As most readers will know by now, political correctness and I don’t exactly get along. I was outraged by Target Stores’ decision to allow people to use its restrooms based on their gender self-identification, rather than the chromosomal or biological reality. I’ve said before that I regard such insanity as an open invitation to sex offenders, deviates and the mentally ill to target (you should pardon the expression) the ‘normal’ among us, particularly children.
Here are the top twenty sex crime reports from Target’s stores across the nation.
04/2016 – Police have arrested a man accused of exposing himself to a 9-year-old boy in the bathroom of a Target store in Cedar Park in February. Roel Anthony Vasquez, 27, was charged March 24 with indecency with a child by exposure. No one at the store could identify who he was when the incident occurred, so police asked for help from the public by releasing pictures of the suspect from store surveillance video in March.
04/2016 – MIDWEST CITY, Okla. – The District Attorney in Oklahoma County has filed a misdemeanor charge against a man accused of stalking women at a metro Target store. Cody Stephens, 21, lives in Midwest City, not too far from the Target store where he is accused of stalking women.
10/2015 – SOUTH BEND – South Bend police are looking for a man who performed a sexual act Monday afternoon at a Target department store at 1400 E. Ireland Road, according to our news partner ABC57. A 16-year-old girl was shopping at the department store when a man approached her from behind and performed a sexual act on himself at about 2 p.m., police said. The man got away, and police are still looking for him.
There are many more at the link. Read them and weep – or become incandescent with rage, which is probably a better response.
The American Family Association’s petition and call to boycott Target has now exceeded one million signatures. I’m not a particular fan of the AFA, but that seems like a good start. I haven’t signed it, but I’m in; and I hope my readers are as well.
The interesting thing- of those listed in the article that had anything to do with bathrooms, exactly one had a man entering the women's room. The rest of those either did not list which restroom, was in the "family" restroom anyone can use, or was a male in the men's room.
So to tell the truth, I'm still somewhat nonplussed about all the bathroom stuff. The fact is that committing assault inside a restroom is just as illegal outside, and heterosexual assault in the bathroom is only one of the possible permutations.
The other thing is that this list could easily be generated from ANY major nationwide retailer. I bet Walmart has their own list too. Ultimately, bathroom laws strike me like gun control laws- anybody intent on committing sexual assault (a far more serious crime than going into the wrong bathroom) likely doesn't give the slightest rip about the penalties for being in the wrong bathroom. Folks bent on breaking the law don't care about the law, just as armed robbers and murderers don't care about no guns signs.
As much as I care about the safety of my wife and female loved ones, I highly doubt the handful of trans individuals in the US are the real problem on that score.
^This. Came to the same conclusion myself the other day.
The article is clearly a hit piece, listing a bunch of incidents that routinely happen in any public place and are completely unrelated to any bathroom policy. You could write a similar article listing all the times white cops have shot black men and scream about a tidal wave of blood, instead of a wave of sexual deviants.
I've done a full 180 on the liberal sexual Utopia – and it goes right on back to the queers. Let them out of the closet, they said, they only want to have the privacy of their bedrooms! And now they are engaging in lawfare against Christians, free speech, or anyone that doesn't agree with them. My own daughter game out screaming like a demon and if there was anything good about homosexuality – I would have found it. Lord how I tried. Gays may be 'born that way' but they can choose to be honest and courteous or deceitful and nasty – and those &*%$#@ are making all the wrong decisions. Screw them along with any of the other sexual deviants and degenerates. All they are going to do is get people hurt.
Only started shopping at Target a few years ago due an insurance requiremment for prescriptions. Since I was there, I explored and bought things in other departments. Now? I called their pharmacy department a few days ago and had my prescriptions transferred to a non-Target store.
Two things came to mind when I first heard about their new policy: 1 — how will this impact their liability rates; 2 — there's easier & faster ways of committing corporate suicide than driving away your primary customer base (I'd love to spy on the next shareholders meeting …)
Yep, Raving Prophet, m4, and anon have it right.
Time ago, I read of an old USAF Colonel that said:
"When I got in, homosexuality was prohibited. Now they have made it legal. I am going out before they make it compulsory."
To those who don't think this is appropriate: consider that Target have publicly announced that they're opening their doors to such behavior. Sure, it happens elsewhere too: but as far as I know, no other national store chain has publicly stated that its restrooms are now to be a pervert-friendly climate for such goings-on. That's the difference.
Target can open their restrooms to anyone, it's their store and I would not dream of telling them what to do with their property.
At the same time, I'm not going to buy anything from them. Target has nothing that isn't available elsewhere, and I have no wish to reward their behavior.
I signed up for the boycott. Combine this insanity with their stand on firearms…. As Peter said they've made the announcement and welcomed the crazies. I'm not crazy, so I'm just not going there. Reece Room pointed out a somewhat chilling scenario: Woman dressed as man goes into the men's room….cries rape. One of the tenets of personal security is don't do stupid things, so why go where there's a setup waiting to happen, and where the crazies have been made more welcome than anyone else?
The Raving Prophet (is that pen name significant?) misses the point entirely, perhaps through miscomprehension, or perhaps intentionally.
It is too soon to track offenses due to their new policy at Target, but the fact that these perverts and weirdos exist in significant numbers OUTSIDE of the bathroom is a good indication that girls and women would certainly experience the risk of perverts in the bathroom, as well. Worse, knowing that Target has instituted that policy is likely to _attract_ those who will use it as an excuse to play Peeping Tom, at the very least.
I'm not all that convinced.
First, if Breitbart had been able to dig up any instances of transpeople committing sexual misconduct in Target bathrooms, I'm sure they would have made the list, so I doubt they found any.
Second, the very first item on the list reminds us that sexual misconduct is already illegal, for everyone. It's illegal when committed by men in the men's bathroom, and it's illegal when committed by women, cis or trans, in the women's bathroom. So are any other forms of harassment. It happened here, in the men's bathroom, nonetheless, and fortunately the perpetrator was caught and charged.
Third, I can't help but notice that the internet tough guys of the world weren't viralizing the first story, about a man exposing himself to a 9-year-old boy in a men's bathroom, while pumping themselves up about the violence they'd do to any man who tried that on their kids. They seem to love to do that with hypothesized instances of sexual misconduct by transwomen. Why is that, do you think?
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone is FLIPPING OUT over the concept that some strange person with a penis might follow their daughter into a bathroom, but NO ONE is flipping out over the fact that current bathroom standards and laws allow a strange person with a penis to follow their son into the bathroom, or even, end up at a urinal right next to him? I mean, right here in this post we have proof that strange males attack male children in the mens room. For that matter, I could point out all sorts of sexual predators who are female and there for have every right to follow your daughter into a public women's bathroom without anyone so much as blinking.
Signs on bathroom doors are as effective as "no gun" signs. The folks who've decided that they're going to use a public bathroom to commit a crime will find a way anyway. The way that the trans community is trying to force the issue is only making the argument worse, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that bathroom signs are a very ineffective shield against violence.
I have three gender-neutral bathrooms in my house, and we've never had these problem. Of course, I don't allow predators to come around. Any that try will have a short, violent experience. Perhaps that's the answer.
All of the stories posted on Breitbart precede the Target announcement, one as far back as 2003. So either all the cretins were prescient about Target's policy, or maybe they are just cretins. I'm not sure that laws are going to make any difference, it sort of like giving a bank robber a ticket for parking in a no parking zone while they are inside robbing the bank.
Let's take a look at some real-world examples of what happens when criminals find themselves shielded by Political Correctness.
Fort Hood: the US military looks the other way while a jihadi in their own ranks becomes more and more radical, resulting in 13 dead and more wounded.
San Bernardino: the neighbor of the jihadis witnessed suspicious behavior but said nothing, resulting in 14 dead and more wounded.
And the whole "it's already illegal to assault people in bathrooms" excuse for allowing anyone to waltz into whatever bathroom they like? I'm sorry, does the word "Rotherham" mean anything to you? Raping girls is certainly illegal in England, but with PC sufficiently ingrained in a society MASS RAPE can be swept right under the rug, too!
Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions – and experience leads to the inescapable conclusion that PC shielding CAN and WILL be used by criminals to commit horrific crimes, while the authorities look the other way or BLAME THE VICTIMS. This is what people are defending when they defend Target's pathetic SJW virtue-signaling.
I'd rather not live in a world where victims are labeled bigoted haters and trans people end up tarred with the actions of creepers, perverts, pedophiles, and assorted lowlife scum using the "I identify as a woman!" shtick to evade being kicked out of spaces where their targets are particularly vulnerable.
"I'd rather not live in a world where victims are labeled bigoted haters and trans people end up tarred with the actions of creepers, perverts, pedophiles, and assorted lowlife scum using the "I identify as a woman!" shtick to evade being kicked out of spaces where their targets are particularly vulnerable."
OK, good, at least you've got the distinction between "trans people" and "creepers, perverts, pedophiles, and assorted lowlife scum" down. I don't want that either. If someone's acting badly, they need to be kicked out whoever they are.
So what do you suggest for bathroom access? The status quo is passable trans people using the bathrooms corresponding to their identified gender mostly without a fuss, while less passable trans people may have more of a problem. This also goes for cis women who look too masculine to someone…possibly also cis men who look too feminine to someone, but probably less often.
Bathrooms with one bank of sinks, and individual stalls with floor-to-ceiling walls between, can accommodate both sexes. I've seen this in Europe, although occasionally with man/woman symbols on the stalls themselves, for some strange reason. This wouldn't be implemented quickly, since it would require a lot of retrofitting of existing bathrooms.
Having more "family" bathrooms (a one-person bathroom in addition to the two gendered ones, also useful for parents with small children, disabled people, and anyone who doesn't like being in bathrooms with other people) is another option that requires less infrastructure changes.
I stopped spending money at Target when they announced their corporate preference for their customers to be unarmed, and hence, defenseless (Costco's somewhat stronger preference for the same thing – policy states no one except a sworn LEO "needs" to have a gun at Costco stores – became public knowledge after the 2010 shooting of Erik Scott at a Las Vegas Costco). Target and Costco are private enterprises and entitled to operate their businesses however they choose, within the boundaries of statutes.
I am just as entitled to not spend money with them, and have chosen to direct my trade elsewhere.
Seems to me we could solve this bathroom choice thing somewhat more simply than at present: one bathroom for everyone, constructed to military barracks specifications. – a row of open toilets along one wall, 12 inches apart, and a long trough on the other wall, sinks on the end wall next to the doorless entrance. Everything being completely open will satisfy the voyeurs and unrestricted visibility for everything would deter nefarious activity. Patrons obsessive about this "privacy" thing would either use facilities at home or greatly accelerate the process when utilizing public facilities. Building only one bathroom would reduce construction costs for businesses, and wall mounting everything would allow for reductions in cleaning expense, which could be easily covered by installing coin operated toilet paper dispensers.
Next up is prohibiting clothing when temperatures are above 75F to reduce foreign clothing manufacturers' domination of the American textile market. Side benefits would be providing economy for businesses by reducing their need for more cash registers as they reduce the number of checkout stations and energy savings from allowing for higher air conditioning thermostat settings; there is some evidence that Walmart has established a leadership role in this category, and it is not fair for one business to possess advantages not shared by all. Clearly, strong legislation to ensure retail business equality is sorely needed.
In other news, UPS and FedEx stock soared today. Film at 11. (Or, maybe not…..)
How can a man be accused of "exposing himself" to a boy in a men's restroom when, in order to use a restroom, one has to expose his own penis or drop his pants to even use the facilities in the first place?
Am I to be paranoid of taking a leak in a men's room urinal if someone's 9-year-old kid is using the urinal next to mine?
Were they talking about some kind of assault, maybe? An improper touching?