This is such a good example of making a non-issue a distraction. Private business has the right to dictate who they let use what facility. If you don't like targets policy don't shop at Target or don't use the bathroom at Target. Instead we have the half of the political spectrum that's supposed to be for limited government advocating laws dictating what bathrooms people can use on private property. I don't get it, conservatives get tripped up on these social issues to easily.

1.) not the presumptive nominee.


2.) not me.


3.) acknowledging and or discussing the potential abuses isn't a distraction.

---

Example? I forgot. You don't do that. It violates your troll code of conduct.

We express concern that this may give straight anatomical men who, sincerely or not, identify or dress as a woman improper access to what should be safe places for women.


You say were crazy fear mongerers and that could never happen.


You are then presented with examples of straight anatomical men who, sincerely or not, dressed or identified as women and abused improper access to women's facilities and violated their privacy.


Your response is. Well those aren't REAL trans people. They are just individuals who (as we predicted) abused improper access to women's facilities and abused their privacy. You even went on to say, well what do you expect the guy was a predator. You don't even stop to think that the policy you advocate gave the predator access to the restroom to begin with.


I can engage in a reasoned cost risk analysis. I know there are a lot of people just looking for a safe place to relieve themselves. I may disagree with their lifestyle choice but I don't have to dismiss their concerns out of hand.


You on the otherhand only care about calling someone a fearmonger homophone trandaphobe and can't acknowledge the potential abused of the system you advocate. That's real zealotry.

---

Butthurt feelings is not a legitimate concern.

 

I thought the whole thread was about butthurt trans feelings?  You expect EVERYONE ELSE to have no concerns about whatever kind of mutilated body and mind walks into the restroom, but it doesn't work the other way, does it?  The 0.01% cannot be inconvenienced, the 99.99% must be inconvenienced to accommodate them. 

---

When your opinion is stated publicly as a representative of a larger corporation which may not agree with your opinion and you have a clause which states that it is a violation of your contract to make disparaging remarks about a minority.. yup. It's called common sense. I have the right to live as a grand wizard in the KKK, but if my company catches me at a work function dropping the n word left and right and trying to convince people the Holocaust never happened, do they have the right to fire me? Yeah. Are my rights violated over this? Not at all.


This is especially true when the stated opinion has nothing to do with your actual job.

 

Now we're comparing the holocaust to labeling bathrooms male and female.  lol common sense

---

I thought the whole thread was about butthurt trans feelings? You expect EVERYONE ELSE to have no concerns about whatever kind of mutilated body and mind walks into the restroom, but it doesn't work the other way, does it? The 0.01% cannot be inconvenienced, the 99.99% must be inconvenienced to accommodate them.

Now that's the change they need

---

I thought the whole thread was about butthurt trans feelings?  You expect EVERYONE ELSE to have no concerns about whatever kind of mutilated body and mind walks into the restroom, but it doesn't work the other way, does it?  The 0.01% cannot be inconvenienced, the 99.99% must be inconvenienced to accommodate them. 

 

It's been stated a million times in this topic, but why not go for a million and one.


a LOT of people aren't inconvenienced by a trans person using the bathroom they identify with.  So you can stop with your 99% [BAD WORD REMOVED]

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It's been stated a million times in this topic, but why not go for a million and one.

a LOT of people aren't inconvenienced by a trans person using the bathroom they identify with.  So you can stop with your 99% [BAD WORD REMOVED]

 

It can only be attributed to ignorance. There is no way any of those who see a problem with allowing transgenders using facilities corresponding with their gender identity actually know one personally. Once you do, and realize and understand where they're coming from, it becomes a very silly discussion.

 

I wish Buck Angel would go to North Carolina with a clandestine film crew to record the reactions when he uses the women's restroom, as law requires.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Now we want to quibble about words and terms.


Who are you to pigeon hole somrones sexuality? Let them speak their "truth."

Who's quibbling about words? A transvestite and a transgender person are not the same thing. You do yourself a disservice by implying otherwise within the context of this particular discussion. What you and those of your ilk are all up in arms about are actually transvestites.


A simple Google search will set you free.

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

http://grammarist.com/usage/transgender-...nsvestite/


Game... Set... U get the idea

---

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://grammarist.com/usage/transgender-transsexual-transvestite/'>http://grammarist.com/usage/transgender-transsexual-transvestite/</a>


Game... Set... U get the idea

Trust me when I tell you this...no transgender person I've ever met referred to themselves as a transvestite, in fact most would consider it an insult. But way to find a convenient definition to suit your needs.

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

Meanwhile conservatives are losing their jobs for having an opinion

 

So what, that's an issue between the employer and employee. We don't like that an employer fires their employees for expressing conservative views boycott that company. What's the alternative, should we establish some discriminatory laws protecting conservatives from being persecuted in the workforce? Should we establish some laws dictating how private business regulates the use of their toilets? 

---

1.) not the presumptive nominee.


2.) not me.


3.) acknowledging and or discussing the potential abuses isn't a distraction.

 

All of this stems from North Carolina creating a law attempting to dictate what bathrooms people can use. How is that representative of limited government? 

---

http://grammarist.com/usage/transgender-...nsvestite/


Game... Set... U get the idea

 

You're venturing into an area about which you have no idea.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

They listed specific instances of men dressed as women claiming transgender status to violate women's privacy. That's not right wing, that's reality and rather predictable reality. If you are so naive as to think that everyone walking into a woman's room dressed as a woman is a.) pure as the driven snow or b.) a legitimate trans person then you have once again demonstrated you don't have enough maturity to participate in this conversation.

A drunk guy claiming he's sober while driving is a threat to me. Should no one be allowed to drive as a result?

---

Ofcourse not, hence my policy position.


At the same time if a police officer sees you swerving on the road and pulls you over he's not sued or called a bigot.

---

I thought the whole thread was about butthurt trans feelings? You expect EVERYONE ELSE to have no concerns about whatever kind of mutilated body and mind walks into the restroom, but it doesn't work the other way, does it? The 0.01% cannot be inconvenienced, the 99.99% must be inconvenienced to accommodate them.

Thats the point I was getting it. This door only swings one way apparently.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Benjamin Watson was quoted this week as saying this, and it's spot on. "We are buying the lie that feelings trump all else and that how one feels can only be accepted and celebrated instead of addressed and challenged".

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

At the same time if a police officer sees you swerving on the road and pulls you over he's not sued or called a bigot.

Clearly, you've never been to Baltimore.

---

We express concern that this may give straight anatomical men who, sincerely or not, identify or dress as a woman improper access to what should be safe places for women. You linked to an article with 25 instances of men being in bathrooms. ONE [BAD WORD REMOVED] INCIDENT of a male dressing up as a woman. He was a predator trying to be slick. Newsflash.. peeping Toms and unsavory men have been doing stuff like this since long before you were born. Using that as a keystone to your argument proves how weak a foundation your argument is built upon. Again.. the article YOU linked to, you did not even read. ONE incident of a dude dressed up as a woman. That one guy, a documented predator, has you [BAD WORD REMOVED] petrified.



You say were crazy fear mongerers and that could never happen. I didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't. Not on any scale which would cause public risk or alarm. One dude with bad intentions who was not slick and got caught. If you are allowing that one guy to incite irrational levels of fear, you are paranoid.



You are then presented with examples of straight anatomical men who, sincerely or not, dressed or identified as women and abused improper access to women's facilities and violated their privacy. You presented ONE incident of a straight guy who had bad intentions and it was all it took for your imagination to create a [BAD WORD REMOVED] army of them. If this was an epidemic, I assure you it would be all over the news every day. It isn't. This entire facet of your argument is bunk. It is NOT happening on a grand scale or a small scale. It was attempted ONE time per your own documented link from [BAD WORD REMOVED] Breitbart.



Your response is. Well those aren't REAL trans people. They are just <del>individuals</del> an individual (FIFY)
who (as we predicted) abused improper access to women's facilities and abused their privacy. You even went on to say, well what do you expect the guy was a predator. You don't even stop to think that the policy you advocate gave the predator access to the restroom to begin with. Once upon a time, I didn't know you were an absolute troll.. I offered to meet you face to face to give you an honest education on a subject you are clearly out of your element on. You gave me some "I'm alright bro" type response. You can use Google to look up the difference between transgender, transvestite, cross dresser, sexual predator and pedophile, but you may have to do actual leg work to learn the difference. (but I am quite sure you won't). Hell.. you won't even read any of this response. You propose discriminating against an entire demographic because of this one guy. That is absurd.



I can engage in a reasoned cost risk analysis. I know there are a lot of people just looking for a safe place to relieve themselves. I may disagree with their lifestyle choice but I don't have to dismiss their concerns out of hand. Your "cost risk analysis" deems this ONE person to outweighs the liberties of the entire trans population. How is that reasoned? You're reaching...



You on the otherhand only care about calling someone a fearmonger homophone trandaphobe and can't acknowledge the potential abused of the system you advocate. That's real zealotry. I never called you a fear monger. I said you are allowing the fear machine (via that article you linked to) to plant irrational fears in your head. I acknowledged that ONE guy was trying to be clever by taking advantage of what is trying to be done for trans people. Will you acknowledge that what that guy tried to do IS NOT HAPPENING ON ANY LEVEL ANYWHERE? No.. of course you won't. You are a troll. You will respond to this post with some retort that does not reference any of what I have said. Or some cryptic one liner that only you understand.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I thought the whole thread was about butthurt trans feelings?  You expect EVERYONE ELSE to have no concerns about whatever kind of mutilated body and mind walks into the restroom, but it doesn't work the other way, does it?  The 0.01% cannot be inconvenienced, the 99.99% must be inconvenienced to accommodate them. 

 

The smaller percentage of trans people are not being "inconvenienced."  They are being intimidated and attacked.  You can look this [BLEEP] up I promise. 

 

As for the larger percentage of the population.. how are they being inconvenienced?  Really answer that..   The worst complaint I have ever heard is some variation of...  "it makes me uncomfortable" or "I don't think it's acceptable."    If you are in a bathroom and a person you perceive to be trans comes in, are you going to be so freaked out you cannot relieve your bladder?  If so..  you have some major issues.   I acknowledge your right to not agree with or like LGBT people.  But this perceived persecution is ridiculous. You are not being inconvenienced.  

---

Only a chump boos the home team!