Transgender and Bathrooms

[Hardlinesmaster]

Spot has made a decision. Move on, folks. No one is benefiting from this thread.

 

[BlueSide]

I think we'll gain new guests

That was part of the reason Target made this decision.

 

[bananaman]

Peeping would still be a crime, and perverts who are found using the women's restroom (or men's) in order to peek will still be arrested if caught.

But thanks to the new rule, that has become a mighty big "if".

Consider the scenario - a male pedophile or pervert sees that everyone allowed to use whatever bathroom they want at Target. Before, he would have been caught if attempting to enter the ladies room; it would have been a huge red flag and he would have been easily stopped. Now however, if someone questions him, he can lie and say "But I identify as a woman!", and now he is legally able to enter the ladies room. While in there, he can use his cell phone to his hearts content and upload whatever he finds to the Internet before deleting the picture from his phone. If some sharp person catches him? He will delete the pics and lie that he's being illegally discriminated against to get out of being prosecuted. There is really no way to prove he's not a legitimate member of the transgender community, and Target, seeking to avoid bad publicity, will drop the case. The person who spotted him taking pictures will be labelled a bigoted troublemaker, and their accusations will be swept away as hate. Meanwhile, someone's sister, mother, or little girl is floating on the Internet for some sicko to see.

I know things have been bad for the trans community, I wish it was different and I support their right to live as equals. But one child being abused is one too many, and it's not a risk I would be willing to take, politics be damned.

 

[commiecorvus]

But thanks to the new rule, that has become a mighty big "if".

Consider the scenario - a male pedophile or pervert sees that everyone allowed to use whatever bathroom they want at Target. Before, he would have been caught if attempting to enter the ladies room; it would have been a huge red flag and he would have been easily stopped. Now however, if someone questions him, he can lie and say "But I identify as a woman!", and now he is legally able to enter the ladies room. While in there, he can use his cell phone to his hearts content and upload whatever he finds to the Internet before deleting the picture from his phone. If some sharp person catches him? He will delete the pics and lie that he's being illegally discriminated against to get out of being prosecuted. There is really no way to prove he's not a legitimate member of the transgender community, and Target, seeking to avoid bad publicity, will drop the case. The person who spotted him taking pictures will be labelled a bigoted troublemaker, and their accusations will be swept away as hate. Meanwhile, someone's sister, mother, or little girl is floating on the Internet for some sicko to see.

I know things have been bad for the trans community, I wish it was different and I support their right to live as equals. But one child being abused is one too many, and it's not a risk I would be willing to take, politics be damned.

Your completely artificial "What if' scenario doesn't change the fact that there are trans people being beaten up and even killed just for being alive.
The fear that is being generated by laws like these (and 'What if' scenarios) is creating life threatening situations for trans people across the country especially in the south.

These cries of "What about the children?" completely ignore the fact that trans people have been using the bathrooms for some time now.
The fact is there have been no incidents involving trans people and children.
There have been a lot of arrests for solicitation for sex by Republican Congressman but that's another story.

Before we freak out about what might happen lets take a look at what is happening and try to help.
Target is just continuing the policy that helped people live their lives as normally as possible.
We really should look at that as being the best course of action.

 

[Signkitty]

But thanks to the new rule, that has become a mighty big "if".

Consider the scenario - a male pedophile or pervert sees that everyone allowed to use whatever bathroom they want at Target. Before, he would have been caught if attempting to enter the ladies room; it would have been a huge red flag and he would have been easily stopped. Now however, if someone questions him, he can lie and say "But I identify as a woman!", and now he is legally able to enter the ladies room. While in there, he can use his cell phone to his hearts content and upload whatever he finds to the Internet before deleting the picture from his phone. If some sharp person catches him? He will delete the pics and lie that he's being illegally discriminated against to get out of being prosecuted. There is really no way to prove he's not a legitimate member of the transgender community, and Target, seeking to avoid bad publicity, will drop the case. The person who spotted him taking pictures will be labelled a bigoted troublemaker, and their accusations will be swept away as hate. Meanwhile, someone's sister, mother, or little girl is floating on the Internet for some sicko to see.

I know things have been bad for the trans community, I wish it was different and I support their right to live as equals. But one child being abused is one too many, and it's not a risk I would be willing to take, politics be damned.

No you do not support their right as equals, you are willing to take thier rights away on the chance that somthing may happen that isn't even their fault.

Most kids are molested by someone they know. We have more cases of priests/teachers/coaches/family members molesting kids then random bathroom people. By your logic we better shut down every chruch, school and family reunion.

 

[Firefox]

Spot has made a decision. Move on, folks. No one is benefiting from this thread.

I don't think so. It's a topic that needs to be talked about, and now that Target has made it's stance public it's relevant to this forum. As long as we maintain a civil discussion I don't think it'll be an issue.

 

[LUR99]

I get CC'ed on the closing emails and they tally the amount of calls they got. It's seriously not a lot. Like a dozen per day so far. Feeling kind of lucky over here.

I've not had anybody confront me in store or in the lot about it, but our GSTLs relayed a few people cutting up their redcards at the service desk. I ask around outside work though and nobody knows about it. Or those who do are not concerned with it.

I actually only hear about bathgate via work email or coming here. It'll blow by. It's not as bad as the data breach was. At least from what I've seen.

Not sure how many calls we are getting but it seems there have been lots of calls for the LOD recently. I wonder if the calls are about the bathroom policy. I work at the service desk and had a couple outraged older ladies complain lol. Call corporate and leave me the alone lol. One lady calmed down after I reminded her that we have a single stall family bathroom. I haven't seen any men trying to use the womens bathroom.

No cut up red cards yet though.

 

[Firefox]

But thanks to the new rule, that has become a mighty big "if".

Consider the scenario - a male pedophile or pervert sees that everyone allowed to use whatever bathroom they want at Target. Before, he would have been caught if attempting to enter the ladies room; it would have been a huge red flag and he would have been easily stopped. Now however, if someone questions him, he can lie and say "But I identify as a woman!", and now he is legally able to enter the ladies room. While in there, he can use his cell phone to his hearts content and upload whatever he finds to the Internet before deleting the picture from his phone. If some sharp person catches him? He will delete the pics and lie that he's being illegally discriminated against to get out of being prosecuted. There is really no way to prove he's not a legitimate member of the transgender community, and Target, seeking to avoid bad publicity, will drop the case. The person who spotted him taking pictures will be labelled a bigoted troublemaker, and their accusations will be swept away as hate. Meanwhile, someone's sister, mother, or little girl is floating on the Internet for some sicko to see.

I know things have been bad for the trans community, I wish it was different and I support their right to live as equals. But one child being abused is one too many, and it's not a risk I would be willing to take, politics be damned.

I think @commiecorvus's post basically mirrors my own. To discriminate against transgender people like this is wrong and to deny them the right to pee in the bathroom that best aligns with they gender identity simply because of a baseless fear of a "what if" scenario is morally reprehensible. And enforcing laws like HB2 in North Carolina only paints a bigger target for transgender folks, who already have incredibly high violence statistics. According to a report from the University of Hawaii, "In addition to high rates of sexual violence victimization, transgender people also suffer from a high prevalence of physical violence. The study with the highest level of detail about physical assault specifically is the study by Xavier et al. (2007). Among trans-Virginians, 40% reported experiencing physical assaults (since age 13), and the mean age of the first physical assault was at 16 years old. Of those who had reported being victimized, 18% reported one incident, 23% reported two incidents, 30% reported three to five incidents, 17% reported six to 19 incidents, and 12% reported 20 or more incidents of physical violence." (Source)

Just some food for thought.

 

[LUR99]

Meanwhile, we're just as busy as ever. Lol. At least my store is.

Same here! We had to call for back up from the sales floor to the lanes at 9 am which is unusual!

 

[bananaman]

I think @commiecorvus's post basically mirrors my own. To discriminate against transgender people like this is wrong and to deny them the right to pee in the bathroom that best aligns with they gender identity simply because of a baseless fear of a "what if" scenario is morally reprehensible. And enforcing laws like HB2 in North Carolina only paints a bigger target for transgender folks, who already have incredibly high violence statistics. According to a report from the University of Hawaii, "In addition to high rates of sexual violence victimization, transgender people also suffer from a high prevalence of physical violence. The study with the highest level of detail about physical assault specifically is the study by Xavier et al. (2007). Among trans-Virginians, 40% reported experiencing physical assaults (since age 13), and the mean age of the first physical assault was at 16 years old. Of those who had reported being victimized, 18% reported one incident, 23% reported two incidents, 30% reported three to five incidents, 17% reported six to 19 incidents, and 12% reported 20 or more incidents of physical violence." (Source)

Just some food for thought.

I appreciate how fervently you feel about the topic, but throwing in statistics concerning violence against the transgender community does not change the fact that bad people will take advantage of this new rule and the risk of innocents being hurt has risen. The fact is that part of my theory has been proven on this very forum as I now have been accused of not being sympathetic of the transgender community just for questioning the execution of this new rule.

Concerning what is morally reprehensible, I wonder what your stance is concerning firearms?

Do you support that they should be regulated on the theory that we need to reduce the risk of bystanders getting hurt? That we should take every opportunity available to protect people even if it does infringe on their rights?

Or do you think firearms should be allowed? That tragedies like Colorado, San Bernardino, and Roseburg are necessary evils so that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms is protected?

Please answer that question.

 

[NPC]

 

[Rock Lobster]

I appreciate how fervently you feel about the topic, but throwing in statistics concerning violence against the transgender community does not change the fact that bad people will take advantage of this new rule and the risk of innocents being hurt has risen. The fact is that part of my theory has been proven on this very forum as I now have been accused of not being sympathetic of the transgender community just for questioning the execution of this new rule.

Concerning what is morally reprehensible, I wonder what your stance is concerning firearms?

Do you support that they should be regulated on the theory that we need to reduce the risk of bystanders getting hurt? That we should take every opportunity available to protect people even if it does infringe on their rights?

Or do you think firearms should be allowed? That tragedies like Colorado, San Bernardino, and Roseburg are necessary evils so that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms is protected?

Please answer that question.

You are being questioned because you are drawing a conclusion that restroom policies being made around gender identity and not sexual organs somehow leads to higher child molestation and sexual crimes in those environments. I have yet to see this be the case. Someone who is dressed like a man (whether biologically a male or female) who enters the women's restroom will still look out of place. It should be a red flag that they are in there for odd reasons. I don't see how its any easier for a pedophile to get into a women's restroom now than before, because either they were just going to walk in (which could have been done before) or they are going to dress like a lady and get in there, which again could have been done before.

 

[Firefox]

I appreciate how fervently you feel about the topic, but throwing in statistics concerning violence against the transgender community does not change the fact that bad people will take advantage of this new rule and the risk of innocents being hurt has risen. The fact is that part of my theory has been proven on this very forum as I now have been accused of not being sympathetic of the transgender community just for questioning the execution of this new rule.

Concerning what is morally reprehensible, I wonder what your stance is concerning firearms?

Do you support that they should be regulated on the theory that we need to reduce the risk of bystanders getting hurt? That we should take every opportunity available to protect people even if it does infringe on their rights?

Or do you think firearms should be allowed? That tragedies like Colorado, San Bernardino, and Roseburg are necessary evils so that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms is protected?

Please answer that question.

You're right that violence against the transgender community does not change that in a hypothetical scenario a pervert could enter the women's restroom under the guise of being transgender. But the remote possibility of that happening is well and truly overshadowed by the threat that is posed to transgendered people by segregating them from the bathroom that they are most comfortable in. It paints a very obvious target on those in the transgender community, especially transgendered teens in high school who would be forced to use the bathroom that they feel most uncomfortable in. Advocates for these bathroom laws seem to stick to the "We must protect our children" argument but they don't seem to consider the threat posed to teenagers who might be questioning their gender identity during already one of the most confusing, scary, and formative times of their childhood. Schools are already fraught with bullying, and these bathroom laws would force one of two things; either teens would be forced to hide their true gender identity in order to avoid being targeted, or they would present as their identified gender and risk the harassment. There's also the possibility of them refusing or being too afraid to even face their feelings, which could be even more psychologically harmful. There is a reason why the suicide and self-harm rate in transgender teenagers is one of the highest out there.

My argument is simply this; lives are put at risk by forcing transgender people to use the bathroom that does not align with their gender identity, and that the proposed risk of allowing them to use the restroom does not justify discriminating over 700,000 people. By forcing them to use the bathroom designated to them at birth, you risk damaging the psychological integrity of transgender people, in particular people who are mid-transition, as well as creating a target for those who are inclined to harassment and violence. I have yet to find any statistic or evidence that proves that allowing transgender people to use the appropriate bathroom will cause an increase in sexual assault, voyeurism, or violent crime. And believe me, I've been looking because this has been such a hot topic lately that I've been trying to find a study or report that shows that there would be a real and immediate threat. You also have the problem of making brusque and burly men use the women's restroom simply because they were born without a twig and berries, which would cause far more problems as far as public order is concerned than allowing a transgender person to use the appropriate restroom.

I also fail to see how gun control is in any way relevant to the topic at hand. Since you seem curious, I will tell you that I support stricter gun control regulations. I won't go into it because it's irrelevant to the current discussion, and I'll just ignore it if you try to goad me into further discussion on gun control.

 

[commiecorvus]

I appreciate how fervently you feel about the topic, but throwing in statistics concerning violence against the transgender community does not change the fact that bad people will take advantage of this new rule and the risk of innocents being hurt has risen. The fact is that part of my theory has been proven on this very forum as I now have been accused of not being sympathetic of the transgender community just for questioning the execution of this new rule.

Concerning what is morally reprehensible, I wonder what your stance is concerning firearms?

Do you support that they should be regulated on the theory that we need to reduce the risk of bystanders getting hurt? That we should take every opportunity available to protect people even if it does infringe on their rights?

Or do you think firearms should be allowed? That tragedies like Colorado, San Bernardino, and Roseburg are necessary evils so that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms is protected?

Please answer that question.

The two things have little to nothing to do with each other.
One is a matter of private ownership and the responsibility that goes with it while the other deals with public facilities and the fake fears people are generating about them.

 

[emayf]

So many people act like there was a magical force field that prevents people of the "opposite" sex from coming in a public bathroom and now that magical force field is gone. Technically, any creepy person can walk into any bathroom. It's a public bathroom there's nothing stopping them. And how do you know that lady in the women's room isn't a pervert? or that guy peeing next to you in the men's room isn't a pedophile? All sorts of weirdos go into public bathrooms. Transgender people have been using public restrooms before it became a political issue. It wasn't an issue then why is it suddenly an issue now? Conservatives love to make non-issues issues to distract us from the real issues such as education, poverty, roads, and unemployment.

 

[bananaman]

You're right that violence against the transgender community does not change that in a hypothetical scenario a pervert could enter the women's restroom under the guise of being transgender. But the remote possibility of that happening is well and truly overshadowed by the threat that is posed to transgendered people by segregating them from the bathroom that they are most comfortable in. It paints a very obvious target on those in the transgender community, especially transgendered teens in high school who would be forced to use the bathroom that they feel most uncomfortable in. Advocates for these bathroom laws seem to stick to the "We must protect our children" argument but they don't seem to consider the threat posed to teenagers who might be questioning their gender identity during already one of the most confusing, scary, and formative times of their childhood. Schools are already fraught with bullying, and these bathroom laws would force one of two things; either teens would be forced to hide their true gender identity in order to avoid being targeted, or they would present as their identified gender and risk the harassment. There's also the possibility of them refusing or being too afraid to even face their feelings, which could be even more psychologically harmful. There is a reason why the suicide and self-harm rate in transgender teenagers is one of the highest out there.

My argument is simply this; lives are put at risk by forcing transgender people to use the bathroom that does not align with their gender identity, and that the proposed risk of allowing them to use the restroom does not justify discriminating over 700,000 people. By forcing them to use the bathroom designated to them at birth, you risk damaging the psychological integrity of transgender people, in particular people who are mid-transition, as well as creating a target for those who are inclined to harassment and violence. I have yet to find any statistic or evidence that proves that allowing transgender people to use the appropriate bathroom will cause an increase in sexual assault, voyeurism, or violent crime. And believe me, I've been looking because this has been such a hot topic lately that I've been trying to find a study or report that shows that there would be a real and immediate threat. You also have the problem of making brusque and burly men use the women's restroom simply because they were born without a twig and berries, which would cause far more problems as far as public order is concerned than allowing a transgender person to use the appropriate restroom.

I also fail to see how gun control is in any way relevant to the topic at hand. Since you seem curious, I will tell you that I support stricter gun control regulations. I won't go into it because it's irrelevant to the current discussion, and I'll just ignore it if you try to goad me into further discussion on gun control.

To be fair, I knew you would not answer my question regarding gun control because it betrays the logical fallacy in your argument. There is no way you can say you're concerned about the risk we put innocents at and that certain rights must be sacrificed for the common good, then go ahead and say you're not concerned about the risks we put innocents at because we can not sacrifice the rights of others for the common good. I won't press you on it because you have made my point. I know some will say they have nothing to do with each other, but again, that's an excuse, not an answer. In fact, both issues have quite a good deal in common: we have two groups saying we can not put bystanders at risk, and two resisting groups saying there's nothing to worry about and it's their right. Liberalism and conservatism are red herrings, it's always been about people wanting to make life better for their side, no matter the costs, as long as they 'win', but I digress.

You say that transgenders will be more at risk for going to a bathroom they are not comfortable in. Yet with all of the attention and and all the animosity that this topic has gathered, the Trans community is now more targeted than ever. Now if an effeminate man or a masculine woman enters the bathroom, the local red neck yahoos are going to be ready with torches and pitchforks and drive them back to the bathroom they, in their mind, think they should be using. The beings in question may not even be trans, they might just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So if anything, this whole incident has made the transgender even bigger targets than they were before, because now hate filled bigots will be looking for them.

I know nothing I will say will change your mind, I have voiced my concerns, and I see no reason to beat a dead horse. Please note I have not been rude. If this world is ever going to get better, it must be done through civil and intelligent discussion. Which ever road you choose, may it lead where you want it to.

 

[bananaman]

You are being questioned because you are drawing a conclusion that restroom policies being made around gender identity and not sexual organs somehow leads to higher child molestation and sexual crimes in those environments. I have yet to see this be the case. Someone who is dressed like a man (whether biologically a male or female) who enters the women's restroom will still look out of place. It should be a red flag that they are in there for odd reasons. I don't see how its any easier for a pedophile to get into a women's restroom now than before, because either they were just going to walk in (which could have been done before) or they are going to dress like a lady and get in there, which again could have been done before.

Interesting choice of words.

"You are being questioned."

It almost sounds like I've done something wrong, yet to my knowledge I have not.

To begin, you misquoted me. I said the risk for child molestation and sex crimes have risen, not that they actually have. I said we have made it easier for bad people to take advantage of this new rule.

You can not identify or red flag a man going into the woman's bathroom any more as a trouble maker because if you do, you might be misgendering an actual member of the trans community, and that is something that is not appreciated by transgender folk at all. I wager if the matter is pressed, you could be in danger of disciplinary action from Target for doing that. The matter is further complicated because some people are gender fluid.

This is the risk I was talking about - we can no longer tell the good from the bad, and we are loathe to accuse the bad for fear of misgendering the good.

But no matter, as I have said in reply to Firefox, I have said my peace.

 

[Firefox]

I know nothing I will say will change your mind, I have voiced my concerns, and I see no reason to beat a dead horse. Please note I have not been rude. If this world is ever going to get better, it must be done through civil and intelligent discussion. Which ever road you choose, may it lead where you want it to.

Absolutely, and everything I have said up to this point has simply been for the sake of argument. Nothing personal about it, no judgement, just debate.

As for your other points, arguments can be made either way as to the common elements between gun control and these bathroom laws, but I will say this. I see these Anti-LGBT bathroom laws as a civil rights violation, and the movement for LGBT equality is a civil rights issue whereas gun control is a criminal/constitutional rights issue, and thus are completely separate topics that merit their own discussions. I feel that the risk of voyeurism and sexual assault from a person claiming to be transgender in a public restroom to be extremely unlikely as there is still the issue of it being easily discovered and the punishment for either of these crimes is harsh enough to dissuade most people. Those who aren't dissuaded would likely have done it in the first place. I absolutely hate using the term "For the greater good of the people", but the truth of the matter is that I weigh the civil rights of over 700,000 people to be greater than the potential risk posed by perverts who may or may not cause problems.

I admit that I live in a fairly liberal area and many people within my old high school (I would go as far to say that the majority of people) were overwhelmingly supportive of the LGBT community. Even still, just a few years ago a student who I had shared a class or two with at the time committed suicide because of harassment from a few classmates about her change in gender identity from male to female. It was a tragic event that was felt throughout the school, and the family got a lot of support from within the community and I believe there was an LGBT support group created to help those who aren't quite sure about themselves. What frightens me is that I know that there are thousands of schools across the country that aren't anywhere near as supportive and that it isn't a safe environment for these people. Striking down these bathroom laws and making public statements like Target has helps the movement for further acceptance of the LGBT community.

I've said my piece, so unless any new points are brought up or someone posts something outrageously bigoted I'll try to refrain from posting further.

 

[qmosqueen]

Can we please close this thread now. Thanks

If you want this thread closed click the like button.

 

[Kaitii]

Damn it, now I ended up on the Target FB page commenting on everything again.

Look for a blonde haired cat boy ;3

 

[Retail Girl]

Can we please close this thread now. Thanks

If you want this thread closed click the like button.

The discussion has been respectful. When people are tired of talking about it, the thread will organically die. If you don't want to read about it any more, you are free to stop reading.

 

[kingpin003]

I disagree that the thread should be closed. You are free to stop reading if you don't want to take part in the discussion, but allow others to share their viewpoints in a civil manner.

Several of my current and former team members were transgender. I built a strong relationship with each of them and respected that they each had unique experiences that affected how open they were about it. One was very confident and was quick to let people know if they used the wrong pronoun, while another would be devastated when it happened. His experiences in his teenage years had made it very painful when others referred to him with the wrong pronoun, and I could see how it affected him when people did so. I think it would be disrespectful to force him to use a restroom that caused him to feel that way, just because someone else refuses to understand him.

So while I understand the concerns that people have when it comes to bathrooms, I think that forcing a large number of people into certainly uncomfortable and potentially stressful situations is the wrong move. Forcing transgender females to use the men's restroom in a dress is absurd, especially since they are then expected to carry their birth certificate to prove they belong there.

 

[commiecorvus]

 

[Firefox]

Can we please close this thread now. Thanks

If you want this thread closed click the like button.

Most of the discussion has been very civil so far, so there is no reason to close the thread. Just because it's a controversial issue doesn't mean it should be closed. Especially now that Target has taken a public stance it's relevant to this forum and merits discussion.

 

[Hardlinesmaster]

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Boycott grows over Target transgender policy

More than 500,000 boycott Target over transgender bathroom policy