"Transgender" Target Stores: Prepare To Be Sued.

[Pop23]

People will leave any Target in droves if 1. they are women and 2. They have another choice nearby.

Women don't like to use bathrooms with strange men in them. Target blew it on this blunder. There is only one direction sales will go from here. Down.

Can you imagine a single rape or sexual assault victim shopping at Target.

Fact is, Target should apologize to them.

 

[Skylar]

No, that wasn't my claim. Nice try though.

But, for the record, are you seriously claiming that no transgender has EVER raped a child in a restroom? You know how unlikely that is to be true?

If up to Skylar, he would have you believe that the only people you should trust your kids around are men with dicks and testicles who believe they are female. Because you know, sanity and kids always works best!..

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, that wasn't my claim. Nice try though.

But, for the record, are you seriously claiming that no transgender has EVER raped a child in a restroom? You know how unlikely that is to be true?

If up to Skylar, he would have you believe that the only people you should trust your kids around are men with dicks and testicles who believe they are female. Because you know, sanity and kids always works best!..

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

 

[Pop23]

No, that wasn't my claim. Nice try though.

But, for the record, are you seriously claiming that no transgender has EVER raped a child in a restroom? You know how unlikely that is to be true?

If up to Skylar, he would have you believe that the only people you should trust your kids around are men with dicks and testicles who believe they are female. Because you know, sanity and kids always works best!..

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

Yet, if you allow pre op transgender males in a woman's restroom, you cannot legally deny any Male from entry. Pedo's and rapists included.

 

[Skylar]

No, that wasn't my claim. Nice try though.

But, for the record, are you seriously claiming that no transgender has EVER raped a child in a restroom? You know how unlikely that is to be true?

If up to Skylar, he would have you believe that the only people you should trust your kids around are men with dicks and testicles who believe they are female. Because you know, sanity and kids always works best!..

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

Sigh....you really are quite awful at debate. As you know I can just quote you. And yet, like a dog returning to its own vomit, you can't help yourself.

Well, munch away.

If ONE child is raped in a public restroom by a mentally ill transgener that isnt okay if you can prove a million children were raped by close family members in private.

Laughing.....but you weren't talking about an actual child, or an actual public restroom, or an actual transgender purpose, or an actual occurrence, huh?

If even you are going to treat your words like the rhetorical flotsam they are, surely you'll understand why we have no use for them either.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If up to Skylar, he would have you believe that the only people you should trust your kids around are men with dicks and testicles who believe they are female. Because you know, sanity and kids always works best!..

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

Sigh....you really are quite awful at debate. As you know I can just quote you. And yet, like a dog returning to its own vomit, you can't help yourself.

Well, munch away.

If ONE child is raped in a public restroom by a mentally ill transgener that isnt okay if you can prove a million children were raped by close family members in private.

Laughing.....but you weren't talking about an actual child, or an actual public restroom, or an actual transgender purpose, or an actual occurrence, huh?

If even you are going to treat your words like the rhetorical flotsam they are, surely you'll understand why we have no use for them either.

My quote that you quoted in noway suggest I fear my child might be raped by a mentally ill person in the bathroom. I was merely pointing out a fact.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....where did this piece of babble come from? My argument is far simpler: the occurrence rate of what FB described is zero.

You people are shitting your panties over a hypothetical that doesn't happen.

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

Sigh....you really are quite awful at debate. As you know I can just quote you. And yet, like a dog returning to its own vomit, you can't help yourself.

Well, munch away.

If ONE child is raped in a public restroom by a mentally ill transgener that isnt okay if you can prove a million children were raped by close family members in private.

Laughing.....but you weren't talking about an actual child, or an actual public restroom, or an actual transgender purpose, or an actual occurrence, huh?

If even you are going to treat your words like the rhetorical flotsam they are, surely you'll understand why we have no use for them either.

My quote that you quoted in noway suggest I fear my child might be raped by a mentally ill person in the bathroom. I was merely pointing out a fact.

With your fear having an occurance rate of zero.

What thing that isn't happening do you insist we create laws to prevent? Unicorn stampedes? Yeti dancing?

 

[Silhouette]

Yet, if you allow pre op transgender males in a woman's restroom, you cannot legally deny any Male from entry. Pedo's and rapists included.

Women's prescriptive rights to segregated hygiene chambers and retreats are more ancient than men wanting to use their hygiene chambers and retreats.

The law falls on the side of the grandfathered rights. There will be no ingress of men into women's bathrooms.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

Sigh....you really are quite awful at debate. As you know I can just quote you. And yet, like a dog returning to its own vomit, you can't help yourself.

Well, munch away.

If ONE child is raped in a public restroom by a mentally ill transgener that isnt okay if you can prove a million children were raped by close family members in private.

Laughing.....but you weren't talking about an actual child, or an actual public restroom, or an actual transgender purpose, or an actual occurrence, huh?

If even you are going to treat your words like the rhetorical flotsam they are, surely you'll understand why we have no use for them either.

My quote that you quoted in noway suggest I fear my child might be raped by a mentally ill person in the bathroom. I was merely pointing out a fact.

With your fear having an occurance rate of zero.

What thing that isn't happening do you insist we create laws to prevent? Unicorn stampedes? Yeti dancing?

Quote where I have said I have the fear you keep claiming I do. Especially in light of the fact that I have REPEATEDLY stated that I do not have said fear.

 

[Tom Horn]

My dog thinks it's a cat…

My rat thinks he's a lawyer.

 

[Tom Horn]

Target always caves in...they quit saying "Merry Christmas" a few years back. They should concern themselves more with their customer's credit card info being stolen than putting kinky truck drivers in the same bathroom as little girls.

 

[Silhouette]

My dog thinks it's a cat…

My rat thinks he's a lawyer.

He certainly has passed the first level of eligibility to be..

Target always caves in...they quit saying "Merry Christmas" a few years back. They should concern themselves more with their customer's credit card info being stolen than putting kinky truck drivers in the same bathroom as little girls.

Don't worry, they will be concerned about that blunder when their main customer base (women..fucking der!) start to bail on shopping there. I don't think I've ever been on a shopping trip where some woman in our midst doesn't take a potty break. Target vastly underestimated their customer base and clearly doesn't understand them at all...nor care about their rights to privacy..

 

[Pop23]

I'm not one who is shitting my pants, so I certainly can't answer for them.

Once again, my ONLY objection is in public schools, because I have school age girls, an they aren't comfortable with boys being around when they have to do their business and shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable b/c someone else wants to be comfortable, that isn't right, an you surely get that.

Once again, the occurrence rate of your standard of transgender women abusing children in bathrooms is zero.

Zero. Meaning that you have no bridge from your imagination to the real world.

WHERE did I mention any fear of occurrences Skylar? Oh that's right, I didn't. Instead I said my five year old would not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with the boy in the room, and she shouldn't be forced to do so. If you can't acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern without stupidly claiming I said something I didn't say then I'll just move on

Sigh....you really are quite awful at debate. As you know I can just quote you. And yet, like a dog returning to its own vomit, you can't help yourself.

Well, munch away.

If ONE child is raped in a public restroom by a mentally ill transgener that isnt okay if you can prove a million children were raped by close family members in private.

Laughing.....but you weren't talking about an actual child, or an actual public restroom, or an actual transgender purpose, or an actual occurrence, huh?

If even you are going to treat your words like the rhetorical flotsam they are, surely you'll understand why we have no use for them either.

My quote that you quoted in noway suggest I fear my child might be raped by a mentally ill person in the bathroom. I was merely pointing out a fact.

With your fear having an occurance rate of zero.

What thing that isn't happening do you insist we create laws to prevent? Unicorn stampedes? Yeti dancing?

Skylar:

What legal basis do you use that allows one male entrance into the woman's facility and not all males entrance into the same facility?

If you don't have one, you are simply babbling and wasting everyone's time.

 

[Skylar]

Yet, if you allow pre op transgender males in a woman's restroom, you cannot legally deny any Male from entry. Pedo's and rapists included.

Women's prescriptive rights to segregated hygiene chambers and retreats are more ancient than men wanting to use their hygiene chambers and retreats.

'Prescriptive rights'? You're just making shit up as you along. There is no expectation of privacy nor right to it when washing your hands. Only in stalls.....which are single occupancy.

The 'right' that you insist has been 'violated' neither exists, nor would be violated if it did.

Anymore pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like to make up? Because neither Target nor any other business will give a shit about your new pseudo-legal nonsense anymore than they did your old.

The law falls on the side of the grandfathered rights. There will be no ingress of men into women's bathrooms.

Alas, there's no such right. As there's no presumption of privacy when washing your hands.

 

[Skylar]

My dog thinks it's a cat…

My rat thinks he's a lawyer.

He certainly has passed the first level of eligibility to be..

Target always caves in...they quit saying "Merry Christmas" a few years back. They should concern themselves more with their customer's credit card info being stolen than putting kinky truck drivers in the same bathroom as little girls.

Don't worry, they will be concerned about that blunder when their main customer base (women..fucking der!) start to bail on shopping there. I don't think I've ever been on a shopping trip where some woman in our midst doesn't take a potty break. Target vastly underestimated their customer base and clearly doesn't understand them at all...nor care about their rights to privacy..

Except of course you have no idea who the 'main customer base' is. You're just making shit up. And of course more women support transgender women using a woman's bathroom than oppose it.

Your personal fantasies aren't of any particular interest to Target or anyone else.

 

[Rustic]

It could be like these clowns shitting and pissing where they eat, sleep and anywhere else they feel. They invaded the black hills last summer, they could be smelled for miles and miles… L OL

Rainbow Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EverCurious]

Many states follow the guidelines laid out in the Uniform Plumbing Code, which stipulates that “separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex,” with exceptions for very small businesses as measured in square footage and/or customer traffic. In the eyes of the law in these places, a business with two unisex toilets can be considered to have no toilets at all, since neither facility explicitly serves men or women.

Such laws date back to 1887, according to Terry S. Kogan, a University of Utah law professor and a contributor to the book Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. One hundred and twenty-seven years ago, Massachusetts passed the first law mandating gender-segregated toilets, and many states quickly followed suit. Many of those laws have never been substantially modified, with obvious exceptions in progressive enclaves like D.C. and San Francisco, meaning that much of the United States' toilet-related building codes reflect a literally Victorian prudishness that we might mock in other contexts.

These laws arose due to a confluence of several disparate contemporary movements, Kogan explains in Toilet. The centralization of labor in factories led to the centralization of human waste at work sites, which was carried away by recently developed plumbing technology that had itself been invented in response the newly realized germ theory of disease and the consequent sudden push to improve sanitation. Women's growing presence in the factory workforce, and in public life more generally, triggered a paternalistic impulse to "protect" women from the full force of the world outside their homes, which manifested itself architecturally in a bizarro parallel world of spaces for women adjacent to but separate from men's—ladies' reading rooms at libraries, parlors at department stores, separate entrances at post offices and banks, and their own car on trains, intentionally placed at the very end so that male passengers could chivalrously bear the brunt in the event of a collision. The leap from parlors and reading rooms to ladies-only restrooms was not hard to make, although Kogan admits that "it is not at all obvious what led regulators to conclude that separating factory toilet facilities by sex would protect working women." His research suggests that sex segregation was seen by regulators at the time as "a kind of cure-all" for the era's social anxiety about working women.

The laws that still regulate many of our public toilets are simultaneously very old and very new: old in that they were created in an era scarcely recognizable to a modern American, and yet new in that the practice of sex-segregated pooping and peeing as a matter of course is scarcely more than a century old, a tiny fraction of human history. Either way, we must ensure that our public toilets serve everyone before we can wash our hands of them—presumably under a faucet with a motion sensor. ~

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Good luck finding a judge who will entertain the lawsuit.

It's not a judge but a lawyer and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would take a struggling Target patron all the way to easy street. The only way a judge could kill the case is if it was frivolous. A man entering a woman's bathroom isn't a settled issue of law. So, the judge has no choice but to hear the case. If not, appeal...all the way to the US Supreme Court.

If you think invasion of privacy isn't a cause of action, you have no business weighing in on this thread. It is. It is a fact.

Hey Sil this is your big chance! You could become the face of anti-civil-rights like Kim Davis! Go to Target and sue!

No man has the civil right to enter a woman's restroom, gender confused or not.

 

[Skylar]

Good luck finding a judge who will entertain the lawsuit.

It's not a judge but a lawyer and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would take a struggling Target patron all the way to easy street. The only way a judge could kill the case is if it was frivolous. A man entering a woman's bathroom isn't a settled issue of law. So, the judge has no choice but to hear the case. If not, appeal...all the way to the US Supreme Court.

If you think invasion of privacy isn't a cause of action, you have no business weighing in on this thread. It is. It is a fact.

Hey Sil this is your big chance! You could become the face of anti-civil-rights like Kim Davis! Go to Target and sue!

No man has the civil right to enter a woman's restroom, gender confused or not.

It depends on the State. Some States do recognize this as a civil right.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Good luck finding a judge who will entertain the lawsuit.

It's not a judge but a lawyer and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would take a struggling Target patron all the way to easy street. The only way a judge could kill the case is if it was frivolous. A man entering a woman's bathroom isn't a settled issue of law. So, the judge has no choice but to hear the case. If not, appeal...all the way to the US Supreme Court.

If you think invasion of privacy isn't a cause of action, you have no business weighing in on this thread. It is. It is a fact.

Hey Sil this is your big chance! You could become the face of anti-civil-rights like Kim Davis! Go to Target and sue!

No man has the civil right to enter a woman's restroom, gender confused or not.

It depends on the State. Some States do recognize this as a civil right.

They are wrong.