Target, Bathrooms, & a PC culture

[TGHusker]

 

Sure do hope they get this bathroom thing all figured out before global warming hits and ruins everything we(humanity) have worked so hard for.

 

Actually, not sure I have ever met a transgender person before, though I guess it's all the cool thing to be nowadays. Have met a few folks that I'm almost certain were cross dressers, not sure if they were all the way "trans", didn't ask. A gay guy tried to put the moves on me one time in a beach bathroom in Maui, but it didn't scar me for life--he was, how shall I say, unsuccessful.

 

As an aside, they have those "baby change" stations in many bathrooms these days, which is an easy and convenient way for parents who are frustrated with their baby to, you know, get a different one, "trade up", so to speak.

 

And thus concludes my stories as related to this topic.

 

There aren't a lot of them in America. According to a Williams Institute study from 2011, there were approximately 700,000 transgender persons in America. That's only 0.3% of the population, so not a large community.

 

I know *of* two persons in my daily life, although I don't *know* them. Of the hundreds, maybe thousands of people with whom I'm acquainted, that's a tiny percentage.

 

I've met a couple TGs - Oh NO "TG" - and I'm "TGHusker" - what happened to me? Whew, I looked down - it is still there!

Yes, I think the NC law and I think the Miss law may be over reactions to the actual # of opportunities for abuse. What I hear more than the TGs using the female RR is that it gives the green light for perverts to enter and use it as an excuse to be in there. Again social change is never easy. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this one. We are a long ways from Leave it to Beaver, Wally.

[HuskerShark]

When a company makes the kind of decision Target made, it is based on a careful calculation of how it will affect the bottom line,. My guess is that for most people, it's a non-issue and Target wants to appeal to the largest shopping population possible.

 

What makes this an issue is fear-mongering and opportunity. Bring up a virtually non-existent "problem", demonize it, then act as the crusader that will save civilization.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety.

 

Example:

 

A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom.

 

Not OK.

[84HuskerLaw]

The problem is that many, maybe even most, public restrooms in gas stations, stores, etc are multiple fixure facilities, with the typical mens room having numberous unrinals that are not located in individualized/enclosed 'stalls'. You have toilets that are mostly in enclosed stalls but not always. I dont think the biggest concern is the men's restroom so much as the women's as when the status quo law (which is basically 'anything goes' in any restroom as the distinction between MAN and WOMAN is now purely an atitudinal and mental one and not physical. The law is now that basically anyone can use any restroom freely and those in the restroom have to accept this. therefore, any man can go into any women's restroom without consequences. It may happen by accident or by emergency or of rare necessity and not real criminal or other action might be taken. but it could have been before. Not now. Anything goes. For many people, children and women particularly, are uncomfortable with unisex restrooms that are not locked and one user at a time rooms.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

When a company makes the kind of decision Target made, it is based on a careful calculation of how it will affect the bottom line,. My guess is that for most people, it's a non-issue and Target wants to appeal to the largest shopping population possible.

 

What makes this an issue is fear-mongering and opportunity. Bring up a virtually non-existent "problem", demonize it, then act as the crusader that will save civilization.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety.

 

Example:

 

A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom.

 

Not OK.

 

And for which laws already exist to punish the "peeping Tom" activities. So, yes, it is true.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

When a company makes the kind of decision Target made, it is based on a careful calculation of how it will affect the bottom line,. My guess is that for most people, it's a non-issue and Target wants to appeal to the largest shopping population possible.

 

What makes this an issue is fear-mongering and opportunity. Bring up a virtually non-existent "problem", demonize it, then act as the crusader that will save civilization.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety.

 

Example:

 

A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom.

 

Not OK.

 

And for which laws already exist to punish the "peeping Tom" activities. So, yes, it is true.

 

How do you distinguish? And how do you regulate it?

 

Apparently anything goes in our society now that men are being allowed to go into ladies' restrooms, so I'm curious.

[AR Husker Fan]

As you do now. Look up the laws regarding voyeurism. You establish the crime the same way, regardless of the transgender issue.

[HuskerShark]

As you do now. Look up the laws regarding voyeurism. You establish the crime the same way, regardless of the transgender issue.

 

It makes much more sense to take the subjectivity and variety of interpretation out of law-making. For example, having people with a penis use their assigned restroom, and people with a vagina using their assigned restroom because that is the way God made them.

[Landlord]

 

When a company makes the kind of decision Target made, it is based on a careful calculation of how it will affect the bottom line,. My guess is that for most people, it's a non-issue and Target wants to appeal to the largest shopping population possible.

 

What makes this an issue is fear-mongering and opportunity. Bring up a virtually non-existent "problem", demonize it, then act as the crusader that will save civilization.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety.

 

Example:

 

A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom.

 

Not OK.

 

 

 

 

 

Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind".

 

Not OK.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

When a company makes the kind of decision Target made, it is based on a careful calculation of how it will affect the bottom line,. My guess is that for most people, it's a non-issue and Target wants to appeal to the largest shopping population possible.

 

What makes this an issue is fear-mongering and opportunity. Bring up a virtually non-existent "problem", demonize it, then act as the crusader that will save civilization.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety.

 

Example:

 

A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom.

 

Not OK.

 

 

 

 

 

Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind".

 

Not OK.

 

 

Completely separate issue, and not relatable to this discussion whatsoever.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

As you do now. Look up the laws regarding voyeurism. You establish the crime the same way, regardless of the transgender issue.

 

It makes much more sense to take the subjectivity and variety of interpretation out of law-making. For example, having people with a penis use their assigned restroom, and people with a vagina using their assigned restroom because that is the way God made them.

What about someone who has both? Do they just pee in the common area out front?

[AR Husker Fan]

While more objective, it also makes a criminal out of a father that takes his daughter into the ladies' room or makes a criminal out of the daughter the father takes into the men's room - or makes a criminal out of the mother that takes the son into the men's room or makes a criminal out of the son the mother takes into the ladies' room.

 

You do realize that it is NOT a crime right now for a man to use a woman's restroom or vice versa, right? The criminal conduct is if the person using the "wrong" restroom exposes himself or herself, or engages in voyeuristic acts, or so forth. And that's why these anti-transgender bills are simply nothing more than grandstanding and fear-mongering. If someone is inclined to commit a crime in the "opposite" bathroom, the fear of being arrested simply BECAUSE they use the "opposite" bathroom is not a deterrent insofar as simply entering the bathroom or using the facilities upon entering does not constitute a crime.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

As you do now. Look up the laws regarding voyeurism. You establish the crime the same way, regardless of the transgender issue.

 

It makes much more sense to take the subjectivity and variety of interpretation out of law-making. For example, having people with a penis use their assigned restroom, and people with a vagina using their assigned restroom because that is the way God made them.

[jimk]

Do people realize that if a pervert wanted to just walk into a woman's restroom he could do that now? Nothing is stopping him right? Just walk right in. Does it happen much, no idea but I don't think this is a huge issue.

[HuskerShark]

While more objective, it also makes a criminal out of a father that takes his daughter into the ladies' room or makes a criminal out of the daughter the father takes into the men's room - or makes a criminal out of the mother that takes the son into the men's room or makes a criminal out of the son the mother takes into the ladies' room.

 

You do realize that it is NOT a crime right now for a man to use a woman's restroom or vice versa, right? The criminal conduct is if the person using the "wrong" restroom exposes himself or herself, or engages in voyeuristic acts, or so forth. And that's why these anti-transgender bills are simply nothing more than grandstanding and fear-mongering. If someone is inclined to commit a crime in the "opposite" bathroom, the fear of being arrested simply BECAUSE they use the "opposite" bathroom is not a deterrent insofar as simply entering the bathroom or using the facilities upon entering does not constitute a crime.

 

It's socially acceptable currently to take a young boy or girl into the opposite gender's bathroom until the parent feels they're old enough to go into their own restroom on their own. No, a mother shouldn't take her young son into the men's room. And no, a father shouldn't take his young daughter into the women's restroom. That discussion is irrelevant.

 

As far as your 2nd point, (I assume you are a man) try walking into the women's restroom sometime and see what happens.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

While more objective, it also makes a criminal out of a father that takes his daughter into the ladies' room or makes a criminal out of the daughter the father takes into the men's room - or makes a criminal out of the mother that takes the son into the men's room or makes a criminal out of the son the mother takes into the ladies' room.

 

You do realize that it is NOT a crime right now for a man to use a woman's restroom or vice versa, right? The criminal conduct is if the person using the "wrong" restroom exposes himself or herself, or engages in voyeuristic acts, or so forth. And that's why these anti-transgender bills are simply nothing more than grandstanding and fear-mongering. If someone is inclined to commit a crime in the "opposite" bathroom, the fear of being arrested simply BECAUSE they use the "opposite" bathroom is not a deterrent insofar as simply entering the bathroom or using the facilities upon entering does not constitute a crime.

It's socially acceptable currently to take a young boy or girl into the opposite gender's bathroom until the parent feels they're old enough to go into their own restroom on their own. No, a mother shouldn't take her young son into the men's room. And no, a father shouldn't take his young daughter into the women's restroom. That discussion is irrelevant.

 

Actually, it's not. It directly addresses the point YOU raised regarding removing the subjectivity in the law. Again, the point YOU raised. So, unless you are admitting that YOUR point is irrelevant...

 

As far as your 2nd point, (I assume you are a man) try walking into the women's restroom sometime and see what happens.

Ah, now we DO get to something irrelevant. Their reaction is irrelevant as to whether it's a crime.