Dear Target, you made a mistake

[MarcATL]

Is it illegal to use the bathroom of the opposite sex?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No.

But the SJWs have stirred up the issue. laws were in place to protect transgendered people, but political activists have decided to create awareness about it (which is the last thing anyone needs when they are gong to the Bathroom! ) and the Right wing nut jobs have taken up the cry, as usual.

About a year ago I went on a crusade on Facebook to convince the SJWS to pipe down. Of course I was vilified. They never ask "why". They just follow a world wide agenda blindly. Never a thought to political backlash or consequences.

So what's the big deal then, if there's no laws being broken?

And what does SJWS stand for?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Is it illegal to use the bathroom of the opposite sex?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Not always Marc,in France they are big on Duel Toilets.....Trust you and the family are well...steve

I'm doing fine Brother Steve. Thanks for asking. How are you and yours?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Mac1958]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

 

[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.

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

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

What? No. I'm talking about regulation from the govt.
how is a private business making business decisions affecting anyone's liberty?

 

[Pop23]

Why would the OP start a thread about a transgender policy and then post links to cross dressers? Oh, I know...pure ignorance.

Because you can't tell which is which without a mental health expert?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

It is the queers that brought this up. If they would mind their own business we wouldn't be going through this now.

Mind their own business? They were just going in and using the bathroom. It is the lunatics that are wanting to peek and see their genitals. In 56 years I haven't seen genitals in all my trips to the men's room.

You cannot sanction allowing one group of men with penises to use the woman's facility without allowing all men with penises access.

Sorry, that is called illegal discrimination.

 

[Pop23]

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??

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

 

[WinterBorn]

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??

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

Isn't that the claim of those defending the bakery?

 

[TNHarley]

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??

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

Isn't that the claim of those defending the bakery?

I defend everyone's right to their private property

 

[NightFox]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

 

[Mac1958]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

I actually considered shareholders when I was writing that, and I probably should have included them. I have no doubt that Target's shareholders were front and center in their minds as they made this decision. And I'm not saying that the calculus was necessarily correct, although my guess is that it is.

Let's say we ran a survey asking how many people knew about this. What percentage of the population do you think does? My guess is 25% or less. We're a bunch of political geeks here. If I were a computer geek I might all pissed off about a new Intel chip.

Anyway, I'll revise and include the shareholders. No doubt Target took them into consideration, so I guess we'll see on that.
.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Don't worry...nobody will interfere with Target filing for bankruptcy. That's their right as a private business!

 

[Pop23]

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??

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

Isn't that the claim of those defending the bakery?

Might be, I disagreed with them as much as I disagree with Target

The State however stepped in, claiming the bakery discriminated, but aren't with Target?

Curious

 

[Rustic]

Just because a dog thinks it's a cat... Does not make it a cat.
Lol

 

[NightFox]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

I actually considered shareholders when I was writing that, and I probably should have included them. I have no doubt that Target's shareholders were front and center in their minds as they made this decision. And I'm not saying that the calculus was necessarily correct, although my guess is that it is.

Let's say we ran a survey asking how many people knew about this. What percentage of the population do you think does? My guess is 25% or less. We're a bunch of political geeks here. If I were a computer geek I might all pissed off about a new Intel chip.

Anyway, I'll revise and include the shareholders. No doubt Target took them into consideration, so I guess we'll see on that.
.

I see where you are coming from Mac but I think you're missing a big piece of the equation here, Target is taking a completely un-quantifiable risk to their bottom line and brand here and the magnitude of that risk is now completely beyond their control. Maybe this story will remain behind the scenes and not widely know on the other hand it may indeed catch fire in socially conservative circles (a huge piece of the American Consumer Base) and do a vast amount of damage not only to Targets bottom line but to it's brand, the OP pointed out a petition for boycott which has apparently already garnered almost a million signatures, what if that is just the beginning?

Target is in a highly competitive business (retail) and deciding to branch out into the societal norm change agent business doesn't appear to have any upside on Target's primary mission which is to increase shareholder value.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

I actually considered shareholders when I was writing that, and I probably should have included them. I have no doubt that Target's shareholders were front and center in their minds as they made this decision. And I'm not saying that the calculus was necessarily correct, although my guess is that it is.

Let's say we ran a survey asking how many people knew about this. What percentage of the population do you think does? My guess is 25% or less. We're a bunch of political geeks here. If I were a computer geek I might all pissed off about a new Intel chip.

Anyway, I'll revise and include the shareholders. No doubt Target took them into consideration, so I guess we'll see on that.
.

I see where you are coming from Mac but I think you're missing a big piece of the equation here, Target is taking a completely un-quantifiable risk to their bottom line and brand here and the magnitude of that risk is now completely beyond their control. Maybe this story will remain behind the scenes and not widely know on the other hand it may indeed catch fire in socially conservative circles (a huge piece of the American Consumer Base) and do a vast amount of damage not only to Targets bottom line but to it's brand, the OP pointed out a petition for boycott which has apparently already garnered almost a million signatures, what if that is just the beginning?

Target is in a highly competitive business (retail) and deciding to branch out into the societal norm change agent business doesn't appear to have any upside on Target's primary mission which is to increase shareholder value.

Well first of all, holy shit, I'm wrong all the freakin' time. Just ask my wife. That said, here are the two possibilities as I see them:

1. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made a relatively risky business decision that they feel will either be an economic wash or perhaps a slight economic gain, or
2. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made what it feels is an altruistic decision to do what it feels is right regardless of potential business/economic ramifications.

My guess is that it's #3, some combination therein. The OP thinks this will come back to haunt Target, I'm just not so sure. But either way, I'm gonna keep my eye on this, Target Corp., because it's my profession!
.

 

[NightFox]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

I actually considered shareholders when I was writing that, and I probably should have included them. I have no doubt that Target's shareholders were front and center in their minds as they made this decision. And I'm not saying that the calculus was necessarily correct, although my guess is that it is.

Let's say we ran a survey asking how many people knew about this. What percentage of the population do you think does? My guess is 25% or less. We're a bunch of political geeks here. If I were a computer geek I might all pissed off about a new Intel chip.

Anyway, I'll revise and include the shareholders. No doubt Target took them into consideration, so I guess we'll see on that.
.

I see where you are coming from Mac but I think you're missing a big piece of the equation here, Target is taking a completely un-quantifiable risk to their bottom line and brand here and the magnitude of that risk is now completely beyond their control. Maybe this story will remain behind the scenes and not widely know on the other hand it may indeed catch fire in socially conservative circles (a huge piece of the American Consumer Base) and do a vast amount of damage not only to Targets bottom line but to it's brand, the OP pointed out a petition for boycott which has apparently already garnered almost a million signatures, what if that is just the beginning?

Target is in a highly competitive business (retail) and deciding to branch out into the societal norm change agent business doesn't appear to have any upside on Target's primary mission which is to increase shareholder value.

Well first of all, holy shit, I'm wrong all the freakin' time. Just ask my wife. That said, here are the two possibilities as I see them:

1. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made a relatively risky business decision that they feel will either be an economic wash or perhaps a slight economic gain, or
2. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made what it feels is an altruistic decision to do what it feels is right regardless of potential business/economic ramifications.

My guess is that it's #3, some combination therein. The OP thinks this will come back to haunt Target, I'm just not so sure. But either way, I'm gonna keep my eye on this, Target Corp., because it's my profession!
.

I think you're correct when you say "I'm just no sure", however my point was that from that little that I know about this situation it seems like a big risk with small potential reward which, as I'm sure you're aware, is a BIG no-no when running a business (we all want small risk with high potential reward or at the very least big risk with big potential reward, right?).

Personally I want to look more into how Target Management justified/will justify this move to it's shareholders, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

I actually considered shareholders when I was writing that, and I probably should have included them. I have no doubt that Target's shareholders were front and center in their minds as they made this decision. And I'm not saying that the calculus was necessarily correct, although my guess is that it is.

Let's say we ran a survey asking how many people knew about this. What percentage of the population do you think does? My guess is 25% or less. We're a bunch of political geeks here. If I were a computer geek I might all pissed off about a new Intel chip.

Anyway, I'll revise and include the shareholders. No doubt Target took them into consideration, so I guess we'll see on that.
.

I see where you are coming from Mac but I think you're missing a big piece of the equation here, Target is taking a completely un-quantifiable risk to their bottom line and brand here and the magnitude of that risk is now completely beyond their control. Maybe this story will remain behind the scenes and not widely know on the other hand it may indeed catch fire in socially conservative circles (a huge piece of the American Consumer Base) and do a vast amount of damage not only to Targets bottom line but to it's brand, the OP pointed out a petition for boycott which has apparently already garnered almost a million signatures, what if that is just the beginning?

Target is in a highly competitive business (retail) and deciding to branch out into the societal norm change agent business doesn't appear to have any upside on Target's primary mission which is to increase shareholder value.

Well first of all, holy shit, I'm wrong all the freakin' time. Just ask my wife. That said, here are the two possibilities as I see them:

1. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made a relatively risky business decision that they feel will either be an economic wash or perhaps a slight economic gain, or
2. Target, well aware of the socio-political implications, has made what it feels is an altruistic decision to do what it feels is right regardless of potential business/economic ramifications.

My guess is that it's #3, some combination therein. The OP thinks this will come back to haunt Target, I'm just not so sure. But either way, I'm gonna keep my eye on this, Target Corp., because it's my profession!
.

I think you're correct when you say "I'm just no sure", however my point was that from that little that I know about this situation it seems like a big risk with small potential reward which, as I'm sure you're aware, is a BIG no-no when running a business (we all want small risk with high potential reward or at the very least big risk with big potential reward, right?).

Personally I want to look more into how Target Management justified/will justify this move to it's shareholders, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Yeah, stuff like this doesn't happen on a whim, there was some serious calculation here. I'd love to have seen that, too.
.

 

[Silhouette]

I see where you are coming from Mac but I think you're missing a big piece of the equation here, Target is taking a completely un-quantifiable risk to their bottom line and brand here and the magnitude of that risk is now completely beyond their control. Maybe this story will remain behind the scenes and not widely know on the other hand it may indeed catch fire in socially conservative circles (a huge piece of the American Consumer Base) and do a vast amount of damage not only to Targets bottom line but to it's brand, the OP pointed out a petition for boycott which has apparently already garnered almost a million signatures, what if that is just the beginning?

Target is in a highly competitive business (retail) and deciding to branch out into the societal norm change agent business doesn't appear to have any upside on Target's primary mission which is to increase shareholder value.

Exactly! They have opened themselves wide to a stockholder lawsuit. The only direction sales numbers will go from here is down, either minimally or significantly. My money is on the latter. I won't shop there anymore until I hear an official announcement of a change in policy back to sanity again. Everyone is talking about it where I live too. Nobody is in favor of men using women's bathrooms.

Target's main customer base was regular older and younger gals. Neither demographic support men in their private segregated hygiene retreats. Women need somewhere to let their hair down and not feel leered at by men. Target's COMPLETE lack of sensitivity or even awareness of how women regard their bathroom areas is frankly stunning.

I knew the cult would push too far too soon and it would wake everyone up. We have finally arrived there! Thank God..

 

[WinterBorn]

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

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

Isn't that the claim of those defending the bakery?

Might be, I disagreed with them as much as I disagree with Target

The State however stepped in, claiming the bakery discriminated, but aren't with Target?

Curious

No, not curious. The bakers violated the law. Whether you agree with WHY they violated the law, they did violate it.

Target is simply not enforcing a law. There is a difference.