Is Target Stock Going "in Toilet" Due To Conservative Boycott Over Bathroom Policy?

Flush this claim in the nearest men's, women's, or family restroom - along with stories of pervs being drawn to Target like flies shit.


After the Minneapolis-based Target announced that it would allow customers and workers "to use bathrooms appropriate for the sex that matches their appearance, not necessarily their birth sex," social conservatives announced an online petition and boycott of the low-end-but-still-trendier-than-Walmart retailer.

The Target Boycott Pledge is spearheaded by the American Family Association, which claims that over 1 million folks have signed up to steer clear of Target stores until the company reverses its policy and…starts inspecting customer genitalia or something. "Target's policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims," harrumphs the AFA (emphasis in original). "And with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?"

In the wake of the boycott, conservatives are crowing that they are righteously destroying Target's stock price since the company welcomed fat, sweaty, hairy men to just sort of hang out in store bathrooms all day. The basis for this is that Target's stock price dipped from $84.14 a share about a week-and-a-half ago to $79.27 last Friday.

"TARGET STOCK IN TOILET: Boycott Passes 1 Million As Corporate Losses Pass $2.5 BILLION!," reads a typical headline of the genre. "Corporate America," warns a writer at RedState, "Learn from Target's mistakes. Just because the self-righteous celebrities and self-indulgent rich people like Donald Trump that you hang around with make you feel socially pressured to cater to leftist ideas doesn't mean you should. They may seem loud, but the rest of America can be a lot louder when we want to be. About 2.5 billion times as loud."

Well, maybe. But then there's this: The stock closed yesterday at $80.12 a share, so maybe people really don't give a shit (har har!) about bathroom stuff. Indeed, here's a two-year trend line of the stock's price, just to give a larger context to what every dummy investor knows. Which is that prices go up and down a lot and only a fool mistakes short-term fluctuations for the true value of much of anything, but especially a stock in the retail industry.

More bad news for the potty warriors: According to the MarketWatch site, analysts are totally bullish on Target.

And why shouldn't they be? Contra the AFA's scaremongering, it turns out that the class of perverts who frequent discount retailers are not being drawn to the restrooms now that they are "free" to do so. No, they're sticking to the traditional scenes of voyeurism, such as the swimsuit aisle. To wit, this recent news report:


A Florida woman approached by a man holding a basket full of razors in the bikini section of a Target store caught him on camera, she said.

Candice Spivey recognized Jeffrey Polizzi, 31, last week at the Jacksonville-area Target as the same creep who asked her indecent questions at a grocery store two years ago, according to the Nassau County Sheriff's Office.

Polizzi, who was convicted of video voyeurism in 2009, could be seen on Spivey's cell phone video telling her, "You want to make sure it's not too sheer or clear."

Polizzi reacted in horror when she asked him if he remembered the earlier encounter. He dropped the basket, ran out of the store and sprinted out of the parking lot as Spivey yelled, "Get this guy! Stop him! Stop this guy! Call the cops!"

And yet despite this clear and oddly comforting example of a perv acting just like they always have, the usually razor-sharp Stephen Green of Vodkapundit, still finds a reason to loop this incident back to Target's laissez-faire bathroom policy, writing, "Under Target's new policy, this creep could have been hanging out in the ladies female-ish gendered room, no problem."

But—and this is a bigger but about which even Sir Mix-A-Lot himself could ever dare to dream—the creep wasn't in the bathoom.

Let's check back in on how that Target boycott is doing in a few weeks or month. And how the company's stock is faring, too.

Bonus link: Target is pushing Mother's Day gifts pretty big, so Heather, why don't you get all your shopping for both mommies done there?

NEXT: California Moves to End Mandatory Jail Time for Prostitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This was all about trying to win a couple of news cycles by Target. They wanted proggy strokes for their bathroom policy, which would be forgotten in a month. Instead they got a conservative backlash. Which will be forgotten in a month.

    You will note that there wasn't any appreciably uptick in their market cap when they announced their bathroom policy. Now, there's minor downtick, which may or may not be market noise, but is getting them bad PR.

    Net to Target: A PR campaign that backfired.

    1. Is "strokes" one of those masturbation euphemisms I keep hearing about here?

      1. Everything's a masturbation euphemism.

    2. R C Dean sums it up well.

      1. This is definitely a masturbation euphemism.

    3. I am waiting for a retailer that comes out in favor of guns in their bathrooms.

      1. They could provide a sturdy shelf, or at least toilet paper holders with nice, flat tops. Since I usually use an IWB holster, I need someplace to lay my heavy-ass 1911 while I poop. (No problem if I'm just going #1. Male privilege FTW.)

    4. Target and WalMart are the Hilary and Trump of retailers. Although the way Target is dropping SKU's they could be the Bernie of retailers.

      In any event, based on this PR, Trump wins.

  2. Nice pic of Crusty.

    1. If it's not him, he'll be in his bunk.

      1. What, you think he isn't aroused by pictures of himself?

        1. + Silence of the Lambs

          1. Put this song on and Crusty will dance, tuck, and quote, every time.

            It's a good way to either end a party or change it to a completely different kind of party.

              1. The damage is done. my friend. That is now the visual image we will associate with you.

              2. Don't Hihn me, bro!

                1. Giggles

    1. I'm sure there's a few people at Target HQ getting their heads kicked in over this. So they care, but they'll keep their jobs, and in a month it will be forgotten.

    2. Old people. Now the locker room/shower thing could get interesting.

    3. Nick does. Nick Gillespie cares.

    4. I kinda care, because the conservative butthurt is entertaining.


      This X 1,000,000.

      This whole thing is such a non-issue it's not even funny anymore. What was stopping trannies from using the restroom of their choice before? Nothing. What's to stop trannies from continuing to use the restroom of their choice, even in states that have passed bathroom laws barring them from using the restroom of their choice? Nothing. Unless they're going to require that businesses hire someone to do a groin check on every customer entering a restroom, or, since "you can't professionalize unless you federalize" stand up a Toilet Safety Administration to check everyone out, it's just another unenforceable law.

      What was to stop pedo's from molesting kids (of either gender) in public restrooms before? Again, nothing. It's not like there's bathroom bouncers guarding the doors. The main thing that stopped them before was the fact that we're talking about public restrooms here.

      This entire "issue" has been so overblown by everyone, on both sides of it, it's just fucking ridiculous.

      1. Oh FFS, once a law is in effect, people are incapable of violating it. It's like you're new here.

      2. Ah, but you miss the true beauty of this issue. Here's a law that has any practical consequence whatsoever for, at most, 1% of the population. Yet, by taking a stand on the issue, everyone is able to proclaim their cultural affinity in the all-important cosmo/yokel (It was never just for libertarians) wars and declare with absolute moral certainty that anyone who disagrees with them is a disgusting pervert / disgusting homophobe knowing full well they'll never have to deal with the consequences of their policies because there will be virtually no consequence of policies going either way.

      3. it's just another unenforceable law.

        Except in the Charlotte "Must accept trannies" situation, it's not unenforceable but whimsically enforceable just as any other cigarette tax or public nuisance tax that gets levied against small businesses. Also, the evul rethuglikkkanz "failing to establish" their "much-desired" "bathroom Gestapo" is a pretty blatant and thinly spread false flag while Neo-Puritans, Title IX, and Equality/Public Accommodations are rather effectively being used to police bedrooms and bathrooms, both in and out of businesses, across the country.

      4. Yeah, what Loki said.

        With a bit of luck everyone will forget about this in a few months and everyone can return to arguing about the appropriate level of coverage for Trump.

    6. People care because:

      A) using a public bathroom makes mant people feel vulnerable, which embarasses them


      B) people are embarassed by the obviously mentally ill. Transgendered persons believe something that flies in the face of the available physical facts, and are therefore mentally ill.

      Embarassed people are frequently irrational, hence the fuss.

    7. At least we're not talking about Trump, oops sorry

  3. pervs being drawn to Target like flies to shit


    1. No, I think that was a commentary on how this situation is similar to fly shit.

  4. Why show a graph for 2 years to see if a boycott that has been happening for 2 weeks has had an effect? Wouldn't it be better to just show 2016, with a line showing the date of the remarks, and look to see if any trend occurs? Maybe even add separate charts with past years around the same time to see if it's seasonal or something else?

    Just feels like you are wanting to combat a weak argument by presenting an even weaker argument.

    1. That would make too much sense. Doesn't fit Nick's desire to say "fuck you" to conservatives.

      By the way, isn't this generally how we want things handled? Not through government coercion, but through independent people making decisions? I'm not going to sign up for this boycott or stop shopping at Target, but if that's what these people want to do, who cares?

      1. That would make too much sense.

        No it wouldn't.

        the criticism was stupid, and nicks general point that the protests are a fart-in-the-wind as far as the stock price is concerned, was valid.

        1. I agree that pointing to stock prices as some proof of the effect of boycotts is nonsense. However, both sides (Nick and these protesters) have a correlation/causation problem. Nick can't say for certain that a downward trend of stock prices doesn't have anything to do with this protest any more than the protesters can say that it does.

          Nick would have been better off saying that the stock price is less an immediate indicator than, say, their sales revenue this and last quarter, showing the trend and when the protests began. This information is available and tells a much better story.

          1. Looks like Target's quarter ends April 30th, and that their quarterly data is unavailable (it'll likely come out over the next few days). Still, were I to write this article, I would have waited for sales data to become available to compare where they were Jan 30th, Apr 30th, and July 31st.

            But to show a two year graph of stock prices rising and falling is like saying that the sky is blue. It's meaningless, and adds nothing to the discussion. Of course stock prices rise and fall, and they do so for a multitude of reasons, but one of those reasons could, in theory, have something to do with people being upset with the company. I'd think that'd only be a minute fraction of the cause, but neither Nick nor these boycotters know for sure.

    2. To add to Gilmore's succinct "no", the only meaningful comparison would be to other retailers in the same arena as Target. So, Walmart. Walmart's stock dropped at the same time and about the same amount.

      1. Agreed. But that seems to be all the OP was looking for: a meaningful comparison. Nick could have done what you suggested, but did not.

        1. I just take it as a given that some of the authors and editors are phoning it in, and some of the rest are just dumb as bricks.

    3. I think the 2 year chart is to show how insignificant any recent change is regardless of the cause.

  5. this is a bigger but about which even Sir Mix-A-Lot himself could ever dare to dream

    someone's gotta have a talk with Nick at some point. Who edits the editors?

    1. Maybe they just need to hire about a dozen more "contributing editors".

    2. At Reason, everyone is an editor, but no one is a copy editor.

  6. The "sex" "appropriately matching" his appearance is none of the two. Ergo, he doesn't get to access any bathroom.

  7. I'd like Nick Gillespie / Reason to define transgender for us so that it excludes men who wish to identify as women simply for the purpose of entering the ladies room.

    Or tell us that this is not possible.

    1. What's stopping someone from doing that now? From dressing up as a woman and going to a woman's bathroom? Do you think anyone would even notice?

      1. It sounds like you might be hanging out with the wrong people if the only way you can tell the overwhelming majority of men from the overwhelming majority of women is how they dress.

        1. But there are enough cases on the fringe that there is always some doubt. Enough doubt that most people wouldn't question someone who has put a bit of effort into it.

          1. Laws directed at fringe cases always work out so well.

            The issue is when people do notice. On private property, it seems like whatever the owner says, goes. On public property, it seems like whatever the majority says, goes, unless there's some constitutional protection that overrides that. I'm hard-pressed to find such a thing.

            In the absence of gender-neutral, single-user restrooms, someone is going to be mad that he doesn't get what he wants.

            1. We weren't talking about laws. We were talking about whether men can get away with using the ladies' room dressed as a woman.

              I don't think we need any new laws. Someone is going to get upset occasionally. Too bad for them.

              1. This whole kerfuffle started because of a law.

                I'm sure some men can, and have, gotten away with it. If no one can reasonably tell the difference, it's a non-issue. There are times, though, when people can reasonably tell the difference.

    2. I'd like someone to provide some evidence that such people exist in numbers great enough for it to be worth worrying about.

      1. People who want to dress like women to go in the ladies' room, that is. Why would anyone want to do that? The excitement of hearing women take a dump?

      2. I'd like someone to provide some evidence that such people exist in numbers great enough for it to be worth worrying about.

        Relative to the transgender people who exist in numbers great enough for it to be worth worrying about?

        There are some advantages women's restrooms have over men's.

        1. Are there? From what I can see and am told it's just longer waits, dirtier toilets and wasting time.

          1. Other than dive bars and stadiums, in my experience they're much nicer, cleaner, and quieter.

  8. the creep wasn't in the bathoom

    But he could have been. Never mind that, prior to Target's policy change, he could have snuck in anyway, and the only difference now is that he has to dress the part.

    1. And not that public optics really should be the chief consideration for any social group seeking public acceptance, but much like gay pride events setting back the cause of gays by turning off moderates, the sort of transexual who is going to be challenged about his presence in a bathroom is not the sort that transexuals generally will want representing transexuality. cf. the masculine, pre-therapy self-identifying trans student insisting on his right to access the women's locker room. Is this person doing his cause any good?

      1. You would think that but I think they want that sort of person. The goal is not acceptance or to make anything better for anyone. That may be the goal for some people but not the people doing this. The goal is to shove something in people's face and make them conform and degrade themselves. The goal, as it always is for Progs, is power. If some tranny that you can't tell from a woman goes in and out and no one notices, that doesn't accomplish anything for the progs. No one noticed. No one had to bow their heads and affirm the lie de jour of the Prog movement. The guy in that picture goes in and everyone has to affirm the lie. And that is the entire point.

        1. I agree with John. And of course, nobody should think this is any sort of endpoint. Progressives want to fight and change society, and they will never stop.

        2. Yes, John, we are all Homocaust Deniers.

          1. Do you think the SJWs think differently?

            1. Unlike you, I take things an issue at a time. I don't have to take the opposite position on every issue to the official position taken by the enemy tribe.

              1. Okay, why is this issue different? Why are you for the SJWs here? I explained my reasons on multiple posts on this thread. What are your reasons?

                Do you really think it is unreasonable to object to men using the women's bathroom? How long have you found this to be unreasonable? What about it makes it wrong and causes you to side with the SJWs here.

                1. "Do you really think it is unreasonable to object to men using the women's bathroom?"

                  Not men, transgenders. If someone wants to dress up as a woman and use the women's bathroom and mind their own business, that is fine with me. I just don't see a problem with that. If that person starts harassing women in the bathroom....guess what, that is illegal and will remain illegal. So what's the problem?

                  1. So you think that it is unreasonable to reject the concept of "transgendered" and judge people's sex by their anatomy and DNA? What about the concept do you find so convincing? I don't see how it is unreasonable to think that your thoughts and beliefs can't trump your biology and DNA.

                    Second, okay, you are fine with it. That is your right. But why do you have such a problem with people who are not? Aren't they entitled to their preferences too? Sure, the transgendered guy feels better if he can use the woman's bathroom. Well a lot of women feel better if he doesn't. Why does his preferences trump theirs? And most importantly, why are his preferences reasonable in your mind but the women's preferences unreasonable such that they are illegitimate and should be ignored?

                    Ultimately, someone is not going to get what they want. You say it should be the women. I don't see why that should necessarily be the case and I certainly don't see why the women who object are unreasonable and the guy who thinks he is something different than his biology is. In fact it looks to me to be the opposite.

                    1. Ultimately, someone is not going to get what they want.

                      I can see your point here. Someone's "rights" are going to violated here as long as there are gender segregated restrooms. The only solution I can see is to do away with that and go to all unisex, probably single occupancy* restrooms. As long we have men's and women's restrooms this will continue to be an issue.

                      *I assume that would be the consumer preference that would fall out of it - hopefully there wouldn't be an idiotic law requiring all businesses to renovate their restrooms to single occupancy, unisex restrooms but it probably would. The state can't help itself bu to dictate outcomes before society at large has had a chance to settle on an optimal arrangement.

                    2. So your solution is to spend millions violating everyone's rights? The solution is to let the people paying the bills, be they the taxpayers or the store owner can make whatever bathroom rules they want.

                    3. So your solution is to spend millions violating everyone's rights?

                      Not at all. Admittedly, I wasn't clear that I don't think the state should be pushing ANY one size fits all solution.

                      It should be the business owner's choice how they want to arrange their restrooms:

                      1. If they want to go to all unisex, use whatever bathroom you want, fine
                      2. If they want to keep male/ female bathrooms and not allow trannies to use the bathroom of their gender identity, fine.
                      3. If they want to keep male/ female bathrooms and allow trannies to use the bathroom of their gender identity that's fine.
                      4. If they want to go to the expense of remodeling their bathrooms into single occupancy unisex bathrooms, that's fine too (although I doubt very many would do that).

                      I thought I was pretty unequivocal in NOT wanting the state to force option 4 on everyone ("...hopefully there wouldn't be an idiotic law requiring all businesses to renovate their restrooms to single occupancy, unisex restrooms...") but I guess not.

                      Part of what's causing this "issue" is that the state has required separate restrooms in most locales. I have seen some places that only have 1 restroom, but it's always a single occupant restroom, probably because some states may make exceptions for a single restroom so long as only a single person at a time can use it.

                      Of course, you'll probably ignore all of this and go into "super mind reading warlock" mode and tell me what I really think.

                    4. As long as the business owner tells their customers the policy, I don't disagree. My problem is that Reason expects taxpayers to pick up the tab building special bathrooms for trannies in public buildings. That is complete horseshit.

                    5. Reason expects taxpayers to pick up the tab building special bathrooms for trannies in public buildings.

                      I must've missed that article. If true, I agree that's horseshit.

                    6. Ultimately, someone is not going to get what they want.

                      Only if it's a collective decision. If the decision is left where it belongs, in the hands of private store owners, people can arrange their shopping as they see fit.

                    7. That seems to be what is happening here Bill. What is your problem with the boycott?

                      It is not a collective decision. It is the decision of whomever is paying the bills, be they taxpayers or business owners.

                    8. And in this case the business owner has decided to let the transsexuals use the ladies rooms. Some people object. But, clearly not enough to effect the stock price.

                  2. So what's the problem?

                    Going by the "mind your own business" rationale, there is no problem and hasn't been. So, why the push for ordinances that essentially create a problem?

                    This is a good example of "do something" biting some jurisdictions in the ass. They had to virtue signal and genuflect at the SJW altar, this time in support of the trans crowd, and what a surprise, not everyone was willing to join the parade. When you force people to notice things they previously ignored or did not know about, AND with the force of law imply that they should accept those things, don't be shocked when some of them rebel.

                  3. Not men, transgenders.

                    Are you saying that your position goes beyond simply identifying as a gender?

                    How, using your distinction, is the determination to be made between a man who says, "Right now, I identify as a woman" and someone you'd consider a True Transgender?

                2. Except it's a private business. They can let anyone they want use whatever bathroom they want. Or at least that's the way it should work. Frankly, the coercion is the only thing that bothers me on either side.

                  1. Sure they can Bill. And people who don't like that are free not to shop there. You seem to think that freedom of association only goes one way.

                    1. No, I fully support anyone's right not to shop at Target. Of course, the entire article here is focused on how little effect those making that decision are having.

                    2. Time will tell Bill. But why do you want these people to fail? Why shouldn't they be able to expect a store to give them the service they want?

                    3. It's funny. You're framing this a contest between a company and a group of ostensible customers. I look at it as a matter of freedom of association. They don't want to shop Target? I'm sure there's a Wal-Mart right down the street.

                    4. And when Wall Mart changes, you will think that is great too. You would never say "hey there is a target down the street" to the trannies. That is because Trannys are special I guess.

                    5. "it's a private business. They can let anyone they want use whatever bathroom they want. Or at least that's the way it should work."

                      What the fuck is it about reading do you not understand, John?

                      I've stated my position entirely clearly. It's not the strawman you've decided to set up in your head.

        3. Basically Agree.

          The more fringe-y elements of the trans community really, really hate when people draw a line between pre and post op, which is how you hear shit like, "Men have penises." On one level I get it, because surgery removes any ability to have kids, but I do question why, if you were a trans man (female to male), you would want to keep your uterus to put a baby in there. Like, if you find having bombs and a vagina and such to be horrifying and traumatizing and you need to get a double mastectomy etc.- wouldn't the experience of pregnancy just horrify you? Like, you don't want to be a woman, you want to be a man... but you want to be able to get pregnant at some point.

          And they call the ability to not be noticed "passing privilege" ie you "pass" as a woman or man or whatever you want to be. So, if you ARE a tranny who looks the part and nobody would be able to tell? Well, you need to CHECK YOUR FUCKING PRIVILEGE!

          I mean, the other issue is that they these are communities rejecting traditional standards of beauty and gender appearance: Some people purposefully go for a non-binary/androgynous gender thing, because all of this is really tied up in internet feminism it has a lot of "fat-positivity" and "body-positivity" stuff. Oh, and then you have the "gender fuck" identity, which is all about purposeful gender bending to make a point (think bearded ladies, but as an identity politics movement that celebrates being a bearded lady as a unique gender bending thing)

        4. The guy in that picture goes in and everyone has to affirm the lie. And that is the entire point.

          I also think that's why they reject the option of having their own private restroom (where that option is offered). They claim it's "stigmatizing" but I think the problem is really that other people would be able to go about their business without having the trannies in their faces.

          Heh, maybe it's just my age or the fact that I grew up in a small house and then did a hitch in the Navy, but I greatly prize my privacy and consider a private bathroom a privilege.

    2. prior to Target's policy change, he could have snuck in anyway, and the only difference now is that he has to dress the part.

      He didn't even have to do that. It's not like Target has ever had bathroom bouncers whose job is to make sure no one goes into the "wrong" bathroom.This whole freak-out is just so much bullshit over nothing. It's pretty much just a bunch of social signaling by proggies who pretend to care about trannie's rights, when really all they care about is that this is just one more way they can feel "enlightened" and "superior" to all those redneck rubes in flyover land, and so-cons getting their panties wadded up over a very trivial issue. Yes, trannies may use the bathroom of their choice, and perverts may sneak into women's restroom, but they could do that before, so nothing's really changed.

    3. He doesn't have to dress the part.

  9. I think the economy may be boycotting Target's stock...

  10. But Crusty Jenner was in the news bragging about how he was able to use the women's bathroom at Target. Shouldn't that count for something?

      1. ^ stunning and brave

    1. *stated in emotionless monotone voice*

      All I know is that Caitlyn Jenner is stunning and brave...

  11. This post is so stupid I feel stupid for posting this comment on the stupidity of the post.

    1. It's stupid all the way down!

  12. Heather, while loving her mother and her partner, grew up to slightly resent her mother because she didn't have a father in her life. She is now against gay marriage and thinks it is cruel to intentionally raise a child without both a mother and father. Just throwing that out there...

  13. Heather, while loving her mother and her partner, grew up to slightly resent her mother because she didn't have a father in her life. She is now against gay marriage and thinks it is cruel to intentionally raise a child without both a mother and father. Just throwing that out there...

  14. Could I get a fucking trigger warning before you throw in pictures like that? It's a quarter till lunch for me and I would prefer eating over heaving...

    1. It's just a dog with a painted on ring around his eye, you ninny.

      1. Testing cosmetics on animals is not okay.

        1. He was born that way.

  15. He dropped the basket, ran out of the store and sprinted out of the parking lot as Spivey yelled, "Get this guy! Stop him! Stop this guy! Call the cops!"

    You guys do realize chasing men through stores on camera is her fetish. There's actually a name for it. Cleanuponaislethreephelia.

    1. Am I the only one wondering what actual crime he broke? This broad got in her car and drove after him. The cops arrested him for reckless driving. Almost guaranteed they just wanted to go fishing through his phone and vehicle. Then they release this statement:

      "If you have been approached by Polizzi, please contact Detective Kelley at 904-548-4074," officials in the sheriff's office said. "We are here to protect you! Please share."

      So, the guy asks women creepy questions. There's no evidence in this instance he did anything. I know he has the 2009 conviction so he probably/definitely is just a legit creep. But there's no crime here.

      1. It's just like you patriarchal rape culture apologist shitlords to deny this woman her safe space. Who cares whether her rapist did anything illegal per se, he skeeved her out and that's enough. Rape culture means everything prior to rape is also rape because rapey vibes cause rape PTSD just as much as rape-rape.

      2. So, the guy asks women creepy questions.

        Asking womyn creepy questions is verbal rape. /SJW

        1. Oh, and of course, it's up to the womyn to determine what is and isn't a "creepy question" so technically, any question that a man asks a woman could be considered "creepy," so it's best to just keep your privileged cis-hetero shitlord patriarchal mouth shut.

  16. So how do we stop the hordes of molesters just slavering to get at our precious children?

    How do we stop these pretend transgendered predators? I mean just telling them to use the men's bathroom can't be enough, right?

    1. Ooh, ooh! Let pretend *children* into the men's bathroom!

      1. You mean like ultracool dwarf stars?

    2. First we need an evil sorcerer and his three witches to transplant a human baby into a cow's uterus.

      1. I hope a winged devourer gives you a bad hug.

        1. Pssh. Some hot chick with razor barrettes will save me.

      2. You think Warty hasn't tried that a thousand times?

        1. Bullman has the worst origin story.

    3. Not really about tranny predators. Its mostly about the regular kind who people fear will ride the tranny coattails.

      Still nothing to worry about, but lets not mischaracterize what people are saying. Still, the meme with the nutter is, err, eyecatching.

      1. Once again, what are you going to do about? If we have to keep XY out of the XX room, how do you propose we do it?

        1. I doubt anything would be a 100% solution but that's never been the point, certainly not from the SJW crowd. Their intent was an in-your-face move on behalf of trans people who, evidently, have been unable to take a leak without govt intervention. In NC, the state responded. Identity policies, far from stopping problems, actually do more to cause them by giving pervs the cover of an ordinance. And in our PC world, some creeper is going to play the victim and whoever confronted him is going to be in a tough spot.

          SJW-driven policy, creating problems since forever.

          1. So you don't have a solution to stop it? Children are being molested and you won't do anything about it?

            1. I didn't claim a solution to stop it, but I'm not pushing one to make it worse. It's all fun and games until one of several foreseeable consequences occurs - the lawsuit because some perv used this sort of measure as cover, the criminal charge because someone who never paid attention before now is paying attention and resorted to a taser or pepper spray or worse, and some others. Good times.

              1. This is just sounded to me like the anti-abortion folks who won't advocate putting women in jail. If you don't support the obvious solution, it just sounds like whining for the sake of whining--and on both sides.

                1. The solution is this. If a store owner doesn't want a tranny to use the wrong bathroom, he can call the cops and have him arrested. If the majority decides they don't want a tranny using the wrong bathroom in a public building, the cops can arrest them for tresspassing for doing so.

                  If a store owner is find allowing it, that is their and their customer's business. As long as they are upfront about it, people can not go there if they don't like it.

                  I don't understand why there would be an issue with that.

          2. Have they, though? Have transgenders been getting kicked out of women's bathrooms?

            That's not what this is about. This is about getting official approval, because that is how our society measures whether something is ok or not. If the government approves it, then it is officially a good thing.

            1. that's what I said: the in-your-face move by entities like the Charlotte City Council based on nothing but virtue signaling.

        2. Once again, what are you going to do about? If we have to keep XY out of the XX room, how do you propose we do it?


        3. If we have to keep XY out of the XX room, how do you propose we do it?

          Well, I don't think "we" have to do a damn thing, so I don't really get to the second part of the question.

          I'm in favor of letting businesses set the bathroom policy they want, and enforce it as they will.

          1. Just to be clear here. If there is a problem, its not kids getting molested by trannies.

            Its businesses getting molested by SJWs and the government.

      2. ride the tranny coattails

        Now that is how you do a masturbation euphemism.

        1. Is that anything like climbing the mountain of conflict?

    4. If someone is fucking your precious pre-pubescent sprog, that someone is probably a relative. If not a relative, the molester is almost certainly going to be a familiar authority figure - little league coach, babysitter, Sunday school teacher, etc.

      So to keep your crotch fruit pure and unsullied, I recommend keeping them locked in the basement until they're in their twenties.

      1. How late into their twenties? They're entitled to coverage under your medical plan until 26, so as long as we're infantilizing grown adults we might as well square all our laws to the same age standard.

      2. Actually, before the relative, isn't it the parents?

        Let me put it this way: If a parent is freaking out a disproportionate amount about their kid getting diddled, I almost look at them like the priests who rail against gay sex before they are caught railing the rent boy. Something fishy there.

        1. Ding, ding, ding! And if they haven't, they have definitely thought about it.

          1. It is very rare for biological parents to molest their own children. It happens but very rarely. The danger to kids is step parents and b/fs or g/fs not biological parents.

    5. Let them read one of your masterpieces.

    6. So how do we stop the hordes of molesters just slavering to get at our precious children?

      The same we always have: by beating the fuck out of the child molesting diaper stains with a baseball bat before the cops get to him.

  17. Target announced that it would allow customers and workers "to use bathrooms appropriate for the sex that matches their appearance, not necessarily their birth sex"

    Sheesh, no wonder Target's getting boycotted.

    Customers and workers should be allowed to use bathrooms appropriate for the sex that matches their *feelings*.

  18. If I were the American Family Association, I would have identifiable men dressed as women challenging Target by entering the Ladies Room as transgenders stating they identify as women (of course with the possibility of being arrested).

    Let's see if Target discriminates.

  19. a little early to make any conclusions,but if amillion people stop shopping at your store that could be a problem

    1. Ahem. This will *more* than be compensated for by the additional LGBT customers.

    2. Once again, the people that are supporting this boycott don't shop at Target anyway. They are a Walmart people.

      1. At least they're not K-Mart people.

  20. Let's check back in on how that Target boycott is doing in a few weeks or month. And how the company's stock is faring, too.

    Sure. But do it intelligently. With a short-term chart, preferably marked with relevant events, and comparisons to Target's peers. The chart you used this time is pretty much useless, unless you don't really want to look at the effect of the boycott (if any) and prefer to distract people with irrelevant info about Target's price two years before the boycott.

    1. Doing it intelligently will rob Nick of yet another opportunity to scold the rest of us on our bad manners in thinking that a man should use a men's room and a woman a ladies' room, no matter how the individual feels or identifies. And he persists in ignoring that, at least in NC, the bathroom legislation is a direct response to a Dem-majority City Council's in-your-face effort to force businesses into a compliance no constituency was seeking for a problem that did not exist.

    2. do it intelligently

      Impossible. Any level of intelligence would automatically disqualify this "issue" from any further discussion. It's a fucking farce.

  21. It's a hiccup. Target will continue to be Walmart for people who think they're too good for Walmart, and they'll bounce back.

    1. I am too good for Walmart.

    2. I don't have anything against Wal Mart, but in my experience Target is slightly less likely to have moronic employees

  22. Why is the preference not to use the bathroom with someone of the opposite sex who thinks they are your sex necessarily any worse or inferior to the preference not to want to use the bathroom with your own sex because you think you are the opposite?

    No one on this board seems to ever bother to explain that. I get it, transgendered don't want to use the bathroom of their sex. It makes them uncomfortable. But why should they get their way and the people with the opposite preference not? Forget private property for a moment. Reason is taking sides thinking they should get their way in schools and government buildings. Why?

    1. I don't really care about anyone else, but I have a hard time taking a shit when anyone else is in the bathroom. It's about time my needs are catered to.

      1. That brings up a good point Sparky. What is so special about being transgendered such that it makes your preferences more important than others. A lot of men hate being naked in front of other men but are okay with being so in front of women. It is very common for men to seek out women doctors for this reason.

        If a man feels this way, why can't he use the women's shower at the gym? I don't see how his demand is any less sincere or important than a transgendered demand.

        This whole thing is just identity politics and the SJW's creating a new victim group. That is it.

        1. it's not about specialness, it's about the next step in the non-stop SJW train. There is always a next step with these people. It's like asking progs how much govt is enough. You get no answer because there is no answer. The bonus here is the opportunity to tell their political opponents to fuck off, something Nick has jumped aboard with both feet.

          1. Pretty much. And it is more than a bit ironic to hear a bunch of self proclaimed rational atheists buy into what amounts to the idea that a man's soul can be trapped in a woman's body and vice versa. More proof that people will believe anything if you can convince them that doing so is cool and tolerant.

            1. It's a good thing you have such a good grip on the contents of other people's minds. Otherwise you might sound like you are just making shit up.

              Seriously, fuck off with the mind reader routine. It is possible for different people to reach similar conclusions for very different reasons.

              1. Are there not a ton of rational atheists on here? And don't he majority of the people on here buy into transgenerism being real?

                So how is my comment wrong? I am not reading anyone's minds. I am staying a fact.

                Fuck off if you don't like the truth Zeb.

        2. I prefer women doctors because their fingers are smaller.

        3. Good point. I should be allowed to use the women's shower at the gym.

          1. And they should be forced to shower with you. You are not allowed to do that without forcing them to do accept it.


  24. The AFA declared yesterday that it's sending men into Target's women's restrooms to "test the policy".

    So let me get this straight: the AFA has found straight men who volunteer to go into women's restrooms? Does anybody else find that odd?

    1. I don't. They're often much nicer.

    2. Why?

      I get that the AFA is opposed to Target's policy, but I don't see what they possibly hope to accomplish by doing that.

  25. til I looked at the check 4 $4775 , I did not believe mother in law actualy taking home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there uncle has been doing this for only about 16 months and just cleared the mortgage on there apartment and purchased opel .
    Check This Out???????

  26. In the wake of the boycott, conservatives are crowing that they are righteously destroying Target's stock price since the company welcomed fat, sweaty, hairy men to just sort of hang out in store bathrooms all day.

    But Target did welcome fat, hairy, sweaty, hairy men into the women's restrooms. They said so by claiming that their policy is one of 'inclusiveness' (whatever this is meant to mean). The Communications people could've just kept their stupid mouths shut. Now they created these images in people's heads (especially women) of fat, sweaty, hairy men entering their 'safe space,' claiming ownership. My wife, for one, will not use any of Target's restrooms any more, regardless of the likeliness of actual fat, hairy, sweaty men entering the restrooms. All because the Communications department at Target felt especially Proggie that day.

    They deserve EVERYTHING bad that is coming to them and more. A business is NOT a forum for Social Justice or a place meant to right perceived wrongs. It is a place to MAKE MONEY.

    1. You nailed it Mexican. If they want to make pushing SJW issues part of their business model, that is of course their right. If they do, however, there is no reason to have any sympathy for them if it adversely affects their business. No one made them do this. And of course they may benefit from it if more people from the other side decide to shop there than people who refuse to. Whatever the result, however, they brought it on themselves.

      1. Since when did you become such a big supporter of boycotts?

        1. Personally, I think boycotting a business for doing business is stupid (e.g., boycotting Exxonn for pumping oil).

          Boycotting a business for taking up the cudgels in a social/political conflict is different, to me. Play stupid games, etc.

          1. I don't have a problem with it, any more than I have a problem with boycotts in general. But John has spent innumerable pages arguing why boycotts are little better than violence and/or government sanction.

        2. I am not. But I don't view this as a boycott. This is a rational economic decision. The bathrooms and changing rooms are part of the service that Target provides to their customers. If they want to change the terms of those services to allow Trannys to use whatever room they want, people who object to that are just making an economic decision not a political one.

          If the CEO of Target had said he supported this but nothing about the store changed, then this would be a political boycott and I would have an issue with it. That is not what is going on here.

          1. This is a rational economic decision.

            You are usually not such a weasel. It's a boycott. It's political.

            1. So the conditions of the bathrooms and dressing rooms are not part of Target's service? Why is it political to say "i don't want to shop in a store where they let men into the women's bathroom"?

              1. What definition of "political" does not include a mass action organized to effect a change in policy?

                I guess the Detroit teachers' strike isn't political, either. It's just a "rational economic decision", right?

                1. Which is not to say that the strike is comparable to the boycott. Why are you even arguing about these trivialities? Of course it's a boycott, they call it a fucking boycott. Of course it's political, and what the fuck is wrong with it being political, anyway?

    2. Your wife sounds like a bit of a hysteric.

  27. This is a very good one precisely from the economic angle. Of course people want to brand anyone who thinks Target stupid as a moron who has bias or misunderstanding of trannies.

    It is dumb of target because they opened the door now to liability on both sides of the issue. If you are a pervert and go in to take a look, all you then have to do is say is that you were curious, then sue target for harassment. If you are a victim of a peeping tom, you can sue target as well. Or a really ugly woman heads into the ladies room. Someone thinks she's a tranny and decks that person just because of the drummed up hype; lawsuit. Insert any other ridiculous current american scenario.

    We know this is no pending epidemic of creepy dudes taking a look but it is a certainty that it will happen and that target will get sued on either side of the issue. Stupid business decision.

  28. Yeah, I frequent a few conservative sites and with this story I've felt like the only sane one who knows how to zoom out on stock graphs. Hell, the oil company I work for went down more than Target did in the last week, because they announced basically no earnings for first quarter.

    Target stock is essentially tracking the NASDAQ all month.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.