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
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
Last edited:
