I Miss Target!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am with you. My concern though is more with men (not true transgender) using policy to facilitate crimes, etc where women and children feel vulnerable, but are unable to say anything because it is not PC and store policy is nebulous regarding who goes where...i.e. it is based on how a person identifies, which has no real or scientific criteria since a person can claim anything). However, are you really surprised DCUM posters are going to bash any non-liberal position? Consider your Target break a way to support small local businesses and get a jump start on cutting out extra, non-necessary expenses that Target trips always seem to include. It can be a win-win.

Do you honestly think men are going to go through the trouble to dress or claim to be women so they can attack someone in a heavily monitored dressing room? I mean, truly, do you think there are a ton of men there who dont care about the law that doesn't allow them to rape women, but care about a store policy on fitting rooms? Like, maybe if Target didn't have this policy, they would just decide not to rape people?

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP would prefer to restrict people simply because she can't grasp reality.
Sorry. I don't "tolerate" that.

OP can't grasp reality?? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? You are (presumably) willing to pretend that a man is a woman, and a woman is a man, and a duck is a cow and a turkey is a fish, and you're telling us that OP can't grasp reality?

You're off your rocker, PP. Completely.

+1000

I'm not pretending anything, you idiots. I'm aware than MANY people live their lives as the opposite gender. And they've been using bathrooms and changing rooms as they've wished for ages. And I know that few of them mean children harm.

Who said anything about animals. You sound like you're 8 years old.

No MANY people do not. You, friend, are truly delusional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye Felicia!

Yeah - Bye Felicia.
Do you realize where you live?!

I have this question too.

Tolerant liberals again.

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. When people are being abused, misunderstood, or shut out of things to which they should have legal rights, we speak up.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP would prefer to restrict people simply because she can't grasp reality.
Sorry. I don't "tolerate" that.

OP can't grasp reality?? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? You are (presumably) willing to pretend that a man is a woman, and a woman is a man, and a duck is a cow and a turkey is a fish, and you're telling us that OP can't grasp reality?

You're off your rocker, PP. Completely.

+1000

I'm not pretending anything, you idiots. I'm aware than MANY people live their lives as the opposite gender. And they've been using bathrooms and changing rooms as they've wished for ages. And I know that few of them mean children harm.

Who said anything about animals. You sound like you're 8 years old.

No MANY people do not. You, friend, are truly delusional

Thousands and thousands fit my definition of many, Grandma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye Felicia!

Yeah - Bye Felicia.
Do you realize where you live?!

I have this question too.

Tolerant liberals again.

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. When people are being abused, misunderstood, or shut out of things to which they should have legal rights, we speak up.

Amen

Show me just one transgendered who has been stopped from using a bathroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know most Trans people are victims of crimes, not perpetrators of crime. You are a sheep, OP! Making something out of nothing.

I'm a sheep! Ha! That's really funny. According to this thread, you are in PC lockstep with the majority. Of course -- it's easier than thinking for yourself and realizing that yes, in fact, there is something really wrong here when men claim to be women, and vice versa.

I'm a PP, but not the one you're directly quoting.

Sorry, I think there's "something really wrong" with not having compassion for your fellow human beings. And for making your business what's between a person's legs when all they want to do is use the bathroom or try on clothes.

Oh, here we go. The "compassion" card. PC/ liberalisms favorite line. As though anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% lacks "compassion," and therefore, is lesser in opinion.

Here's the truth, PP: Again, there is no right I possess that "transgenders" are not also entitled to. But I do not have the right or the power to bend the laws of nature and reality to suit my desires, and neither do they -- "transgender," or not. The problem is, you are avoiding the main issue: Can an individual with male anatomy, male reproductive organs, male chromosomes, male DNA, a male bone structure, and male everything else actually be, in any sense, a woman?

The answer to that question is no, of course. "Transgenders" don't have the right to be what they cannot be, and neither does anyone else. Do they then have the right to be TREATED as something other than what they are? How ridiculous is that?

PP, liberals don't deal in logic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye Felicia!

Yeah - Bye Felicia.
Do you realize where you live?!

I have this question too.

Tolerant liberals again.

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. When people are being abused, misunderstood, or shut out of things to which they should have legal rights, we speak up.

Amen

Show me just one transgendered who has been stopped from using a bathroom

Are you looking for accounts of trans individuals being assaulted in bathrooms for being trans, or accounts of "bathroom police" approaching people they assume to be trans or gender-different just because of how they dress? (Including ciswomen with straight hair wearing button-up shirts and pants, waiting in line for the ladies' room.) Because there are PLENTY of such stories. And they make me sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know most Trans people are victims of crimes, not perpetrators of crime. You are a sheep, OP! Making something out of nothing.

I'm a sheep! Ha! That's really funny. According to this thread, you are in PC lockstep with the majority. Of course -- it's easier than thinking for yourself and realizing that yes, in fact, there is something really wrong here when men claim to be women, and vice versa.

I'm a PP, but not the one you're directly quoting.

Sorry, I think there's "something really wrong" with not having compassion for your fellow human beings. And for making your business what's between a person's legs when all they want to do is use the bathroom or try on clothes.

Oh, here we go. The "compassion" card. PC/ liberalisms favorite line. As though anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% lacks "compassion," and therefore, is lesser in opinion.

Here's the truth, PP: Again, there is no right I possess that "transgenders" are not also entitled to. But I do not have the right or the power to bend the laws of nature and reality to suit my desires, and neither do they -- "transgender," or not. The problem is, you are avoiding the main issue: Can an individual with male anatomy, male reproductive organs, male chromosomes, male DNA, a male bone structure, and male everything else actually be, in any sense, a woman?

The answer to that question is no, of course. "Transgenders" don't have the right to be what they cannot be, and neither does anyone else. Do they then have the right to be TREATED as something other than what they are? How ridiculous is that?

PP, liberals don't deal in logic!

Sure we do! Which side was it that linked to a scientific paper about chromosomes a few pages back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bye Felicia!

Yeah - Bye Felicia.
Do you realize where you live?!

I have this question too.

Tolerant liberals again.

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. When people are being abused, misunderstood, or shut out of things to which they should have legal rights, we speak up.

Amen

Show me just one transgendered who has been stopped from using a bathroom

That's the goal of the law in NC though. So people there are taking a risk just to pee or poop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP would prefer to restrict people simply because she can't grasp reality.
Sorry. I don't "tolerate" that.

OP can't grasp reality?? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? You are (presumably) willing to pretend that a man is a woman, and a woman is a man, and a duck is a cow and a turkey is a fish, and you're telling us that OP can't grasp reality?

You're off your rocker, PP. Completely.

+1000

I'm not pretending anything, you idiots. I'm aware than MANY people live their lives as the opposite gender. And they've been using bathrooms and changing rooms as they've wished for ages. And I know that few of them mean children harm.

Who said anything about animals. You sound like you're 8 years old.

No MANY people do not. You, friend, are truly delusional

Thousands and thousands fit my definition of many, Grandma.

ME AGAIN

700,000
http://m.timesunion.com/local/article/Transgender-by-the-numbers-2342726.php

[Anonymous]

I think the only solution is to reinstate gender-appropriate fitting rooms and to ensure that OP's DD and her friends are perfectly safe, empower the staff at Target (that 20-year-old dude in with the goatee) to physically examine every person entering the fitting room to ENSURE that only genetially female persons use the facility.

OP, your DD is now SAFE.

[Anonymous]

Target has always had unisex dressing rooms. I've never seen one with separate rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently op has a teen girl but she never shops at h and m, gap, Aeropostale, or any of the stores with unisex fitting rooms where all other teens shop.

Seriously

NP. Target seems different to me. Those other stores you mention are geared to a specific demographic and shopper. Target is literally for everyone.

What deli defense does any of this make?

Difference*

I"m not even going to guess what you mean by "deli difference," but...

It's different because stores like Aeropostale and Old Navy are geared to a specific consumer -- younger, urban hip, kids, etc. They don't have grandma-type clothes or infant/ toddler wear (at least at most of them.) So, specific people with specific needs shop there. Target made its name by appealing to everyone -- the oversized, young/ old, men/ women, etc. Why are they singling out a specific group to be made to feel more "comfortable," at the same time dismissing a much larger portion of their shoppers?

So just to be clear, the "safety issue" you raised in your OP isn't really the problem, it's Target's policy toward transgender individuals that you take issue with? Since safety has not been an issue at all the aforementioned stores with unisex dressing rooms? Why not just state upfront then that you're boycotting Target because you don't like their position regarding transgender individuals? Why pretend it's anything else?

[Anonymous]

I have not read the entire thread but the fitting rooms at my Target have been unisex for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read the entire thread but the fitting rooms at my Target have been unisex for years.

Ditto, for most if not all the targets I've ever gone too. Move on haters.