Target Stores Open Women’s Bathrooms, Changing Rooms to Men “Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”

[SmallFarm]

More aggressive legislation from the right: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/health/ox ... d=23948843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[larsenb]

Immoral behavior like not allowing someone someone the decency to use public facilities without first showing ID?

It's immoral to not allow a man to use the women's bathroom? Interesting take.

How are you going to determine who is a man and not Shadow?

I once saw a demonstration on Crocodile Dundee.

Shadow, that was a good one! I would say Dundee used the most direct method for this kind of determination.

[SmallFarm]

So let's see.... it's bad to go into the ladies restroom if you think you're a lady but groping someone to check what's between their legs is permissible
=))

[larsenb]

Here is another case from William Grigg on his Pro Libertate web site. His article is titled: Gavin Grimm's Totalitarian Fairy Tale, located at: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Extracts, showing how granting special privileges to individuals such as Gavin Grimm, deprives the right to privacy of the vast majority:

Gavin Grimm's Totalitarian Fairy Tale

Grimm1.jpg (8.57 KiB) Viewed 2509 times

. . . . . . .The troubled 16-year-old girl from Gloucester, Virginia who calls herself Gavin Grimm, and insists on being treated as if she were a boy, is acting on something other than faith by denying substantive facts that are plain to be seen by fellow high school students who would share bathroom facilities with her.

Those students, and the school faculty, have unwisely indulged Grimm in her delusion to the extent of providing her – and others who have qualified for the trendy and politically potent diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” – with unisex bathroom facilities. To avoid potentially unsettling encounters in locker rooms, Grimm was allowed to do P.E. at home.

Grimm registered as a female for her 9th grade year at Gloucester High School before deciding (perhaps as a result of prolonged immersion in Tumblr, I suspect) that she was actually a male, irrespective of her biological sex. Her parents, along with school administrators and counselors, were unfailingly supportive after Grimm announced a desire to “transition” in a “social” – but not anatomical – sense. An Orwellian revision of school records was made to reflect Grimm’s new “gender identity”; an official e-mail was dispatched ordering teachers to address her as if she were a biological male.

As Grimm herself has acknowledged, “no teachers, administrators, or staff at Gloucester High School expressed any resistance to calling me by my legal [meaning male] name or referring to me using male pronouns.” Students were unfailingly supportive – and understandably confused when Grimm opted not to use any of the three “unisex” bathroom facilities that had been provided at substantial expense to local tax victims. Owing to their indoctrination, female students looked upon Grimm as a boy; owing to their residual allegiance to reality, many male students still saw her as a girl.

Why was Grimm avoiding the unisex bathrooms in the first place? In the lawsuit inevitably filed by the pressure groups exploiting her, Grimm insisted that it was “stigmatizing” to use those facilities. In this fashion she imputed unspoken motives to people who had (by her own admission) said nothing offensive to her. She likewise complained that by being required to use the unisex bathrooms she was subjected to “different and unequal treatment.”

This much is incontestable: The treatment she received was manifestly unequal when compared to that given to students who were not recognized as “specially protected” specimens and thus did not share her entitlement to rearrange local reality according to the dictates of her whimsical self-image.

While it is unwise to reinforce the delusions of an emotionally troubled adolescent girl – and criminal to use plundered wealth to that purpose -- nobody has the right to punish her for them, or to compel her to abandon them. On the same principle, neither she nor any of the ideologically deranged adults who are cheerfully exploiting her has the right to compel others to participate in her fantasy, which is the purpose of her lawsuit.

Gavin at courthouse.jpg (21.27 KiB) Viewed 2509 times

The activist groups who have battened on Grimm’s lawsuit seek nothing less than federal intervention to compel people to take part in what amounts to an exercise in participatory solipsism: Because Grimm is an accredited member of the “specially protected” class, hers is the only mental state that matters, and those unworthy of that designation must defer to her. Mere material accommodation is insufficient; every thought must be taken captive in the service of “gender justice,” or whatever label is currently affixed to the bottle containing this bilge.

In a ruling that should surprise nobody who is paying attention, the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, has demanded that the Gloucester School District permit Grimm to use restroom facilities reserved for biological males. This is supposedly required by the infinitely expandable Title IX of the federal educational amendments of 1972, which forbids “sex discrimination” on the part of any educational institution that receives any amount of federal subsidies.

This ruling, predictably, ignores the actual text of the law, relying instead on a letter composed by an appointed functionary in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights that elides the critical difference between sex – an innate physical characteristic – and “gender” – which is, apparently, a protean social artifact. The author of that letter has no legal or constitutional authority to revise the text of the statute at issue. Such matters are inconsequential to social justice warriors, whether in foundation-funded pressure groups or judicial robes.

In a dissent . . . . . . Judge Paul Niemeyer writes that the US Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX overturns “all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes.”

“This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect,” Niemeyer continued. “More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result” – which is the ideal outcome for people driven by an insatiable appetite to reform what they see as defects in the way others live and think.

Grimm professes that she feels psychological distress when using girl’s bathroom facilities in the presence of other biological females. The same would be true of male students compelled to share bathrooms with her. However, they belong to an unprivileged class and, therefore, their discomfort is not relevant – unless they should act on it by absenting themselves when Grimm materializes among them. This would be “stigmatizing” behavior and, thus, unacceptable. So what would be the appropriate remedy? Will school resource officers be on hand to enforce a regime of compelled bathroom integration? If not, why not?
No, you're cynically exploiting her.

Gavin ACLU.jpg (8.52 KiB) Viewed 2509 times

Totalitarianism is a political system in which the State seeks to reconfigure society in harmony with an ideological abstraction. This makes it impossible for people to relate to each other without constant supervision by the Enlightened Ones, backed by the constant threat, and frequent imposition, of punitive sanctions. The Regime has been pursuing this design, through various means, since roughly 1865, as Professor George P. Fletcher documents in his book The Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy.

Fletcher, a self-described Marxist who taught at Columbia University School of Law, insists that the true purpose of the War Between the States, and the Reconstruction of the South, was not to end chattel slavery, but rather to replace the original constitutional order with a unitary Regime in which the central government would have illimitable power to regulate the personal behavior of its subjects.

“The heart of the new consensus is that the federal government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its citizens,” wrote Fletcher approvingly. The Founders' Constitution, according to the men who framed it, would supposedly protect liberty by prescribing a handful of limited powers to the central government, thereby proscribing the exercise of any others by it.

That arrangement was changed as a result of the War and Reconstruction, according to Fletcher, since “the liberty that comes to the fore in the intended postbellum constitutional order and under the Secret Constitution requires the intervention of government. Liberty is born in the state's assertion of responsibility to oversee and prevent relationships of oppression.” (Emphasis added.)

By this formula, the more aggressively the federal government intervenes in our private lives, the “freer” we become. In the case of Gavin Grimm, the Regime has arrogated to itself the power to redefine basic matters of biology, thereby giving itself a very broad license for aggressive intervention in the most intimate areas of life – in this case, the lives of minor children.

Judge Niemeyer, striving with admirable but doomed determination to remind his colleagues that something called the law exists, observes: “An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex.”

This is an elemental property right. Gavin Grimm does not have a property right entitling her to require others to see her as a boy. The totalitarian scope of the Regime’s ambition is made clear by its determination to punish those unwilling to pretend otherwise.

[Elizabeth]

The United States and Australia both have Target stores.
Trademark law is not international but is on a country-by-country basis.
There is no connection between Target in Australia and Target in the US.

[shadow]

So let's see.... it's bad to go into the ladies restroom if you think you're a lady but groping someone to check what's between their legs is permissible
=))

Might as well legalize and make everything permissible.

[Elizabeth]

"Target Stock Sinks by $1.5 BILLION!
Ouch! Target is feeling the burn.

APRIL 29, 2016

Are you one of the people that has signed the pledged against the MEGA Super Store Target and their new LGBT friendly bathroom policy? Well then good for you! Not only is it one million strong and growing but their stocks are plummeting.

http://conservativebyte.com/2016/04/tar ... 5-billion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"More than 1,000,000 people have signed the boycott pledge against Target, following their decision to open all store bathrooms to both sexes. Late Thursday night, roughly 75 people a minute were adding their name to the petition as it clicked over 1 million, just after 10:30 pm Eastern Time.

“That’s a million families who are going to spread the word about Target, so they may not get those customers back,” or their money, said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, which has hosted the boycott. "

[Elizabeth]

Target Stocks Sink by $2.5 Billion in 10 Days as over 1 Million Americans Pledge to Boycott Them - Minutemen News

Now TARGET STOCKS SINK BY $2.5 BILLION IN 10 DAYS

[captainfearnot]

Now TARGET STOCKS SINK BY $2.5 BILLION IN 10 DAYS

What does that even mean?

When we want to communicate clearly about stocks, we talk about the percentage change in share price. A number like $2.5 billion doesn't mean anything unless we know where the stock is valued and how many shares are outstanding. It's immediately evident that there is some intentional obfuscation going on here—someone is trying to make it sound like a bigger deal than it is by talking about billions. Because that sounds big.

TGT closed at 79.50 on Apr 29, down from 83.29 two days prior on the 27th, and 83.98 on the 19th, the monthly high. That's probably the ten days ago figure this article is alluding to. So falling from 83.98 to 79.50 represents a 5.3% drop. Which is significant, sure, but doesn't sound as good as $2.5 BILLION to create the impression that the boycott is having a huge impact and the company is cratering.

Target has about 600 million shares outstanding, so at $80 per share that puts its valuation at $48 billion. So if the stock price drops by 5.3%, that represents about a $2.5 billion decrease in overall value.

Is that unusual? Is that due to the boycott?

Well, here's what Target's stock price has done over the last month compared to Walmart's stock price, on a percentage change basis. It looks like both are down about 3% from a month ago, and they've both followed pretty close to the same trajectory. So either Walmart has its own simultaneous boycott going on, or else the stock prices of both companies are dependent on something else entirely.

[Elizabeth]

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign- ... et-pledge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of Target after the retail giant said it would allow men to use the women's restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.

On its web site, Target announced, "[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. ...Everyone deserves to feel like they belong."

This means a man can simply say he "feels like a woman today" and enter the women's restroom...even if young girls or women are already in there. Target's policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. And with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?

Clearly, Target's dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters. Over 1 million people agree with us and pledged to boycott Target stores until protecting women and children is a priority.

One solution is a common-sense approach and a reasonable solution to the issue of transgendered customers: a unisex bathroom. Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided.

Take Action

1. Sign a pledge to boycott Target now!

2. NEW!! Print this paper petition and urge others to sign!

3. Call your local Target store and tell the manager that you are boycotting the store until Target protects women and children. Please be firm, but polite when you call. Find local Target phone number here.

4. Share your concerns on their Facebook page. When sharing this on social media use #BoycottTarget."

[ason123]

I really don't care as long as it stops at dressing rooms and bathrooms. They all have their individual stalls. If you go shopping at H&M they just have a huge dressing room for all genders, and everyone gets their own private space. The only caveat is that I guess you can't exit the dressing room undressed (but why would you want to???) Many grocery stores have unisex bathrooms. Even our homes do. I doubt that anyone would care to try and spy on others taking a dump. Now, a locker room is a different story (people showering and people walking around naked would not be an appropriate situation).

[Joel]

[Joel]

[Elizabeth]

"In another case of retail political correctness gone awry, a Target store in Texas needs the public’s help to find a peeping Tom.

Target Bathroom Policy Backfires Again - Patriot Update

Due to their stance on LGBT bathroom rights, Target stores do not question the motives of any man entering a women’s restroom, even if that person is clearly not transgendered. In the case this week in Texas, our perpetrator only wished to enter the women’s room to take cellphone video of women who were indisposed.

On Tuesday, police asked for help in identifying a man who is accused of recording a girl at the local Super Target store. Law enforcement officials released a surveillance photo of the subject. Officials say the incident occurred at around 7 p.m. on Tuesday night. The girl reported that she witnessed a man peering over the wall with a cell phone pointed at her, and she informed her parents.”
If Target’s policy isn’t changed, and soon, the retailer stands to face serious litigation as more and more young women are emotionally scarred by men preying on them at their most vulnerable."


Texas Target Store Bathroom Peeper Still On the Loose - Breitbart

[Matchmaker]

That policy didn't take long to be abused.

[Joel]

[FSM]

Mannnn I just typed a bunch of good stuff and lost it. I give up.

:((

[FSM]

That policy didn't take long to be abused.

Maybe they should hire transgender employees to police the restrooms.
B-)

[A Random Phrase]

Mannnn I just typed a bunch of good stuff and lost it. I give up.

:((

That used to happen to me on LDSFF a lot. I started writing my post in notepad or a word document, then copying and pasting. That way, if it got lost, I could repost.

[Joel]

[Elizabeth]

Not many shoppers, if any.

[Ann]

The first time some woman gets assaulted by a man dressed up as a woman in a Target bathroom, there will be a huge lawsuit against Target, and that will be the end of that!

The man doesn't even need to dress like a woman. If questioned, he just needs to say that he relates more to womanhood than manhood. Can't wait for the liberal college women to freak out when men start showing up in their locker rooms. Who knows, maybe they'll welcome it?? I nominate fiannan try it out.

I don't understand why, if I'm a man intent on assaulting a woman in a public restroom, that Target has suddenly become a more attractive venue for my crime. It's not like there are armed guards posted outside the restrooms at Walmart, conducting anatomy checks before admitting patrons. It's still just as easy as it's ever been for me to assault a woman in a women's restroom at either retailer.

This issue is about who feels comfortable around whom. Some people don't feel comfortable conducting their business in the restroom if people who appear to be members of the opposite gender are in the vicinity. That's a perfectly valid concern and one that certainly deserves consideration. But let's not pretend it's a public safety issue. Gay men and women have been using public restrooms for years.

We imagine that our social norms regarding gender are the only thing staving off wanton sexual assault and abuse, but that's simply not true.

It is also a public safety issue. Too many have been victimized/abused. Not only in the bathroom, but yes in the bathroom too. And, it is a terrible emotional trigger for those who have been abused when there is someone of the opposite sex in the bathroom with them whether or not they have a nefarious agenda.

[Chip]

Maybe Walmart is making Target do this, somehow.

[Joel]

[Joel]