the facilities. So if ANYONE is just camping out in a stall, they can be removed. If ANYONE is taking pictures, they can be removed.

"It shall be a crime in this state for an individual born biologically male or female as specified on his or her certificate of birth, to enter a restroom or other facility designated for the opposite sex, this crime shall be punishable as a felony/misdemeanor, and (insert additional punishments here)."

And when you do that.....you get this:

And if such an individual goes into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilties.......they can be arrested.

But what good is the penalty, if there is a law or policy allowing them to go in there in the first place? Like I just stated in my previous post, not all men are transgendered women.

They aren't allowed to go into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilities. If they go in to do something else....they're already breaking the law.

Making your proposal not only pointlessly redundant.....but worse than useless. As it mandates that transgender MEN use the ladies room.

And this dude:

and this dude....would all have to use the ladies room:

And has police rushing into bathrooms to drag out and assault lesbian women who don't 'dress enough like women'. Which just happened again in the last few weeks. Plus all the assaults on transgendered women forced to use men's rooms.

All to prevent something that is *already* illegal.

Oh, and the record of transgender women abusing kids in public bathrooms is, as far as I've been able to find, zero. So a law to prevent something that is already illegal.....AND something that doesn't actually happen.

What's next? Unicorn leash laws?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If ANYONE is taking pictures, they can be removed.

Not anymore.

If they go in to do something else....they're already breaking the law.

I am quite weary of repeating myself. One last time.

The law or policy allowing for a transgendered woman to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with can enable a sexual predator who is in fact NOT a transgendered woman to commit an action the other law deems as illegal. It opens up the prospect of continued violations of laws designed to prevent sexual assault. Once the act is done, and the victim has been violated, it doesn't matter if what he did was illegal, his victim will be scarred for life.

You can't in good faith enforce laws against sexual assault if you have other laws allowing for a possible sexual predator to use the women's bathroom, through a law allowing transgendered individual to use a bathroom of the gender they identify with.

An old but cliche saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Target Please take Notice

 

[Pop23]

So why would we need laws preventing transgendered women from going to the bathroom?

I have been iterating that in many forms throughout this thread. Not passing such laws opens up the prospect that a fully biological male, who identifies as a male, could claim immunity under existing transgender law, or store policy when caught in a women's bathroom.

And if such an individual goes into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilties.......they can be arrested. As can anyone else. Its *already* illegal to take pictures of others in a bathroom, regardless of your gender identty or sex.

Why then would you need to create laws to forbid transgender women from uising the bathroom?

Your 'cause' and your 'effect' have no credible connection.

And don't forget. If a transgender is assaulted in the bathroom, the perp would have an additional Hate Crime hoisted upon them. Correct?

Using your logic the trans is protected and has no need to use the inappropriate bathroom.

Maybe we could institute the Super Dooper Heavy Duty Hate Crime?

And hold their dicks while they pee? Show tunes only in restroom Muzak systems?

 

[Rustic]

Target Please take Notice

Here's another...

 

[Rustic]

 

[Pop23]

The law already forbids everything you've cited. Why would you need an additional law to prevent it?

It forbids sexual assault, it forbids what those people did in those bathrooms or locker rooms. But from what I see, it doesn't forbid them going into that bathroom or locker room in the first place. So, there is plenty need of additional law.

It forbids the use of a bathroom for something other than using the facilities. So if ANYONE is just camping out in a stall, they can be removed. If ANYONE is taking pictures, they can be removed.

"It shall be a crime in this state for an individual born biologically male or female as specified on his or her certificate of birth, to enter a restroom or other facility designated for the opposite sex, this crime shall be punishable as a felony/misdemeanor, and (insert additional punishments here)."

And when you do that.....you get this:

And if such an individual goes into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilties.......they can be arrested.

But what good is the penalty, if there is a law or policy allowing them to go in there in the first place? Like I just stated in my previous post, not all men are transgendered women.

They aren't allowed to go into a bathroom to do anything other than use the facilities. If they go in to do something else....they're already breaking the law.

Making your proposal not only pointlessly redundant.....but worse than useless. As it mandates that transgender MEN use the ladies room.

And this dude:

and this dude....would all have to use the ladies room:

And has police rushing into bathrooms to drag out and assault lesbian women who don't 'dress enough like women'. Which just happened again in the last few weeks. Plus all the assaults on transgendered women forced to use men's rooms.

All to prevent something that is *already* illegal.

Oh, and the record of transgender women abusing kids in public bathrooms is, as far as I've been able to find, zero. So a law to prevent something that is already illegal.....AND something that doesn't actually happen.

What's next? Unicorn leash laws?

Good lord, would it have pleaded you if the police were trannies?

 

[Rustic]

 

[Skylar]

If ANYONE is taking pictures, they can be removed.

Not anymore.

Says who? What ordinance allowing transgender women to use bathrooms makes it legal for them to take pictures of other women in adjoining stalls?

Or for ANYONE to do so?

The law or policy allowing for a transgender to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with can enable a sexual predator who is in fact NOT transgendered woman to commit an action the other law deems as illegal.

Sexual predators *already* go into bathrooms now. So clearly banning transgender women doesn't prevent the crimes you're citing. Second, your defintions would mandate these dudes would have to use the women's room:

And this dude....

and this dude....

How would forcing them to use the ladies room prevent anything you've complained about?

Your'e like the poster child for the ' law of unintended consequences'.

And of course, what about the lesbian women who are being assaulted for using the ladies rooms?

And the transwomen assaulted in men's rooms? You're ignoring a tremendous amount of ACTUAL harm to prevent hypothetical harm....which your proposed laws don't actually prevent.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]