Target Down 5 Billion Since Embracing Trans Bathroom Policy

[Steeltime]

Okay, can I ask one question ...

Regarding using what bathroom by whom, what the hell business is this of the President of the United ******* States? Jesus Christ, he has time to give attention to bathroom access?

Maybe he could use some of his goddamn time to fix the fact that the IRS is still targeting Tea Party groups and not giving the groups 501c status, while seeing to it that his half-brother's 501c application was approved in 28 days (average wait time is 10 months), and was backdated 38 months when the law allows the application to be backdated no more than 27 months, and only then when the application was held up, not when it sailed through in 28 days because the President is your brother.

As of October of 2015, the IRS is still holding up Tea Party 501c applications, even after the Justice Department closed its probe and instituted no discipline against IRS employees.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...argeting-accusations-legal-issues-p/?page=all

IRS records, obtained by The Daily Caller, show Lerner signed papers granting tax-exempt status to the foundation run by Obama's half brother Abongo "Roy" Malik Obama. She signed off on the organization's tax status in June 2011 -- right in the middle of the 27-month hiatus for tea-party groups -- and granted it retroactive status within a month of filing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/irs-tea-party-liberal/2013/05/15/id/504614/#ixzz48q8x8nxa

Yeah, I know, right, using an arm of the executive branch to target political enemies and reward your sketchy half-brother's dubious "charity" is not newsworthy, but where to piss? Stop the ******* presses.

 

[Tibs]

that. is. what. this. is. going. to. do.

Pure speculation and conjecture. But carry on with the hysterics festival, you seem to be enjoying it.

 

[Superman]

I believe the terminology is "unintended consequences"

 

[Troglodyte]

150-170Million women can't shower privately in public any longer.

LOL! Do you even realize what you typed? And you call my premise stupid and ridiculous!

This is a gender thing, not a privacy thing. PUBLIC bathrooms were always PUBLIC. It's not the same as your house. There are things you can do in your house that are illegal to do in public bathrooms. Also, you have no right to public bathrooms.

Oh, the entitlement!

 

[Tibs]

LOL! Do you even realize what you typed? And you call my premise stupid and ridiculous!

Don't get Tim Steelersfan and the peanut gallery started, or you'll get Saul Alinksy'd and called a communist. This board really is unparalleled in its non-stop comedic relief.

 

[Superman]

Tibs, I've already pointed out the sheer number of sexual predators in this country outnumbers the transgendered people.
We've had debates on aspects of rape.
The left fully and heartily believes there is a "rape culture" that exists in this country - so much that the uber-intellectual CA government is implementing a class to teach yes/no meanings in sexual relationships.

so, I'll agree with you that absolutely NOTHING negative or harmful can come of this. nothing, at all. whatsoever.

 

[Spike]

 

[Superman]

I thought the white gloves were required. Is this a change?

 

[oneforthebus]

if it keeps one child from being abducted, raped and killed, it's worth it, right?

If I thought it had anything to do with that, I'd be all for it. I just posted numerous examples of boys being sexually assaulted by men in men's rest rooms. Why do you want to allow men to use rest rooms with boys? Are you in favor of male sexual assaults on boys?

I took my children to rest rooms until they were old enough and knowledgeable enough to protect themselves from something like this. I took my young son into the women's room many a time rather than send him into a men's room alone.

 

[Superman]

onefor, that is all well and good.
as you just said - men are currently allowed in the restrooms where boys are. we see what is currently happening.
now you want to allow those same predators into the restrooms where girls are?

 

[Steelerfan]

I thought the white gloves were required. Is this a change?

Racist!

 

[oneforthebus]

onefor, that is all well and good.
as you just said - men are currently allowed in the restrooms where boys are. we see what is currently happening.
now you want to allow those same predators into the restrooms where girls are?

You're right, we should only allow them to abuse boys.

Sexual predators are unlikely to be hairy faced guys throwing a wig and lipstick on in order to get into women's bathrooms. Chances are they are not going to want to attract that kind of attention to themselves because they would scare people off. Come on, let's be realistic here. Stranger sexual assaults are extremely rare to begin with. The vast majority of child sex abusers are people who look just like you and me...people kids trust. People in authority. People they know. Obviously no one can say "This will never ever happen". But there are a whole list of things we could protect children from that are statistically highly unlikely to happen that most of you guys would call "the pussification of America".

You are worried about some tranny in a bathroom when you should be worrying about your daughter's stepparent, uncle, cousin, coaches, clergy member and her friends' dads.

Tell me, are you this worried about her riding her bike to the park? Do you ask your daughters' friends' parents if they ever drink when they take her out to dinner? If they have unlocked guns in their homes? All of these things are likely riskier for your child than a trip to a public rest room.

Don't miss the forest for the trees. This isn't about safety or privacy. This is about "trannies...ick".

 

[Tibs]

Come on, let's be realistic here.

Uhm, gulp, I don't think that's what this thread is about. It should be clear by now there's is no room for rational, realistic thinking on the subject. I advise you to stop making sense immediately.

Stranger sexual assaults are extremely rare to begin with. The vast majority of child sex abusers are people who look just like you and me...people kids trust. People in authority. People they know. Obviously no one can say "This will never ever happen". But there are a whole list of things we could protect children from that are statistically highly unlikely to happen that most of you guys would call "the pussification of America". You are worried about some tranny in a bathroom when you should be worrying about your daughter's stepparent, uncle, cousin, coaches, clergy member and her friends' dads.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Focusing on transgenders completely misses the mark - by a wide margin - when dealing with sexual predators and child abuse.

Don't miss the forest for the trees. This isn't about safety or privacy. This is about "trannies...ick".

Exactly. But call them out on it and you'll be labeled a communist. Be forewarned.

 

[Superman]

how many ******* times....

this is not about trannies.

Stranger sexual assaults are extremely rare to begin with. The vast majority of child sex abusers are people who look just like you and me...people kids trust. People in authority. People they know.

yet you just posted links regarding what?

Tell me, are you this worried about her riding her bike to the park? Do you ask your daughters' friends' parents if they ever drink when they take her out to dinner? If they have unlocked guns in their homes? All of these things are likely riskier for your child than a trip to a public rest room.

You are worried about some tranny in a bathroom when you should be worrying about your daughter's stepparent, uncle, cousin, coaches, clergy member and her friends' dads.

1. My daughter is almost 16. She doesnt ride a bike to the park. So, no, I do not worry about that. When she was younger, I would go to the park with her and keep an eye out while there. Sexual predators, once convicted, are not allowed near playgrounds or schools.
2. My daughter's parents dont take them out to eat. DUI is illegal, and we have laws to punish people who do drink and drive.
3. Unlocked guns are not an issue for me. Guns do not randomly shoot.
4. ALL of those you listed have laws in place for punishment or prevention. Opening up ALL bathrooms to allow sexual predators to enter is wrong. I've already shown that the percentage of sexual predators - KNOWN and CONVICTED sexual predators - outnumbers the transgender population.

I've met my daughter's friends' parents. I know them. It's parental responsibility. I keep myself aware of my ex-wife's relationship and look up driving history and jail time when she gets into a new relationship. I keep myself aware.

and again, this is NOT about trannies.

 

[Superman]

ahem. point proven.

 

[Tibs]

and again, this is NOT about trannies.

No, not at all. It's about sexual predators that will dress up and pretend to be trannies to get into a public women's bathroom at Target and molest our daughters. So we should ban transgenders from using women's bathrooms, so perverts can't dress up and pretend to be transgender and pull the wool over our eyes. But since that won't keep them from simply dressing up and pretending to be women - not transgender, just simple 'ol women - they could still trick us and get into women's bathrooms at Target and molest our daughters. So the next logical step is banning WOMEN from women's bathrooms, cause then those slimy, tricky sexual predators can't dress up and pretend to be women, cause women won't be allowed into women's bathrooms to begin with. Ha ha, we'll have outfoxed them! And hence, we'll eliminate sexual predators preying on our daughters once and for all! The fact women will no longer have access to public bathrooms is another matter to be dealt with at a later time.

 

[deljzc]

Another issue I'm not on the right or left. At least my opinion doesn't seem to match with many here. So....

I still am confused over the whole issue when I try to put it into context of why men's and women's bathrooms exist in the first place. I have done some research on this and it seems to go back into the late 1800's when women started to escape an existence of only being in the home or going out to very specific places. Also the advances in plumbing greatly impacted everything.

By the 1920's and after the war buildings across America started getting much bigger and women were much more empowered to be "out" thus by the late 1920's the first standard Building Codes were adopted by Architects and Engineers for designing public buildings. The very first building code in 1928 references providing restrooms for the different sexes and it's been in the building codes ever since.

Now I ask myself, 1) why were these put in the building codes? and 2) why were they never changed?

And the obvious answer to both questions is that the MAJORITY of people, both men and women, seemed to like it this way. In all the political uprising of woman's rights in the 1960's and 1970's I can't find one record or complaint about wanting unisex bathrooms as part of "equality of the sexes".

So I would hypothesize that there is a strong majority of America (and probably the world) that agrees it is better for woman and men to have separate bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Now we get back to "why"?

Well, some things done in a bathroom are rather personal and when I ask women this question many seem to say "they don't feel comfortable ******** or changing tampons or farting" in front of strange men. Now that's somewhat a stigma on natural bodily functions that maybe we should get over as a species, but it does seem to exist.

When I ask men, most probably agree it's not nice to **** in front of women you don't know, they still would be fine doing it. But some do seem to have reservations about using a urinal if women are just walking past all the time.

So in my opinion, women's restrooms exist FOR women. To provide them privacy on things they don't like to share with strangers (particularly men).

So this debate should really be left open to women. It's THEIR restroom we're really talking about here and it was created in history for THEM.

Personally, as a man, I could care less if a butch woman who wants to act like a man walks into the Men's room. Or for that matter any woman that wants to piss in a dirty men's room, go right ahead. We're messy.

I just think what the debate really comes down to is transvestite men in women's bathrooms when the whole idea of creating a women's bathroom in the first place was to segregate them from men in the first place, at their request.

I would have women vote on it and see what they think and go with that.

 

[deljzc]

I actually think I have a solution after writing all that down.

I think we should have a unisex bathroom and a women's bathroom. Get rid of the men's bathroom all together. Since it's not called "men's" anymore, it can't offend any transgender person.

When the line is too long, have the old men's room open to everyone (we all know that happens anyhow at concerts).

Problem solved.

 

[Superman]

No, not at all. It's about sexual predators that will dress up and pretend to be trannies to get into a public women's bathroom at Target and molest our daughters. So we should ban transgenders from using women's bathrooms, so perverts can't dress up and pretend to be transgender and pull the wool over our eyes. But since that won't keep them from simply dressing up and pretending to be women - not transgender, just simple 'ol women - they could still trick us and get into women's bathrooms at Target and molest our daughters. So the next logical step is banning WOMEN from women's bathrooms, cause then those slimy, tricky sexual predators can't dress up and pretend to be women, cause women won't be allowed into women's bathrooms to begin with. Ha ha, we'll have outfoxed them! And hence, we'll eliminate sexual predators preying on our daughters once and for all! The fact women will no longer have access to public bathrooms is another matter to be dealt with at a later time.

please. enlist the help of onefor.

show me where I've said that someone will dress up and pretend to be of the opposite sex. show me.

 

[oneforthebus]

yet you just posted links regarding what?

The point of the links is that banning transgendered people from using women's bathrooms doesn't prevent children from being assaulted in bathrooms. People don't have to disguise themselves to assault other people. Heck, if a girl's alone in a public bathroom a MAN can walk into the bathroom dressed as a MAN and assault her. It's already illegal whether he's dressed as a man or dressed as a woman.

 

[Steeltime]

You have some solid ideas, del.

But interesting how I have seen anyone answer the question I posed - why is the President of the United freaking States giving orders about bathroom usage???

 

[deljzc]

You have some solid ideas, del.

But interesting how I have seen anyone answer the question I posed - why is the President of the United freaking States giving orders about bathroom usage???

He shouldn't be.

And it's very typical and defining of the Obama Administration with his use of executive actions and directions (often denied but blatantly apparent) to his Department of Justice. It's wrong and has changed the executive branch of the federal government for the worse in my opinion.

People talk about Trump being "Hitler" and the beginning of some totalitarian regime but the real start has already begun with Obama's broad use of Title IX, Amendment XIV and many other statutes that liberal justices fail to act on or prevent.

It is these identical case studies and rulings on allowable executive branch power that a potentially crazy President (be it far right or far left) will use to change our republic for the worse. I don't think that's going to be Trump by the way, but the potential is more real now that before because of Obama.

 

[Superman]

The point of the links is that banning transgendered people from using women's bathrooms doesn't prevent children from being assaulted in bathrooms. People don't have to disguise themselves to assault other people.

15000000000000000000000000000% correct. absolutely correct.

Heck, if a girl's alone in a public bathroom a MAN can walk into the bathroom dressed as a MAN and assault her. It's already illegal whether he's dressed as a man or dressed as a woman.

this makes it LEGAL for anyone, regardless of sex, to enter either restroom without being questioned. You, onefor, can walk into the men's room wearing a pantsuit. a man can walk into the women's room wearing an NBA jersey and jorts. you CANNOT question this now. nor even consider that something is amiss until a crime occurs.

 

[Tibs]

I'm done with this thread. I've spent more time here discussing public lavatories than I have in the last 47 years combined. I can declare without hesitation this thread is full of ****! My final parting thought, this issue of gender neutral bathrooms won't move the needle in either direction. People will continue to use whatever facilities they best have access to, presumably 99.9% of men will use the men's and 99,9% of women will use the women's. This will also have zero effect on the overall scope of sexual abuse, child abduction, molestation. That ****'s been going on forever, without the notion of which public bathroom someone happens upon. If anything, this should be a wake up call for all parents, that they keep their eyes on their kids - boys and girls - best they can. Allowing - or not allowing - gender neutral bathrooms will not in the slightest keep the sick, disgusting sexual predators from acting on their impulses, be they parents, step-parents, teachers, priests, coaches, uncles, neighbors or grandparents. It is the cause & effect of having a sick, sick mind - and not gender neutral bathrooms - that spurs adults to molest innocent children.

 

[deljzc]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would love to here the legal ramifications of instead of having a "men's" and "women's" bathroom, if instead we just had a "bathroom" for everyone but then to be nice and courteous for born women, we provide a place for them special called the "women's bathroom".

And that is designed primarily for woman functions: menstruation, breastfeeding, privacy from men, families and young children, changing diapers.

Is that sexist? Instead of making this a "denial" of function, we provide a "bonus" of function to a certain group as a courtesy? Wouldn't that circumvent the argument that DOJ is making in regards to Title IX?