It’s been going on with adults for far longer than this, it just wasn’t on people’s radar.
But I wasn’t surprised, I even said I was OK with WG’s official policy, which requires the employee to ask another employee or manager to help the customer. The problem here is that the employee spoke up, and in other alleged cases as I understand them simply refused the sale without asking another employee to assist, i.e. without following policy.
What do you mean by “it’s been going on?”
You specifically said in your prior post “it wasn’t an issue until… the right started causing trouble” implying that the conservative right started the fight by writing laws and winning court cases to restrict transgender individuals from doing what they wanted. Yet in reality, the opposite is true. The right’s attempt at using the legislature and the courts have been in response to the left writing laws and winning hearings/cases that gave transgender individuals access to private spaces belonging to people of the opposite sex.
The issue of transgender people using bathrooms corresponding to the opposite of their sex (matching their perceived gender identity) prior to the left including and fighting for the T in LGBT could better be described as “don’t ask, don’t tell” or, more descriptively “if you pass, we won’t harass.” When a transwoman would use a women’s restroom, if he looked like a woman, did his business in a stall with the door closed, and didn’t bother anyone, no one cared. If he didn’t pass, and/or made women uncomfortable with his actions while in the restrooms, there would be problems. That system worked pretty well and the law was in place for the Jonathan Yanivs of the world that wanted to abuse it so they could prey on women. No one back then was saying that all transexuals were sex offenders simply because they wanted to use the women’s restroom while wearing a dress. At that point in time, when it took a lot of work to be a transexual, the vast majority of people that did it just wanted to be left alone and simply got off from pretending to be a woman, not harassing them in bathrooms. It wasn’t until the left decided that system wasn’t good enough that it became a cause celebre and a lot more people using opposite sex restrooms wanted it to be known what they were doing. If you disagree with my description of the recent history on this issue, with which specific claims of mine do you disagree?
3 Likes
Why do you think it’s good policy to hire and retain people that refuse to sell a product that their store carries? It’s clearly unworkable when people are going to be embarrassed like this lady was.
Sounds like you aren’t okay with how WG’s is handling the issue then.
I never said whether it’s good or bad. Assuming it can be executed correctly (i.e., clerk asks for assistance without expressing their personal opinions), I think it’s neutral, and I’m OK with that.
I see it in the same way I see the sale of alcohol – the clerk must be 21 (in many places if not everywhere). So if a customer brings a bottle to the register, the underage clerk needs to ask for assistance, right?
I don’t know how they’re “handling it.” I’m OK with the policy and anyone who follows the policy – asking someone else to assist in completing the transaction is not the same as refusing a sale.
Nobody tried to make it a cause celebre. It’s just the right tried to make an issue of something that hadn’t caused problems for ages. And note that the don’t pass making problems–a bad thing because some women don’t “pass”, either. I have a SIL that has repeatedly had problems with this because she looks rather masculine.
As for Jessica Yaniv–one moron trying to stir up trouble. You don’t blame the whole system on one person. She’s the same as the US scumbags who hunt for businesses that aren’t ADA-compliant and sue.
What the heck is this? Another new letter to add to the alphabet?
And, at least from personal experience, I don’t recall hearing anything about transpeoples, other than the occasional joke, and only while in New Orleans, prior to the last decade. That’s when governors, mayors, etc. started demanding that men can go into women’s restrooms, changing rooms, etc.
I almost got arrested for being offended by a guy walking into the ladies changing rooms, where my wife was trying on clothes, at a local department store. Well, it was a little more than being offended, but I had a half dozen women who would swear that I was too old to be any threat to the guy. 
4 Likes
What’s so hard to understand about it? If you enforce it by kicking out those who do not appear to be female you end up kicking out masculine-looking women. This has happened to my wife’s sister more than once.
And transpeople have been using the restrooms that match their presentation for decades. It’s not been an issue until the Republicans started using it to stir up hate.
Until the Left started to push for laws and “rights”, the only “hate” that was stirred up was the occasional side-eye glare when someone a bit too masculine-looking walked into the woman’s restroom. Yes, there has always been outliers who cause problems - but the overly flambouyant ones, who cant resist making it perfectly clear to everyone around them that they’re “special” and have the right to do whatever it is they’re doing, did far more stirring than anything the “only girls in the girls room” crusaders did. Only once there was the push that it should be a legally protected right, did the Republicans starting pushed back with formal “no, it isnt” actions.
I will never understand (and I’m confident that no one has a rational explanation besides “cause I want it to be like this”) how you can claim to be respecting the sanctity of the women’s locker room while at the same time requiring a “woman” be allowed who strips down and “her” dick flops out. Claiming that is how it should be is insanity at the most ridiculously insane heights. People have been institutionalized for a lifetime for thinking far more reasonable things.
4 Likes
A nice parody of all these progressive ideas of late
the whole system in Color Land was bad and evil. Everything about a person was defined by their color and if something bad happened to purple people, it must be green people’s fault. And if something bad happened to green people, it must be purple people’s fault. But at the same time, strangely, purple and green didn’t really exist. It was all in everyone’s imagination. All of the differences between purple and green that people thought they saw since childhood didn’t really exist. If you said they did exist, you were something called “colorist,” and it was very, very bad to be colorist. Even more bizarrely, she also said a purple person can magically become a green person if he just decides that he feels more green than purple. Everyone else would have to remember that he is green now, and they better not slip up and call him purple by mistake! Because that would be colorist. Finally, she said that it was a major mistake to think that the purpose of the schools was to develop new medical and agricultural techniques and to train students. Instead, the point was to figure out who in Color Land was colorist and get very angry and yell at them until they learned how to “be better.” Carla called her new ideas “colorsity.”
2 Likes
What’s so hard to understand? I’ve never heard the phrase “don’t pass making problems”. To me, it sounds like a poor translation of what may make sense in a foreign language. Are you saying that “don’t pass making problems” means to kick masculine looking women out of female facilities?
I know that it’s worked before for some evil, hateful people and regimes, but I still believe that repeating an untruth ad infinitum does not make it a truth.
I believe you’re mistaken, misinformed, brainwashed, or … something else.
2 Likes
I was responding to your “if you pass we don’t harass”–well, some women don’t pass. I have a SIL that’s been kicked out more than once. She’s not trans, she just has a rather masculine appearance.
So you apologize for the misunderstanding, and everyone moves on. Those who will be hardasses about this are as rare as the women it affects, and it’s mostly an unfortunate coincidence when they both happen to be at the same restroom at the same time… Regardless, opening the door to literally anyone who feels like it is not a solution for accommodating the few who are adversely affected.
2 Likes
Why do I find this to be rather brilliant? People don’t want to work second jobs, but I see a lot being willing to volunteer for an hour to get some precious chicken for free. If you frequent Chic Fila, 5 sandwiches are worth more than you’d be paid for working that hour, and it costs the restaurant less than paying you. Win, win. All the objections and criticism only shows how ignorant and self-righteous the social justice rabble-rousers are these days.
1 Like
What is she supposed to do, piss her panties?
Charlotte did. And when the rest of the state of NC said, “no you can’t do that,” Hollywood, the NCAA, and tons of big corporations absolutely made it a cause celebre. And it has been that way ever since. Stop trying to re-write history.
The left started it. You haven’t given a single data point to refute my data points showing that this became an issue because of left wing activists who adopted the mindset starting about a decade ago that we had to change the laws to reflect fealty to the “trans community.” I speak specifically of the left wing activists in the Charlotte city council, the Colorado Civil Rights division, and the ACLU who were on the forefront of this fight - before any republican lawmaker even knew there was going to be a fight.
Prior to 15-20 years ago, when you sister-in-law was questioned, it was busybodies that should have minded their own business. And those incidents probably weren’t politically motivated. It wasn’t a left/right issue then. Since then things have changed.
Females are aware that some females look quite masculine. They have no qualms about masculine looking females using women’s private spaces. They have qualms about males using them. Once a female experiences a creepy male getting into a female space by pretending to be female or other loophole, they are going to be wary. When your sister in law was confronted prior to 15 years ago (which I will bet was very rare), I can guarantee that any female that confronted her and spoke to her, would probably feel super embarrassed that she mistook her for a male. One’s sex is usually, but not always, obvious from looks alone. In those times where it isn’t obvious, most people with life experience can pick up on it quite quickly when actually talking to a person. During those rare encounters, which are unfortunate for your sister-in-law, no doubt, they didn’t completely bar her from using the restroom, did they?. Had she been forbidden to use a bathroom in a public accomodation by a business owner, she could have sued under the same civil rights law that bars that businesses from discriminating against the public because of race. I doubt it ever came to that for her. In other words, the legislative solution for her potential problem already exists. There is no legislative solution to her looks, however.
So what changed that made it worse for your sister-in-law in the past 15 years? What the left is doing with their inclusivity bills has caused a change. If your sister-in-law is experiencing more incidents of people questioning her sex, it has been directly caused by the push the left has been making for transgender self-ID. These sort of policies don’t have overwhelming support. These sort of policies are an indicator, to folks wary of creepy males, that the likelihood that a masculine looking person trying to use the women’s restroom actually being male has INCREASED. That leads directly to more people questioning your sister-in-law. She has the transgender activists to blame for her increased discomfort, not the people questioning her sex. Those folks questioning her sex wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t think (correctly) that more males are using their private female spaces, and they need to be on the lookout if they are uncomfortable with that.
He’s not “trying to stir up trouble.” He’s a sexual predator that has figured out that his locality’s SOGI laws permit him access to female only spaces and, until someone fought him in court, permitted him to force female estheticians to touch his MALE genitalia. His behavior, same as the behavior of the sexual predator using the female locker room at Wi Spa, is a predictable consequence of passing these laws. Had those two predators not been so bad at getting away with their crimes, the laws they were blatantly abusing would have protected them. There are hundreds of males out there like them that aren’t easily recognisable as terrible people that are getting away with using female spaces thanks to these laws.
The victims in the ADA scumbag scams are business that don’t want to shell out money (that they shouldn’t have to). The victims of Darren Merager and Jonathan Yaniv were women who were forced against their will to observe (and in the case of Yaniv, touch) male genitalia. Not equivalent. But the solutions in both cases are the same - change the laws.
2 Likes
You’re making a fundamental mistake here: SIL’s problem is ongoing and SIL isn’t in the US. There’s no trans issue there–but the problem exists anyway.
So you’ve been using her experience to make a point about the US, but she’s not in the US. So it was all worthless to your argument. Now you essentially admit that all cultures, even those without a large trans population, get concerned about possible males entering female spaces. And you think I’m the one that made a mistake? That’s rich.
When you’re this bad at supporting your arguments, does it occur to you that maybe your arguments aren’t that strong and you should consider listening to other people?
2 Likes
So the best argument you have isn’t even relevant? Gotcha…
Um, correct the mistaken perception?
My 4 year old nephew has long blonde hair, and is constantly referred to as a girl. He politely (and yes, occasionally not so politely) responds “I’m a boy!” and the mistake is corrected. No reason your SIL cant do that as well. Anyone who refuses to accept that explanation is likely someone who has no authority and can simply be ignored anyways.
There is zero reason to proactively set asinine policies just to try to prevent such outlier mistakes from happening at all. I really don’t care that I might inadvertantly offend a masculine-looking woman by misidentifying her as male, she does look male so I’ll apologize for the mistake and then we will all move along with our lives. In fact, this extreme crusade for trans rights only hurts people like her because it puts circles and arrows around the possibility [likelihood?] she just feels that she should be a woman thus is lying about it, making others less likely to accept that their perception was mistaken.
3 Likes
The point is that it’s not a solution. Whether it’s in the US or not is irrelevant.
The point is that it doesn’t work–they keep trying to push her out.
You think there’s an easy solution, I’m pointing out it doesn’t work.