• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boycotting Target?

Are you Boycotting Target?

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
I cannot vote because I cannot buy there, but I would definitely not be boycotting them. In fact I would seriously support their courageous choice to voice their denouncement of the intolerance against transgenders.
 
_Sal said:
so what is Target's washroom policy...I thought they said washrooms must be used according to gender at birth?
Click to expand...

No, their policy is that anyone can use either bathroom as long as they say they identify as the gender of the bathroom they want to use. At least that's my understanding of it.
 
SDET said:
Yes. It's an act of hubris by a small minority trying to show "who's boss" by forcing large numbers of people into a distressing situation.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's what's happening in NC. An act of hubris by a small minority trying to show who's boss by forcing another minority into a distressing situation, all the while creating something that actually does nothing.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Doesn't make any sense to me X. Why boycott a store that is only trying to make ALL their potential customers feel welcome. If a person has a problem with the policy, then they can shop at Target and pee at home. Or, go to another store and pee. I can't remember the last time I went into a public restroom that wasn't in a restaurant or bar. I go to Target to shop, not to ****.

My wife, Yes Ma'am, had a long conversation with one of her cousins today about NC HB2. The cousin was all in favor of the new law, and was totally wrong about every reason she gave as to why. Yes Ma'am said it was all she could do not to set her straight, which would have probably torn their relationship apart - sometimes it's best to remain silent. My point is, there are so many people out there that honestly misunderstand what the issues actually are, and what the facts are as well. Trans folks are not perverts, and perverts aren't going to be able to use these laws as an excuse to get pervy in the ladies restroom, no matter what folks may hear on TV or at Wednesday night prayer meeting (which is where Yes Ma'am's cousin was educated in the issue).
Click to expand...

I think it would be reasonable to object to or oppose laws (if any exist) that would make it illegal to question or remove a man from the ladies room, but I pretty much agree with everything else you've said. The thing is, even if there became this large problem with pervs hanging out in women's bathrooms, then the answer would be to deal with those people - not make it so that an innocent third party (true trans people) suffers. That's like making certain speech illegal because it might cause a violent reaction.
 
SDET said:
Of course it's logical. What is being done here is a political power play. Many lifelong females are distressed by having some gender-fluid male at birth in the bathroom with them. Those lifelong females should be shown some consideration.
Click to expand...

The power play is by idiotic conservatives butthurt over losing on SSM... so they are attacking a minority that has very little power and is very small. No female has been distressed by transsexuals going into restrooms, since no female has known that it was happening until these idiotic conservatives started talking about it, using an appeal to emotion logical fallacy to "support" their position.

Now, you did not answer my question in any way. So, reading the story I told, is the behavior of the parents consistent and logical with supporting their daughter's husband's transsexuality?
 
It would be interesting to see if their sales of children related items decrease as parents go somewhere else for those instead of facing the possibility of open bathrooms for their kids. They probably don't normally report those types of numbers and if I were them I wouldn't start .
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am reserving judgement at the moment. I don't have a dog in the fight politically here, I am a Catholic but do have some contentions with the religion, I don't care about the LGTB issue past a human rights stance, I think both sides in the argument are chock full of idiots.

The one thing I think Target really screwed up on is the sloppiness of the policy, but not that different from the sloppiness of the current city ordinances previously passed. I don't see anywhere in there on either the laws or policy that have sufficient consequences for sexual perverts who abuse the situation by saying "I identify as......"(not speaking of transsexuals, I don't agree that it's perversion, or any other LGTB members but specifically sexual predators).
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. And here's an argument that I have been making that pretty much NO ONE has dared to touch. Let's see if you agree with the argument's consistency:

Since conservatives have decided that creating a bathroom policy that they believe will stop "perverts" but in reality only harms transsexuals and does nothing to stop criminals, wouldn't it be consistent to create more gun laws that they believe would stop crime, but in reality would only harm law-abiding citizens and do nothing to stop criminals?
 
X Factor said:
I think it would be reasonable to object to or oppose laws (if any exist) that would make it illegal to question or remove a man from the ladies room, but I pretty much agree with everything else you've said. The thing is, even if there became this large problem with pervs hanging out in women's bathrooms, then the answer would be to deal with those people - not make it so that an innocent third party (true trans people) suffers. That's like making certain speech illegal because it might cause a violent reaction.
Click to expand...

Or banning guns because a criminal might use one.
 
SDET said:
Yes. It's an act of hubris by a small minority trying to show "who's boss" by forcing large numbers of people into a distressing situation.
Click to expand...

Do you really feel "distressed" in a Target bathroom? What are you all doing in there that's taking such a significant amount of time that you fear encountering someone whose actually in a pretty small minority?
 
I'm glad most people are rational human beings from the vote count. Boycotts are usually silly; this one is especially ridiculous.
 
SDET said:
Yes. It's an act of hubris by a small minority trying to show "who's boss" by forcing large numbers of people into a distressing situation.
Click to expand...

The small minority part of that sentence is important. Chance that you will run into a trans-gendered person in a bathroom: pretty slim. Chances that a trans-gendered person will have to use a bathroom that they are not comfortable using: 100% depending on the policy of the establishment, and state laws. Transwomen for instance would like to go into the women's restroom if they look and dress like a woman, for obvious reasons. However, if a transwoman does not yet dress like a woman, or has had any surgery done to look like a woman, then they probably more comfortable going into the men's bathroom. In either event, it's about trying to make people feel more comfortable within reason. You not feeling comfortable because a trans person is in your bathroom is beyond reason, hence Target's policy.
 
TobyOne said:
It would be interesting to see if their sales of children related items decrease as parents go somewhere else for those instead of facing the possibility of open bathrooms for their kids. They probably don't normally report those types of numbers and if I were them I wouldn't start .
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, "think of the children". Who lets their small child go into public bathrooms by themselves? That would be a bad idea regardless of store policy on this specific issue.
 
After a certain age, kids do go by themselves. A mother isn't going to go into the men's room with a 10 yo and she isnt going to bring him into the women's room. With Target, its the path of least resistance - parents don't need something else to deal with. They'll just go somewhere else.

X Factor said:
Ah, yes, "think of the children". Who lets their small child go into public bathrooms by themselves? That would be a bad idea regardless of store policy on this specific issue.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The power play is by idiotic conservatives butthurt over losing on SSM... so they are attacking a minority that has very little power and is very small. No female has been distressed by transsexuals going into restrooms, since no female has known that it was happening until these idiotic conservatives started talking about it, using an appeal to emotion logical fallacy to "support" their position.

Now, you did not answer my question in any way. So, reading the story I told, is the behavior of the parents consistent and logical with supporting their daughter's husband's transsexuality?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's logical because the parents are acting only on their own behalf in how the treat their SIL. In the other situation they are acting on behalf of the general public. The first shot in this battle was fired by the city of Charlotte.
 
TobyOne said:
After a certain age, kids do go by themselves. A mother isn't going to go into the men's room with a 10 yo and she isnt going to bring him into the women's room. With Target, its the path of least resistance - parents don't need something else to deal with. They'll just go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Our policy is that parents can accompany children of absolutely any age (and yes this includes adult children) into the restroom. Plus, Target has family restrooms in many of their stores.

And it still doesn't change the fact that it is still a public restroom, still has people coming and going at random, unpredictable times, which is the main reason people don't attack others in restrooms, because they could easily, very easily be caught.
 
SDET said:
Yes, it's logical because the parents are acting only on their own behalf in how the treat their SIL. In the other situation they are acting on behalf of the general public. The first shot in this battle was fired by the city of Charlotte.
Click to expand...

Many places have the same laws target implemented, including many towns and counties in NC.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I can agree with this. And here's an argument that I have been making that pretty much NO ONE has dared to touch. Let's see if you agree with the argument's consistency:

Since conservatives have decided that creating a bathroom policy that they believe will stop "perverts" but in reality only harms transsexuals and does nothing to stop criminals, wouldn't it be consistent to create more gun laws that they believe would stop crime, but in reality would only harm law-abiding citizens and do nothing to stop criminals?
Click to expand...

I can expand on this even more. Aren't conservatives often the ones who say (rightfully IMO) that we need to rely on ourselves to keep ourselves and our families safe and not the law or, in this case, store policy? If someone's being creepy in the bathroom, I'd hope women wouldn't just ignore it and would take steps to be as safe as possible. I really don't see how Target's policy does anything to make public bathrooms any more dangerous than they already are (and folks can decide for themselves how great the danger is or has been).
 
X Factor said:
Do you really feel "distressed" in a Target bathroom? What are you all doing in there that's taking such a significant amount of time that you fear encountering someone whose actually in a pretty small minority?
Click to expand...

I don't individually, but it's obvious that many real females would.
 
my question is, do most of these 'protesters' have jobs? if not, what does their 'boycott' really mean? does target care if people with no money don't spend the money they don't have at target?
 
SDET said:
Yes, it's logical because the parents are acting only on their own behalf in how the treat their SIL. In the other situation they are acting on behalf of the general public. The first shot in this battle was fired by the city of Charlotte.
Click to expand...

Firstly, how are they acting on behalf of the general public? They are choosing this course of action because of their faith, not because of some concern for public safety. I was clear about their motivations. Secondly, you didn't answer that other part of the question: are they consistent?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, how are they acting on behalf of the general public? They are choosing this course of action because of their faith, not because of some concern for public safety. I was clear about their motivations. Secondly, you didn't answer that other part of the question: are they consistent?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are consistent. Acting on behalf of the general public or fellow members of the same faith, the principle is the same. The first is a family act, the other is a public act.
 
SDET said:
I don't individually, but it's obvious that many real females would.
Click to expand...

Really? Please show us some evidence that females would be distressed with having transsexuals... who appear as females and who's sole purpose for being in the bathroom is to use the bathroom... in the bathroom with them. Links to the information is required.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Or banning guns because a criminal might use one.
Click to expand...

Good point, CC.

I have the solution!!! Target should cut to the chase and simply have a "no sexual predator" policy. That should clear this whole thing up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom