Well that didn't take long

[CitizenBBN]

First report I've seen of a perv using the new Target open bathroom policy to his advantage:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/13/transgender-woman-arrested-in-voyeurism-incident-at-idaho-target.html

He claims to identify as a woman so he's listed as transgender, but he's just a guy trying to get away with getting voyeur pics in the changing rooms.

He's the first one caught, I'll about guarantee he's not the first one to do it.

[Doc]

Well if those damn right wingers hadn't planted the idea when objecting to the policy this guy never would have come up with the idea. I mean it's no like there are a lot of perverts in this country who would do such a thing. (Sarcasm off)

[PedroDaGr8]

First report I've seen of a perv using the new Target open bathroom policy to his advantage:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/13/transgender-woman-arrested-in-voyeurism-incident-at-idaho-target.html

He claims to identify as a woman so he's listed as transgender, but he's just a guy trying to get away with getting voyeur pics in the changing rooms.

He's the first one caught, I'll about guarantee he's not the first one to do it.

I'm certain this happened BEFORE Targets rule change as well. The rule change had NOTHING to do with it. The only thing the rule change did is changed the coverage. What would have been a local news piece about the pervert at Target has become a national rallying cry for some conservatives. This is the ONLY reason that FN picked this story up and quite frankly it IS local news level crap and nothing more.

[Catonahottinroof]

And you would certainly be wrong in your assumption.
This occurred Tuesday, 2 days ago

http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/320312-idaho-transgender-woman-shauna-patricia-smith-arrested-for-voyeurism-at-target.html


I'm certain this happened BEFORE Targets rule change as well. The rule change had NOTHING to do with it.

[PedroDaGr8]

And you would certainly be wrong in your assumption.
This occurred Tuesday, 2 days ago.

https://instagram.com/p/BHxg5oYhnaP/

You misunderstood my wording. I meant I'm a certain perverts have done this before Target changed their rules as well, not that this incident occurred before the role change.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[suncat05]

No argument there Pedro, I agree. Both sides have their version of the story. But the bigger issue is that Target, with this new policy, is enabling every pedophile in the U.S. and perhaps beyond.
I don't care who you are or "what" you claim to be. If you identify as a woman but you're really physically a man, that's fine. If your "gear" is that of a man, but you dress like a woman, that's fine too. No issues with that. This is America, you can be whatever you want to be. Here is my issue: if you still have a penis and you still use it for urination AND sexual purposes, then you belong in the men's room. Period. Not in the ladies room. Identify however you want. But if your actual physical reality is different than what your brain says, and if you assail my female family members, then there is going to be a big problem between us.
I do not care what you claim you are. It's all good. If, however, you in reality are something different physically than what you say you are, then you need to be in the correct restrooms. Period.
I'm thinking you may disagree with me on this. That's just how I view this. In the end, to me, this is about someone endangering my female family members, and that is something I absolutely will not tolerate.
I have spent my entire adult life protecting people I don't know. What do you think I would do to protect my wife, my daughter, or any grandchildren?

[Catonahottinroof]

The only thing I think this has done is shine a light on a long time problem.

[PedroDaGr8]

No argument there Pedro, I agree. Both sides have their version of the story. But the bigger issue is that Target, with this new policy, is enabling every pedophile in the U.S. and perhaps beyond.
I don't care who you are or "what" you claim to be. If you identify as a woman but you're really physically a man, that's fine. If your "gear" is that of a man, but you dress like a woman, that's fine too. No issues with that. This is America, you can be whatever you want to be. Here is my issue: if you still have a penis and you still use it for urination AND sexual purposes, then you belong in the men's room. Period. Not in the ladies room. Identify however you want. But if your actual physical reality is different than what your brain says, and if you assail my female family members, then there is going to be a big problem between us.
I do not care what you claim you are. It's all good. If, however, you in reality are something different physically than what you say you are, then you need to be in the correct restrooms. Period.
I'm thinking you may disagree with me on this. That's just how I view this. In the end, to me, this is about someone endangering my female family members, and that is something I absolutely will not tolerate.
I have spent my entire adult life protecting people I don't know. What do you think I would do to protect my wife, my daughter, or any grandchildren?

Most victims of pedophiles are young boys, by a pretty large margin. So as a result, a majority of pedophiles already visit the bathroom of the gender they "prefer" (it feels disgusting using that word but I can't think of a better one). This means that the young boys in your family are much more likely to get attacked in the guys bathroom, than the girls in your family in their bathroom. This makes your pedophile issue a red herring to a degree. I don't disagree with you one bit on defending your family, I would do the same in a heartbeat if someone threatened my family. That being said, I think associating transgenderism and pedophiles is a dangerous route to take for the issue.

As for why I support Targets rule change, I think maybe an analogy would get my point across better. I think this subject is very much similar to gun bans. A criminal will get a gun if he wants, no matter what the rules say. He will steal, buy on the black market or even make a gun by hand if need be. As a result, most gun bans only punish, and become an impedance to, innocent people who are not causing harm. If a pedophile wants to dress up as a woman to enter a restroom, just like they have done in the past, the pedophile will do so, whether the store says they can or not. If their mind is set on doing disgusting things to a child, a rule saying they can't enter the bathroom isn't going to change things, period. As a result, Target's change of stance will not make this more likely to happen, they would still do it anyways. All it does is tell the people with legitimate issues (female gender, biologically males trans individuals) it is ok to do so. Before, they were left with having to choose between their biology and their gender. This is something that is very painful mentally for them, considering they are hyper sensitive about their gender already. So to me, banning transgender individuals from choosing a dressing room they desire has pretty much the same effect as gun bans. They inhibit the innocent with a legitimate use, while doing nothing to stop those that they are intended to stop.

Also, many trans individuals have not undergone gender reassignment surgery because right now it still isn't very good. Male-to-Female surgery is significantly better than Female-To-Male (something about it is easier to dig a basement than build a house), but neither is all that great and both are still rife with incredibly painful complications. There has been a lot of research in the last decade, as the topic became less taboo, but it still is not at a level of success or performance that many are comfortable with yet.


As a complete aside, maybe this will get companies to stop using the partition dividers for stalls we use in the USA. I would much prefer the UK or European way where you have full, floor to ceiling walls with a real door for each stall. Less smells and noises from the stall next to you and no gap underneath or in the door for the perverts to exploit.

[suncat05]

Pedro, we agree on some points and disagree on others. It's all good. I enjoy the discussion. Thanks.

[KeithKSR]

The whole transgender issue addressed a problem that really didn't exist. There wasn't a genital verification process to go into any public restroom, enter a stall, do your business and then leave before all the ruckus was raised. We've got plenty of problems in this country that need addressing without causing waves by addressing problems that don't exist.

[CitizenBBN]

You misunderstood my wording. I meant I'm a certain perverts have done this beforeo
CT Target changed their rules as well, not that this incident occurred before the role
change.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Of course it's happened before, but Imo the rule changes have made it easier. Before if someone who is so obviously male went in it was far more likely to be reported and the store would have had grounds to send them packing.

It may not open the floodgates but it does make these kinds of crimes more likely Imo. It's lowered the bar in the eyes of some of these guys.

Not the end of the world but I do think it will happen. There's a reason this person picked target specifically Imo.

[badrose]

Of course it's happened before, but Imo the rule changes have made it easier. Before if someone who is so obviously male went in it was far more likely to be reported and the store would have had grounds to send them packing.

It may not open the floodgates but it does make these kinds of crimes more likely Imo. It's lowered the bar in the eyes of some of these guys.

Not the end of the world but I do think it will happen. There's a reason this person picked target specifically Imo.

Excellent point.

[UKHistory]

No argument there Pedro, I agree. Both sides have their version of the story. But the bigger issue is that Target, with this new policy, is enabling every pedophile in the U.S. and perhaps beyond.

I don't think the transgender laws or the acknowledgment of women who identify as men or men that identify as women are enabling pedophiles any more than they already are.

Where I live, I have seen what appeared to be adult males being arrested for sexual activity in the Nordstrom bathroom at Pentagon City. One poor guy had his pants down being put in police van so that is what I was thinking.

I know that also in that same mall many years ago cameras were found in the men's room (I am guessing the women's too) placed by a pervert.

At the time there was no law against that invasion of privacy. The law was behind technological mischief. That has been changed thankfully.

I say that pedophiles like Sandusky or priests or a lot of folks who prey on children will not be affected by this law. Those folks don't dress like women or pretend to be women. They just rape kids.

There could be a some pervs who try to hide behind this law dressing up like a woman to get better view. That is possible. I don't think we will see a rise in this but it is possible. Hopefully the laws across the country would protect people using a bathroom with people of their own biological gender who are aiming to misbehave too.

As odd and different as it is to many of us, I would say that generally a man who identifies as a woman would be more inclined to ask a woman in the restroom about her nail polish color or where she got that skirt as opposed to trying to film or hit on them.

Women who identify as men are not all that interested in being with men so our sons are safe. I would be more concerned about my daughter (if I had one) playing sports and sharing a locker with lesbians or again any type of Sandusky who outwardly appears to a masculine man with a family that would prey on a child.

Personally I am more concerned about inadvertently jerking my leg while on the toilet and my foot appearing to wave at the adjacent stall. I was not aware but this is a gesture to invite a homosexual liaison in the restroom.

I promise you I do not try and stretch my legs any longer--regardless of how long I have been sitting.

[Darrell KSR]

I would redesign all stores to have one bathroom (multiple toilets and urinals). Semi-private stalls of sorts. Make it in a horsehoe shape. Have a no Cell Phone out policy. Privacy for young kids, and anyone with a camera goes to jail.

[KeithKSR]

I would redesign all stores to have one bathroom (multiple toilets and urinals). Semi-private stalls of sorts. Make it in a horsehoe shape. Have a no Cell Phone out policy. Privacy for young kids, and anyone with a camera goes to jail.

Many stores had already used a three bathroom system, with men's, women's and family restrooms.