When retail giant Target announced their new policy of allowing anyone to use whichever bathroom they wish in their stores it was completely predictable that a firestorm was going to follow… and boy howdy, has it ever. While the SJW crowd cheered the decision, realists around the country signaled their collective displeasure with a boycott of the store spearheaded by The American Family Association. In a relatively short time, more than one million people had signed on to the protest. (Fox News)
More than one million people have decided they will no longer buy their Nutter Butters or Wet Wipes at Target.
The American Family Association launched a boycott of the nation’s second largest retailer a week ago – over Target’s corporate policy allowing men who identify as women to use the bathrooms and fitting rooms of their choosing.
“We believe that everyone – every team member, every guest, and every community – deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally,” the company wrote in a statement. “Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination.”
Is the boycott having any sort of effect in such a short period of time? These things are often hard to gauge, but in this case there seems to be a strong hint provided in the fact that the company’s stock has taken a precipitous drop during the same period. (Daily Caller)
On Friday, the shares of Target Corporation Common Stock (TGT) fell 2.52 percent in one day, according to recent reports. In addition since April 19th, the day they announced the new policy, the stock went from a share value of $84.14 to $79.27 per share. That’s a drop of 5.8 percent in 10 days.
The Family Policy institute says they estimate that to be a loss to the company of $2.5 billion dollars…
As previously reported, in addition to signing the “boycott pledge” the group is encouraging people to post on Target’s Facebook page that they are upset about the new policy.
While I’m not generally a fan of boycotts as a means of enacting political change, this one is understandable and, as I said above, predictable. I also find the focus of the protest message to be a bit off the mark as well, while understanding the concerns being raised. Opponents of this misguided policy at Target continue to stress the danger of sexual predators using the open bathroom access as an invitation to perpetrate assaults. While I suppose it’s possible, it also seems unlikely that a determined predator would allow a gender designation sign on a door stop them from pursuing their victims, and incidents of such attacks seem to be rare. These scenarios are less disconcerting than cases where women are forced to share locker rooms and showers with men, opening the door to creepy voyeurs breaking out their cell phone cameras and worse.
Running the debate immediately to these worst case scenarios overshadows the underlying argument to be made. What about the simple concept of propriety and privacy which any civilized person should accept? Women should not be forced to use the bathroom, change in a locker room or take a shower in front of a strange man. Is that really so difficult to understand or express in a public policy statement?
This isn’t the first time Target has dipped a toe into the troubled “gender identity” waters. Last summer we talked about the store’s new policy of “de-gendering” the toys and clothing aisles so as not to offend anyone. The sad part of all this is that this stupid, pointless battle (which was clearly going to affect the company’s sales no matter which way they went on it) was completely unnecessary. Just as with public, government facilities, there is a simple (if still costly) solution, assuming one believes that a solution is required. In fact San Francisco (of all places) hit on the idea very early in the national debate. If a company or public facility truly feels that they must jump into this entire “degendering” fiasco, then in addition to traditional facilities for each gender, simply add on a third, gender neutral bathroom or other facility. Then anyone going in can be informed that there is no gender requirement for occupancy and, likewise, the owner/management offers no guarantee as to the gender of the other patrons you may encounter in there. Alternately, when new facilities are constructed, put in multiple, single user facilities and just label them as “shower” or “bathroom” or “changing room.”
Problem solved. Then, if someone wants to insist that they must be allowed in public facilities with people of the opposite gender, their true agenda is exposed. (You will be made to not only care, but to participate.) This is an important aspect of the conversation which the SJW all to often succeeds in suppressing. We aren’t having a conversation here about discrimination or the suppression of anyone else’s rights. Dress however you wish. And for that matter, the vast majority of us aren’t going to care one way or the other what you call yourself despite the obvious denial of basic genetics and science on display. The real motivation of the SJW is to force such twisted claims on everyone else and mandate their participation even when it comes at the expense of the rights of the majority.