Dear Target, you made a mistake

[Skylar]

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

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

 

[Pop23]

I can see that, but what has been happening for the last XX years? At worst, people get a little creeped out and have pretty much forgotten about it by the time they reach the candy rack.

When a predator kidnaps a child in the women's bathroom, this will go way past the candy rack. In some ways this is serious. There are evil people out there who would exploit such a policy to take advantage of women and children. It shouldn't be happening period, and now I'm watching it being legalized, or allowed, all for the sake of inclusivity and tolerance.

What if the predator kidnaps a little boy in the men's room? No problem?

Idiot.

It likely won't be wearing a disquise while doing so

Does that matter?

Damn, Pop. I've never seen you be this stupid about any of the other issues you are wrong on. You are really freaked out by Transgenderd people, huh. Relax....they aren't doing much child molesting. That's just about all heterosexual men......and they don't bother playing dress up.

You realize that, no matter what Target said, by allowing one man with a cock in the woman's restroom, they likely can't exclude any men from the woman's restrooms. That's how, in my humble opinion, rights work.

It would appear, target made their restrooms unisex.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

Why change what works to keep .03% of the population from getting all weepy and shit is the real question.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Your argument allows for the certainty of allowing fully biological men, who identify as men, to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom. You are willing to ignore that certainty, just so we can please a minute fraction of our population.

Like I said, you don't care. Tolerance and inclusivity at any price.

 

[Pop23]

Does anyone believe that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of trans people in the world?

Does anyone believe that, until now, all trans people have only peed at home?

Or does everyone realize that you have already shared a bathroom, hundreds of times, with trans people and never knew it?

Unless you hang around in a drag queen bar, the likelihood anyone has peed next to a Tranny hundreds of times (they are .03% of the population), is highly doubtful

 

[Pop23]

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.

ITS AN UNATTRACTIVE WOMAN!

It can call itself Batman if it wants, it ain't a superhero!

 

[TemplarKormac]

So little boys should never be molested.

No, they shouldn't. Nor should 10 year old girls.

But they are actually more likely to be molested by a stranger.

How little do you know. There is a greater chance of a girl being sexually assaulted than that of a boy. One in five as compared to one in twenty.

Child Sexual Abuse Statistics

 

[Skylar]

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?

Your argument allows for the certainty of allowing fully biological men, who identify as men, to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom.

Of the 'examples' that you cited, only one claimed to be transgender. And that didn't involve a public bathroom.

Worse, virtually all of the incidents you described were already illegal.

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

 

[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

 

[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?

Your argument allows for the certainty of allowing fully biological men, who identify as men, to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom. You are willing to ignore that certainty, just so we can please a minute fraction of our population.

Like I said, you don't care. Tolerance and inclusivity at any price.

Nice imaginings, but inaccurate.

I want to see anyone guilty of sexual assault or sexual molestation put in GenPop in the state pen.

But banning trans people does not effect most rapists and pedophiles.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Your argument allows for the certainty of allowing fully biological men, who identify as men, to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom.

Of the 'examples' that you cited, only one claimed to be transgender. And that didn't involve a public bathroom.

Worse, virtually all of the incidents you described were already illegal.

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

They have never been prevented from going to the bathroom.

You are warped

 

[Seawytch]

So little boys should never be molested.

No, they shouldn't. Nor should 10 year old girls.

But they are actually more likely to be molested by a stranger.

How little do you know. There is a greater chance of a girl being sexually assaulted than that of a boy. One in five as compared to one in twenty.

Child Sexual Abuse Statistics

By a known male, usually in their family, not an anonymous transgendered woman.

My daughter was in FAR greater danger on sleepovers at her best friends house than the countless times she was in the restroom with a trans woman...pre or post operative.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Your argument allows for the certainty of allowing fully biological men, who identify as men, to prey on women and children in the women's bathroom. You are willing to ignore that certainty, just so we can please a minute fraction of our population.

Like I said, you don't care. Tolerance and inclusivity at any price.

Nice imaginings, but inaccurate.

I want to see anyone guilty of sexual assault or sexual molestation put in GenPop in the state pen.

But banning trans people does not effect most rapists and pedophiles.

You can't only allow trans people without allowing all people regardless of gender.

You keep ignoring that

 

[WinterBorn]

So little boys should never be molested.

No, they shouldn't. Nor should 10 year old girls.

But they are actually more likely to be molested by a stranger.

How little do you know. There is a greater chance of a girl being sexually assaulted than that of a boy. One in five as compared to one in twenty.

Child Sexual Abuse Statistics

Is the 1 in 5 strictly strangers? No.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of the 'examples' that you cited, only one claimed to be transgender. And that didn't involve a public bathroom.

Worse, virtually all of the incidents you described were already illegal.

You're missing the point entirely.

Colorado, for example, passed a transgender law in 2008 allowing transgendered individuals to use the bathroom they identify with. Now, any man, who is a man, who is also knowledgeable of such a law, can exploit the law to his desire; and it will be at that point in which the law enables to do something that which is clearly illegal. One is illegal, the other is not. A paradoxical frame of mind, it's legal to allow a man to walk into a women's bathroom, but it is illegal for him to walk into that same bathroom and prey on women and children.

The point I was trying to make via those examples is that they don't have to be transgender, and it doesn't have to be a bathroom either. Such laws can be easily exploited, as can Target's new policy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is the 1 in 5 strictly strangers? No.

What do strangers have to do with it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I want to see anyone guilty of sexual assault or sexual molestation put in GenPop in the state pen.

Then don't advocate laws which will enable sexual assault by allowing men to freely use the women's restroom.

 

[Rustic]

Again, What makes a woman a woman? What makes a man a man?
Thinking they are? Or dna, chromosomes, a womb, skeletal structure, etc... Lol