Dear Target, you made a mistake

[NYcarbineer]

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

lol, the poster starts by saying it's asinine to get so upset over this issue,

then proceeds to embark on a five thousand word rant over what upsets him about it.

 

[Pop23]

Well, target is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases.

They have every right to bankruptcy.

I agree

 

[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

All of your examples defeat your argument. Those people were ARRESTED.

Are you so stupid to believe all criminals get caught????

 

[WinterBorn]

On the one hand, the bakery fiasco was about breaking a law.

This? Not so much. Target will be fine.

 

[JoeB131]

Aha! So if Target, a private business, should be allowed to do as it pleases, why shouldn't the Christian bakery owner be allowed do the same?

Because they are actualy breaking the law.

Now, here's the thing, if there are any Targets in NC (where the men are men and the sheep are nervous), they can still arrest a cross-dresser for using the wrong bathroom. What Target is saying is, "We aren't going to be the bathroom police".

You see, the problem with transphobic laws like HB2 is that they are unenforceable. What do you think trans-women have been doing up to this point? They've been going into the ladies room, using a closed stall and doing their business. And while someone might say,"Man,she's really ugly!" no one ever thought to check her junk before then.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, target is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases.

Aha! So if Target, a private business, should be allowed to do as it pleases, why shouldn't the Christian bakery owner be allowed do the same?

State laws. But you are right.. They should be able to do what they want. Individual liberty is getting picked apart piece by piece.

 

[Rustic]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, target is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases.

Aha! So if Target, a private business, should be allowed to do as it pleases, why shouldn't the Christian bakery owner be allowed do the same?

State laws. But you are right.. They should be able to do what they want. Individual liberty is getting picked apart piece by piece.

Individual liberty? What individual liberty is effected when someone goes into a bathroom stall and pees??

 

[WinterBorn]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

Well, thank you for settling that issue. I am sure you are qualified to make such a statement, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

All of your examples defeat your argument. Those people were ARRESTED.

Are you so stupid to believe all criminals get caught????

English please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A man in a dress is a freak. A woman in jeans and a sweatshirt is perfectly normal.

Weird isn't it?

 

[Rustic]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

Show me were someone is one sex but thinks they are another sex and becomes what they "think" they are by thinking it??
Politically correct people are fucking insane… LOL

 

[theliq]

A man in a dress is a freak. A woman in jeans and a sweatshirt is perfectly normal.

Weird isn't it?

Not really,men throughout history have worn dresses,actually NYCAR I noticed that until approx.,1923 Boys were dressed in Pink and Femmes in Blue

just sayin steve

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

Show me were someone is one sex but thinks they are another sex and becomes what they "think" they are by thinking it??
Politically correct people are fucking insane… LOL

Gender is controlled by chemicals.

 

[Rustic]

A man in a dress is a freak. A woman in jeans and a sweatshirt is perfectly normal.

Weird isn't it?

Not if your Scottish

 

[WinterBorn]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

Show me were someone is one sex but thinks they are another sex and becomes what they "think" they are by thinking it??
Politically correct people are fucking insane… LOL

No one claimed that positive thinking changed anyone's genitalia. That is stupid.

But your claim that no one was ever born in the wrong body is based on your own suppositions, not factual evidence.

 

[Rustic]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

Show me were someone is one sex but thinks they are another sex and becomes what they "think" they are by thinking it??
Politically correct people are fucking insane… LOL

Gender is controlled by chemicals.

Yes, what you were born as is what you are... Common fucking sense
Lol

 

[WinterBorn]

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 fact remains, no one was, is and will ever be born in the wrong body… LOL - common fucking sense.

If you believe this is all about biology, then how can you reject the possibility that a person's brain, which functions biologically, could be biologically telling that person he or she is not the gender that his or her genitalia reflect?

The workings of the mind are biological, controlled by biochemistry.

Show me were someone is one sex but thinks they are another sex and becomes what they "think" they are by thinking it??
Politically correct people are fucking insane… LOL

Gender is controlled by chemicals.

Yes, what you were born as is what you are... Common fucking sense
Lol

Keep saying this over and over. Maybe you will believe it.

 

[jknowgood]

Well, target is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases.

Aha! So if Target, a private business, should be allowed to do as it pleases, why shouldn't the Christian bakery owner be allowed do the same?