Dear Target, you made a mistake

[TemplarKormac]

 

[WinterBorn]

Because your question is a deflection

And this is a tu quoque argument.

I made a very simple statement. I pointed out that stopping them from going in the women's room sends them to the men's room. Why is that ok?

 

[Weatherman2020]

But you are not stopping sexual predators from entering the bathroom. You are just limiting it to one gender.

So, link me to a case where a woman dressed as a man went into the men's bathroom to prey on other men and their children.

So you think the people you are stopping from going into the women's room are going to stop being perverts and never do it again?

Pedophiles are often opportunistic. Gender is not as important as age. That is why boys are molested more often. Because people watch their daughters more closely.

Please provide us with the justification for the left to create a wedge issue by forcing women to lose their rights to privacy. No one has ever done it, please be the first in the justification for these laws.

Privacy? Most women close teh stall door before that pull down their pants. It is the advocates of this law that want to peek and see her genitals.

Trans men have been using the women's room for decades. Have you seen a rash of sexual assaults?

Funny how the left love to push public transportation yet never use it. Bus and train stations as well as public parks have no stall doors.

Thanks for letting me legally hang out in these bathrooms now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is not what I said, at all.

Actually, that is what you said.

They look like the gender they identify as.

 

[The Great Goose]

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

Carla_Danger

so you think those examples in the OP are not evil?

 

[WinterBorn]

That is not what I said, at all.

Actually, that is what you said.

They look like the gender they identify as.

Indeed they do.

Like this person.

This person identifies as male. This person was born a female. So, as I said, some people look like the gender they identify as.

 

[The Great Goose]

But you are not stopping sexual predators from entering the bathroom. You are just limiting it to one gender.

So, link me to a case where a woman dressed as a man went into the men's bathroom to prey on other men and their children.

So you think the people you are stopping from going into the women's room are going to stop being perverts and never do it again?

Pedophiles are often opportunistic. Gender is not as important as age. That is why boys are molested more often. Because people watch their daughters more closely.

Please provide us with the justification for the left to create a wedge issue by forcing women to lose their rights to privacy. No one has ever done it, please be the first in the justification for these laws.

Privacy? Most women close teh stall door before that pull down their pants. It is the advocates of this law that want to peek and see her genitals.

Trans men have been using the women's room for decades. Have you seen a rash of sexual assaults?

Funny how the left love to push public transportation yet never use it. Bus and train stations as well as public parks have no stall doors.

Thanks for letting me legally hang out in these bathrooms now.
View attachment 73258

They do in Australia. Maybe our vandals are milder and only rip the seats off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I pointed out that stopping them from going in the women's room sends them to the men's room.

That's the whole point. There is a less likely chance of predatory man doing such a thing in the men's bathroom, purely because there are men there who would curb stomp his butt into that hard tile floor for attempting it. A nuclear deterrent if you will.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Carla_Danger

so you think those examples in the OP are not evil?

I think those examples are hilarious. I just clicked on one link, and it was from 1999. lol

 

[Weatherman2020]

That is not what I said, at all.

Actually, that is what you said.

They look like the gender they identify as.

Indeed they do.

Like this person.

This person identifies as male. This person was born a female. So, as I said, some people look like the gender they identify as.

I identify as a 6 year old girl. I'm going to go to the bathroom to see who wants to be my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is not what I said, at all.

Actually, that is what you said.

They look like the gender they identify as.

Indeed they do.

Like this person.

This person identifies as male. This person was born a female. So, as I said, some people look like the gender they identify as.

After you were caught denying you made such a remark, you proceed to expound on it. Thanks for playing.

 

[WinterBorn]

I pointed out that stopping them from going in the women's room sends them to the men's room.

That's the whole point. There is a less likely chance of predatory man doing such a thing in the men's bathroom, purely because there are men there who could curb stomp his butt into that hard tile floor for attempting it. A nuclear deterrent if you will.

Bullshit!! You think they would follow a woman into a crowded bathroom?? No, they follow them in to get them alone.

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

Why do you depend on the public to defend your sons, but want the gov't to indict an entire class of people to protect your daughters?

 

[AceRothstein]

I signed up for the boycott under two of my aliases, Slappy McLongcock and James P. Ness.

 

[The Great Goose]

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

Carla_Danger

so you think those examples in the OP are not evil?

I think those examples are hilarious. I just clicked on one link, and it was from 1999. lol

Then i have all the more reason to despise that person. He would have created thousnds of bigots.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is not what I said, at all.

Actually, that is what you said.

They look like the gender they identify as.

Indeed they do.

Like this person.

This person identifies as male. This person was born a female. So, as I said, some people look like the gender they identify as.

After you were caught denying you made such a remark, you proceed to expound on it. Thanks for playing.

No. I have said the same thing over and over. YOU want to claim that if they look like the gender, then they are not trans.

The pic of Shawn Stinson fits exactly what I said, and makes your comment laughable.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Carla_Danger

so you think those examples in the OP are not evil?

I think those examples are hilarious. I just clicked on one link, and it was from 1999. lol

Then i have all the more reason to despise that person. He would have created thousnds of bigots.

Are you drunk posting?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bullshit!! You think they would follow a woman into a crowded bathroom?? No, they follow them in to get them alone.

There's a less likely chance a woman will fight back. It's not hard to see. It's not a stereotype either. In close quarters, even a woman with a gun wouldn't have time to draw it in case a perv comes after her.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Winter, it's easy to see you don't give a damn about the safety of anyone, in any bathroom.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

 

[WinterBorn]

Winter, it's easy to see you don't give a damn about the safety of anyone, in any bathroom.

Oh? And how, pray tell, do you come up with that bit of nonsense?