Dear Target, you made a mistake

You can link the accusation?
I told you Rustic has the links....

He has links to your accusations?

That's simply cute
yes he does .....convictions do not matter though ...some other wing nut said it ...all one has to do is be accused and one is automatically guilty...GOP rules

But you made the accusation.

So go back to the meme factory, it's your home afterall.
 
How would forcing them to use the ladies room prevent anything you've complained about?

Come now, perhaps you didn't read my OP closely enough:

"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."

Why wouldn't this work just as well for transgender women? They are about as rare as transgender men. If infrequency invalidates necessity.......then why isn't the same true for transgender women?

And of course you ignored every other point made.

.....That nothing about allowing transgender women to use the ladies room authorizes them to take pictures while they're in there.

.....That sexual predators *already* go into bathrooms, and your law does nothing to prevent that.

.....That your proposals would (and have) resulted in assaults on lesbians in women's bathrooms that don't look 'female' enough.

.....That your proposals would (and have) resulted in transwomen being assaulted in men's rooms.

.....That the occurrence rate of transgender women molesting girls in public bathrooms is apparently zero. So your proposal makes no more sense than unicorn leash laws. As what you're trying to prevent either doesn't happen....or is already illegal.

All while causing very real harm to actual people. Making your proposals worse than useless.
 
You missed the most critical point in your original post. The nearly 1 million people who have signed the pledge to boycott Target actually only represents 1/4 of the total number. Do you have any idea how many people find it "silly" to sign something - but are committed to the action? So it is really closer to 4 million or more that will be boycotting Target indefinitely. Good luck to Target trying to survive off of the class they are pandering too
 
Why wouldn't this work just as well for transgender women?

Well for one, because of the way they pee. Will they be allowed to use a urinal or a stall? The difference would be hard to miss.

But the one key thing you seem to be missing it this:

I don't care if trans women use the women's bathroom. I'm concerned more about the ones who aren't actually transgendered women, who would exploit that policy to go into a women's bathroom and victimize them. And besides, given how Stinson and Angel have managed to make themselves look convincingly like men (stress on convincingly), it would be hard to tell they were biologically female. Those are very unique circumstances, using the men's restroom wouldn't seem suspicious at all.

That nothing about allowing transgender women to use the ladies room authorizes them to take pictures while they're in there.

No, but that doesn't stop them.

That sexual predators *already* go into bathrooms, and your law does nothing to prevent that.

But now sexual predators, mainly male, can use the transgender policy to gain access to a women's restroom and commit the deed.

Though if my "law" won't work, then what will? If you want this so badly, think of a way, a compromise, or even a solution that would allow transgendered individuals to use the bathroom without causing a problem. Unisex bathrooms can be only single occupancy. But having multiple unisex bathrooms could be a solution or maybe having two unisex bathroom areas with multiple single occupancy bathrooms lining the walls on each side. Each bathroom can be used via the "vacant" or "occupied" method. There are ways around this. Easy ways. Eliminate the gender concept altogether, while maintaining separation and privacy for all involved.

But I don't think you want that.
 
Last edited:
I have plenty of examples of men claiming to be transgendered women going into bathrooms simply to satisfy not their need to answer the call of nature, but to satisfy their perverse wants and needs.

Available upon request.
 
Yay! Another retarded wedge issue is sprouting its wings!

That's where the Liberals live....
Anything off the fucking wall the Libs put out there to show how evil republicans are....

Forget about an economy that's in the toilet,huge national debt,a pathetic foreign policy.
It's always about abortion and gay shit with the Libs.
 
That's where the Liberals live....
Anything off the fucking wall the Libs put out there to show how evil republicans are....

Forget about an economy that's in the toilet,huge national debt,a pathetic foreign policy.
It's always about abortion and gay shit with the Libs.
While it's often difficult to arrive at a straighforward answer, this question should always be asked: cui bono?

On the right hand, we have a party tightening its grip on the hearts and minds of a good many constituents that would otherwise have little reason for allegiance to it. How many poor and lower middle income Republicans might switch party affiliation if the DNC simply changed or dropped the platform(s) many southern Christians in particular find hostile to their religious values? Any wedge issues that shore up the GOP's stranglehold on voters with the conviction to vote against their own best financial interests for the sake of their religious beliefs are therefore beneficial to the party as a whole.

On the left hand, we have a party tightening its grip on a smaller but equally principled group of relatively higher income constituents (I'm not talking about the uber wealthy here), whose financial interests may be better served by a more conservative (read: less 'socially conscious') approach to money matters. So, in that sense, the Democratic Party benefits from the very same wedge issues.

I suppose we could call it a wash, that is, if there weren't a third party benefiting from the divide-and-conquer aspects of a sharply delineated two party system. I'm talking about the ruling class of course—the few at the very top of the pyramid, whose wealth, power, and influence are all at least partially due to a system of social control that keeps the masses bickering with each other over puppets...instead of uniting against the puppeteer. That's who benefits most from all these stupid wedge issues.
 
A third party would funnel away too many votes. Besides, isn't this a thread about men using women's bathrooms?
 
I went into a Target yesterday with the sole intention of seeing for myself. There were no gender neutral bathrooms and while I suppose that if I wanted to use the ladies room, they might have let me, there was no sign saying so.

I am not advocating that we go easy on Target, there has been a long standing reason for us to boycott them. I have been boycotting them for almost two years now, but I think that this whole issue has been over hyped.
 

Forum List

Back
Top