Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.

Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.

How are you doing with your transition? Are you still pre-op or are you post-op? How did your family react when you told them about your real gender?

Taxpayer money down the toilet...

But which toilet?

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.

Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...

I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Agreed. Its stupid. I blame cat people.

 Frazzled wrote:
I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job.

Everyone should work a gakky retail job, like at Target or someplace like that. I think it ultimately makes you a better person, less likely to act like a huge entitled jerk.

I agree with the above. Though it may also lead to hating people at large.

I do remember a guy who posted here a few times who was quite proud of treating retail staff like dirt and was confused at how the people he went out with didn't approve.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job.

Everyone should work a gakky retail job, like at Target or someplace like that. I think it ultimately makes you a better person, less likely to act like a huge entitled jerk.

Target wasn't gakky. Working a carnival was gakky.

BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.
The codicil we learned from another couple: don't let your wife take a job in a night club. She won't be your wife in a year...

I do remember a guy who posted here a few times who was quite proud of treating retail staff like dirt.

1. How people treat waitstaff is an excellent window into their character. Seriously.
2. This type of behavior is usually reserved for what is technically called "a douchebag."

Should be like when there was mandatory military service, except retail. I've been in retail for 15 years and almost every day am treated like gak for trying to help people with what they need.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Not the point of the whole argument.

I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?

Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.

Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...

Here in the UK there's the John Lewis Partnership where the employees are called Partners. However treating the employees as equal partners has been a major component of the company since its founding and so is actually followed up with different company policies, the most obvious being that every partner in the company receives an annual bonus from the profits of that year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Not the point of the whole argument.

I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?

Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.

The number of men who dress up in women's clothes just to go and use their bathroom is minuscule. It's probably smaller than the actual transgender population.
The number of men who assaulted women in the restroom whilst dressed in womens clothes was eclipsed by the number who did it whilst not dressed in women's clothing.
Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law.

The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
There is potential for abuse.

So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
s if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that.

Women's bathrooms don't tend to have a lot of urinals -- unless things are wwaayyy different in the USA -- so seeing as said person will be in a stall , as will everyone else.....


Besides, given the vast queues for female toilets anyway, one wonders if it might be too long of a wait for your average eager beaver would be sex offender.

Sounds like an argument from Bloomberg about guns. Kinda...stupid.

 Frazzled wrote:

BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.

Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.

Addition...accepted!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law.

The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.

Not if the transgender women stands up to pee, which if you look at some of their forums, some of them do.

You're right. All these years the sole purpose of having men's and women's bathrooms were to discriminate against the transgender community. All 0.023% of them. (Sarcasm).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:


So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?

You are not understanding my thinking. Someone who didn't want to break the law before, now doesn't have to since men are allowed to use the women's bathroom.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ouze wrote:So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?

You are not understanding my thinking. Someone who didn't want to break the law before, now doesn't have to since men are allowed to use the women's bathroom.

So someone who would have been a child molester or sexual assault before was only stopped from doing so by the illegality of entering the wrong bathroom. Now that they can legally go in the bathroom, they are now free to pursue their felonious actions unhindered, you're thinking - and as such, the best way to prevent this is a law like North Carolina's, which is a civil law and has no provisions for enforcement or penalties for noncompliance.

*Nods sagely*

 Ouze wrote:


So someone who would have been a child molester or sexual assault before was only stopped from doing so by the illegality of entering the wrong bathroom. Now that they can legally go in the bathroom, they are now free to pursue their felonious actions unhindered, you're thinking - and as such, the best way to prevent this is a law like North Carolina's, which is a civil law and has no provisions for enforcement or penalties for noncompliance.

*Nods sagely*

If you actually read the Law in NC the big uproar is not about bathrooms. It's about businesses now being able to discriminate against people who are LGT etc.

The new Law came into play because there was an outcry to let Transgender use the bathroom of the sex they identify with rather than the bathroom of their actual anatomic gender.

I disagree with the Law. That being said, this is now the third time I've said this in this thread, use the bathroom of your equipment. We can argue about it all you like. You can ridicule my opinion all you like. You won't change my mind about it. Period.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Not the point of the whole argument.

I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?

Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.

I'm not a transgender person like you, so maybe I'm just not understanding the problem you have with this stuff.

But how do any of these laws make any changes whatsoever to any laws that already criminalize criminal behavior?

Edit: It has been pointed out that I might be crossing the line on Rule #1 by assuming that you are transgender, so let me expand on my assumption. You have posted a few times that there is only a tiny percentage of people affected by these kind of laws. But you also seem to have a very strong opinion about these kind of laws. So since it only affects that tiny population, but clearly affects you enough to keep on posting about it, I just assumed that you were part of that tiny population or else you wouldn't be so vocal about it.

The other option would be that it affects more than just that tiny population, and I didn't want to assume that you would keep on repeating an incorrect statement. That's all. For me, I do think it affects a much larger group of people: the obvious are transgender folks and people with genetic defects, then there are parents with children, families who have to assist family members who are disabled, caretakers of handicapped people who are assisting them, the person who has to gak in their paints because every single bathroom is full and they would go to jail if they dare set a foot in the other bathroom. Of course that also included taking that 0.3% at face value and not assuming it is under-reported at all.

Edit 2: I also think that it affect the percentage of the population that cares about how 0.3% of the population may be treated.

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not a transgender person like you...

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. Thanks.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not a transgender person like you...

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. Thanks.

See my edited reply above.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.

Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.

[img]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/30/d3/ae30d3a0dcaed2052571db59388df4a4.jpg[/img]

I have worked in both and find this to be true.

As for Target, they seem to be making a lot of "progressive" policy decisions. I am curious how this fits into their business strategy and what sort of bottom line repercussions they have experienced?

I recall when I worked there, there was a greater Negative feedback loop when it was revealed that the company gave a ton of money to an R candidate than any of the other decisions. I worked and lived in MPLS area, so it was the "eye-of-the-storm" news coverage wise. I also seem to recall getting a ton of flak for not allowing Salvation Army Bell-ringers either.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law.

The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.

Not if the transgender women stands up to pee, which if you look at some of their forums, some of them do.

You're right. All these years the sole purpose of having men's and women's bathrooms were to discriminate against the transgender community. All 0.023% of them. (Sarcasm).

So what if they stand up to go to the bathroom when they're in a locked stall and so out of sight of anyone who is not looking under or over the stall? Who exactly is looking into this stall to check that everyone is sitting down? Because they're the pervert that you should be looking for

Also, women can stand to pee as well. Some women will squat over the toilet without touching the seat as they don't trust that it will be clean. Or they could use one of these.

Read my posts more carefully please.

 Easy E wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.

Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.

[img]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/30/d3/ae30d3a0dcaed2052571db59388df4a4.jpg[/img]

I have worked in both and find this to be true.

As for Target, they seem to be making a lot of "progressive" policy decisions. I am curious how this fits into their business strategy and what sort of bottom line repercussions they have experienced?

I recall when I worked there, there was a greater Negative feedback loop when it was revealed that the company gave a ton of money to an R candidate than any of the other decisions. I worked and lived in MPLS area, so it was the "eye-of-the-storm" news coverage wise.

I think as a brand, at least lately, Target is positioning themselves more towards the progressive side of things. The whole "not gender-labeling toys" thing last year didn't seem to hurt them at all, but I don't know that they have seen any increase in business because of that.

I also seem to recall getting a ton of flak for not allowing Salvation Army Bell-ringers either.

That just seems a repeat news-story for both Target and Walmart on an annual basis. Every year there will be stories about how Target doesn't allow Bell Ringers because they hate Christmas or how Walmart made the Marine collecting toys stay outside in the rain because some manager hates the military. But every year the answer is the same: Target doesn't allow soliciting (no matter who) and Walmart allows soliciting outside their doors only (no matter who).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, women can stand to pee as well.

Based on the restrooms I have seen, I think that the majority of them never touch the seat at all

I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Read my posts more carefully please.

I have reread the one I replied to and cannot see anything that I did not address.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
use the bathroom of your equipment.

What about someone with a permanent catheter? What bathroom do they use considering they don't even need to drop their trouser or skirt to use the bathroom?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Not the point of the whole argument.

I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?

Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.

So, just as a quick question; Would you be cool with this person using a girls locker room then? Because they're biologically female.


Ooh! or how about this person?




(Side note: I love how I can make this exact post in literally every single trans bathroom issues thread. It's almost as if the argument is tired and played out)

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.

There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.

Is there a point to this post?