Target being boycotted by a million americans....for liberal policies

[PapaZoom]

Even if you make the (flawed) assumption that a trans woman is a man, you're wrong - no undressing in front of anyone else goes on, because it's all inside a cubicle. Nobody sees anybody else undressing unless they're going out of their way to look.

Caitlin Jenner is a man. I'm 100% right on that. And this issue goes way beyond the dressing room cubicle. I'm 100% right on that too.

 

[Tiny Bible]

I'm sorry, but who are you?

Apparently the first but not the last person with the courage to tell you to stop calling people liars in this thread!
Might as well call you out on it since reporting you isn't likely to serve any good.

 

[PapaZoom]

So your gender identity is male and you are free to use the men's room, but the laws don't say that you get free entry to the women's bathroom.

No, I don't have a gender identity. I'm a male because I'm a male.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Caitlin Jenner is a man. I'm 100% right on that. And this issue goes way beyond the dressing room cubicle. I'm 100% right on that too.

Bruce Jenner is absolutely a man. And absolutely true that this issue goes way beyond access to bathrooms and dressing rooms.

 

[PapaZoom]

You sure you don't get your straw men from American Family Radio?

It's not a straw man. It's been all over the news. I probably read and comprehend more than you.

 

[Tiny Bible]

No, I don't have a gender identity. I'm a male because I'm a male.

And stand by that too. Don't let what's trying to reform America into a cesspool persuade you to deviate one bit from the fact you're a biological male. And "Cisgender" is an abomination that was manufactured by the Trans community to make for biological mentally sound men and women to have to feel like they need to identify themselves as something not Transsexual.

Don't fall for that label either.

 

[PapaZoom]

I have to wonder at people that think it is perfectly OK for a grown man to expose himself to a little girl in a public facility wherein privacy is typically the issue. As in changing rooms and locker rooms and of course the showers that are typically part of that facility set up.

When I lived in a different state just after I moved the beach I use to frequent made news. The women's bathroom was found to have discreetly hidden "toilet cameras" within. Talk about twisted kink.
Turns out these camera's captured women using the facilities and then the video was uploaded to a subscription kink site.

Now, there are laws that make those kind of twisted voyeurs able to pursue their hobby with greater ease and less fear of prosecution much less being caught entering the facility. Not when the law prohibits inquiry as to why a man would be entering the women's room, while that man can be setting up hidden camera's in the fitting rooms for his own purposes.
I don't shop at Target that often, and I certainly won't now, however had I the inclination I would buy what I wanted and if it didn't fit when I got home I'd just return it with the receipt.

I expect a lot of women will do that same thing. Especially when voyeurs are making the news now as they exploit these new permissions because they will meet less resistance than when it was illegal.

And that will of course make the fitting rooms to become the domain of Trans only if enough people boycott. Because of the trespass as someone called it here peoples privacy and safety by law are now compromised. All in the name of equality.

When in truth, a full male dressed as a woman isn't a woman. If the attire makes the man or woman then where's it stop? If it wasn't a trespass on privacy the laws wouldn't have segregated fitting rooms and bathrooms and locker rooms/showers before.

And it sure isn't a case of 'separate but equal'. When a Transsexual will identify themselves with the label that they are other. "I'm a transsexual." Why does anyone need to know this? Why? "I'm transgender."
There's an actor on that subscription cable show, Orange is the new Black. What a world we're in when some producer decides to sexualize women's prison. He's a transgender female and that's exactly what he tells interviewers. Then he says he'll not respond well, I'm not using the actual words he used in an interview, if someone asked if he was pre or post operative.
How so? That's private? When he volunteers he's a Transfemale? A man that became or appears now as female?
If they are what they claim inside why do they tell the world they're something other than by having their transitioned condition precede the gender they now appear as.

We'll see even worse things coming from the LGBT activists.

 

[PapaZoom]

And stand by that too. Don't let what's trying to reform America into a cesspool persuade you to deviate one bit from the fact you're a biological male. And "Cisgender" is an abomination that was manufactured by the Trans community to make for biological mentally sound men and women to have to feel like they need to identify themselves as something not Transsexual.

Don't fall for that label either.

My thoughts exactly. The left loves to be the thought police and if you don't conform to their fascism policies, they will find a way to punish you.

 

[PapaZoom]

Bruce Jenner is absolutely a man. And absolutely true that this issue goes way beyond access to bathrooms and dressing rooms.

True. Bruce Jenner is 100% a male and nothing will change that. He's not a woman except on paper. He's a man in a wig with fake boobs and an inverted penis. Add to that the likelihood he's gotten some type of hormonal therapy.

I do get the fact that he thinks he's a woman and I accept that he thinks it's true about himself. But I don't give it any more credence than a person who thinks he's a potato chip.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

True. Bruce Jenner is 100% a male and nothing will change that. He's not a woman except on paper. He's a man in a wig with fake boobs and an inverted penis. Add to that the likelihood he's gotten some type of hormonal therapy.

I do get the fact that he thinks he's a woman and I accept that he thinks it's true about himself. But I don't give it any more credence than a person who thinks he's a potato chip.

How do you know?

 

[USincognito]

IOr, you're not reading correctly and missed that the articles state the man entered the women's dressing room.

I'm sorry, but I'm reading the article content perfectly. Here it is directly from the page:
>> Investigators say the suspect put his cell phone over the wall <<

Where in that sentence does it say anything about him "entering the women's dressing room"? Now you're the one making things up.

Here's a clue for you. A man using a camera of any kind and holding it over the wall of a dressing room filming or taking pictures of a girl undressing is trespassing on her privacy.

That's not what trespass means. If words can mean anything, then I supposed one might think one is not making stuff up, but invasion of privacy, while legally on a property, is not trespass, especially when he didn't actually enter the changing room.

Underage is little girl. Or girl.

No, underage means below the age of 18 or 16, if forget how Texas defines it. A 17 or 15 year old young woman is not a "little girl". But like I said, if words can mean anything you want, then it's easy to make stuff up.

How old does someone need to be for you to be outraged their privacy was violated

Please do not prevaricate about my reasons for commenting on this thread. My position is perfectly clear. Four Angels Standing's post contained factually incorrect assertions. I was correcting those factually incorrect assertions.

Frisco News Video
The man was in the dressing room also

The link you provided says nothing about the young boy being in the dressing room.

I agree. You have a propensity in this thread to call people liars.

1. Ironically it's you who are engaged in flaming at this moment.
2. I'm sorry, but who are you? Have we met?

IThat's despicable and apparently not against the rules.

If telling people they are wrong or have posted factually incorrect things were against the rules of this debate forum then there would be few, if any posts.

Marginalizing the trespass on this young girl, underage, so as to dismiss the facts as lies says a lot .

I'll thank you to stop lying about me right now. I have done no such thing.

 

[USincognito]

It's a lie that someone made up parts of this story here. Links to articles prove this.

No, it is not a lie that Angles made up stuff. The actual article to which she linked states very clearly that the perp was using the camera from OUTSIDE the dressing room.

You appear to think people won't call you out on personalizing your own animus toward someone by making false claims against them. Angels, Papa Zoom, you're on a roll.

I'm sorry, but I've been on this forum since Dec. 2003 and I've seen Jedi mind tricks like this a thousand times. You're not psychic and you cannot read my mind. Thank you for addressing, in the future, the content of my posts, not what you fantasize are my motivations.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

But I do love the way folks like you refused to believe what others tell you about how the law actually works. It's laughable that you are so uninformed yet refused to examine how the actual laws play out.

Says the non-lawyer.

 

[USincognito]

Apparently the first but not the last person with the courage to tell you to stop calling people liars in this thread!
Might as well call you out on it since reporting you isn't likely to serve any good.

Ah, so you're nobody, answering a call that was never made. Good to know. How about, instead of attacking me, you address the content of my post. And by addressing it, you need to show that Angel's claim that the perp was inside the changing room was correct, despite the fact that the actual article says otherwise and that her claim was "a little girl" when no age is provided and "underage" in Texas can include young women of 15.

That is addressing the content and not the poster.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

"underage" in Texas can include young women of 15.

Even up to seventeen, twenty-one if we're discussing alcohol instead of sex.

 

[PapaZoom]

How do you know?

unlike you, I know the science

 

[PapaZoom]

Seattle Parks and Recreationis facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules.

Last week, a man undressed in a women's locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.

Around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room at Evans Pool and took of his shirt, according to Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they're still working on the issue. Right now, there's no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.

"This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff – someone who was “identifying” as a woman," Takami said in a statement. "We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities."

"Really bizarre," MaryAnne Sato said. "I can't imagine why they would want to do that anyway!"

Sato uses the locker room a few times a week, but she says this is a first for her.

It's also a first for Seattle Parks and Recreation. Employees report that the man made no verbal or physical attempt to identify as a woman, yet he still cited a new rule that allows bathroom choice based on gender identification.

The issue drew protesters from both sides to Olympia on Monday. Opponentsclaim the rule opens up bathrooms to voyeurs but supporters say that's an unrealistic fear.

No one was arrested in this case and police weren't called, even though the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

"Sort of works against the point they're trying to make. They're causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable," said pool regular Aldan Shank.

The man's protest, if that's what it was, hurts the greater cause, Shank says.


**unintended consequences of the law.

I asked a school board member what would prevent a male teacher from using the girl's bathroom in any Washington State elementary school (or any school). The answer was that, under the current law, nothing would prevent that. Any male student (or teacher) in any HS could decide to identify as female and use the girl's bathroom, locker rooms, and showers. No questions asked.

 

[Tiny Bible]

True. Bruce Jenner is 100% a male and nothing will change that. He's not a woman except on paper. He's a man in a wig with fake boobs and an inverted penis.

No, he's not had any bottom surgery. He just had the small implants on his chest.

Add to that the likelihood he's gotten some type of hormonal therapy.

I don't know that he's on any hormone therapy.
When he first came out as desiring to dress as a woman surgeons claimed they had feminized his face with surgery. If they did they did such a job as to make Bruce now appear to need the attention of those surgeons on the show, Botched.

I do get the fact that he thinks he's a woman and I accept that he thinks it's true about himself. But I don't give it any more credence than a person who thinks he's a potato chip.

I think it's a shame that rather than treating suffers like Bruce, the professional solution is to gear treatment to the illness. Rather than help to alleviate the suffering by adjusting what needs to be adjusted, be it hormone therapy, mental health counsel, so as to help the individual to identify as that which they were born as. Anatomically, not that figure they think they are in their mind and that's hiding inside them.

There's a mental illness wherein someone does not recognize their arm as their own, or their leg, any body part is liable to be identified in this illness. The sufferer literally feels unattached to that body part. It isn't theirs. It feels foreign. They have no affinity for it being part of their natural anatomy. It's known as BIID. Body Integrity Identity Disorder.

I think one day the medical profession will regain its courage to realize the mutilation and chemical poisoning that their professionals have been responsible . Enabling the mental disorder of those with Gender Identity Disorder and they'll reverse their position. Rather than enable the disorder to progress by carving the body up to fit the illness, and drugging the body, and of course mind, to fit the illness, they'll treat the illness so that the individual can return to a state of identifying with the body , the gender, sex, they were born as.
Until then we're going to see what we're seeing now. And it will only get worse. Because it is lazy to let a disorder have the upper hand. It's the opposite of the very meaning of treatment to enable the disease rather than treat it so that the patient returns to normal or as close as possible.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Says the non-lawyer.

Ditto.
It's cute how many people here try to imply they're lawyers on this forum. And during working hours at that.
I have attorneys in my extended family and asked if they'd spend hours keying on a forum implying they're attorneys.
After they stopped laughing they said simply, no.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Ditto.
It's cute how many people here try to imply they're lawyers on this forum. And during working hours at that.
I have attorneys in my extended family and asked if they'd spend hours keying on a forum implying they're attorneys.
After they stopped laughing they said simply, no.

There are plenty who frequent message boards, including this one.

Glad you find it cute, but it's bedtime here (not sure where you are).

Maybe you should ask your extended family what the difference is between a lawyer and an attorney.


A better question is how did you get off my ignore list? Must've clicked where I oughtn't've clicked.