[Newsbot]

Title: More than 500,000 boycott Target over transgender bathroom policy
Category: lifestyle
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2016-04-25 13:47:15

[N_Fiddledog]

This one below is from a right wing blog so take it or leave it, but this is the sort of thing we're seeing over on the right:



http://rightwingnews.com/transgender/br ... ims-proof/

[martin14]

Too little, too late.

[herbie]

Took out stalls to put in urinals?
They're even stupider than the protestors.

[OnTheIce]

The picture is bullshit.

First, there's no drain in the floor or obvious signs of repair. Second, that spot is far too wide to be one stall removed....and there's no marks on the wall where the old partition would have been attached.

[OnTheIce]

Just as I suspected:

http://www.snopes.com/target-urinals/

[N_Fiddledog]

But again you miss the point. The point was only to say that's what they're showing us over on the right in blogs.

You say they're stirring things up. Yes! That's also the point.

However since you put Snopes forward, you've got me noticing their use of the term "transphobic". To me that's saying the right is not the only cheap side of new media getting hysterical.


But here's the claim from the contributor at Snopes:

$1:

For instance, the above-displayed picture has nothing to do with Target's restroom policy. The image was not taken in a women's restroom at a Los Angeles Target store (rather a men's room that was undergoing repair or refurbishment) and makes little sense given that individuals of any gender can use stalls for their bathroom needs, but urinals are not generally suitable for women.

Target has also affirmatively denied any plans to install urinals in their women's restrooms:

So was it a unisex bathroom, a bathroom they were converting, or as the Snopes poster appears to guess, a men's room? Why did the tweeter user named Kathleen think it was women's? Did she just make it up? Is she even real? I didn't care before, but now I'm getting curious.

The way it appears though is this tweeter user named Kathleen claims she saw something and took a picture. Then she posted on the internet in a behaviour appearing like this:



I post it with a "take it with a grain of salt" disclaimer.

OtI ignores the disclaimer and does this:



But as I say, now I'm confused. I've seen the claims from the right wing blog, the increasingly leftist, one-time-fact-checking site Snopes, and from Target.

I'm not sure any of them have the whole truth or are telling it.

However let's go back to the original point of 'So what?'

The point is people are getting hysterical, and it's spreading.

[andyt]

Just heard on CBC by a North Carolinan "for the sake of privacy, I think it's very important to hold on to our bathroom values."

[OnTheIce]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But again you miss the point. The point was only to say that's what they're showing us over on the right in blogs.

You say they're stirring things up. Yes! That's also the point.

However since you put Snopes forward, you've got me noticing their use of the term "transphobic". To me that's saying the right is not the only cheap side of new media getting hysterical.


But here's the claim from the contributor at Snopes:

$1:

For instance, the above-displayed picture has nothing to do with Target's restroom policy. The image was not taken in a women's restroom at a Los Angeles Target store (rather a men's room that was undergoing repair or refurbishment) and makes little sense given that individuals of any gender can use stalls for their bathroom needs, but urinals are not generally suitable for women.

Target has also affirmatively denied any plans to install urinals in their women's restrooms:

So was it a unisex bathroom, a bathroom they were converting, or as the Snopes poster appears to guess, a men's room? Why did the tweeter user named Kathleen think it was women's? Did she just make it up? Is she even real? I didn't care before, but now I'm getting curious.

The way it appears though is this tweeter user named Kathleen claims she saw something and took a picture. Then she posted on the internet in a behaviour appearing like this:



I post it with a "take it with a grain of salt" disclaimer.

OtI ignores the disclaimer and does this:



But as I say, now I'm confused. I've seen the claims from the right wing blog, the increasingly leftist, one-time-fact-checking site Snopes, and from Target.

I'm not sure any of them have the whole truth or are telling it.

However let's go back to the original point of 'So what?'

The point is people are getting hysterical, and it's spreading.

I'm not saying anything beyond the picture being bullshit.

The rabid right and rabid left have always been histerical. Nothing new.

[xerxes]

Titliting at windmills and nothing more.

[herbie]

What do left and right have to do with which way the feet point in the stall?

[Delwin]

Ha ha. Urinals in the womens bathroom? Why would someone who identifies as a woman go to the ladies room just so they could stand up and act like a man? I swear the right will buy anything. The eco-friendly, Muslim, trannies are coming, and their going to take your guns!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

Speaking of bullshit, Snopes used to be a decent site for checking urban legends.

That was back when the Mikkelsons handled the writing. I don't know who does it now. I chased the writer of one down, one time and they were claiming she came from here.

http://message.snopes.com/

Which mean it would be like me or OtI volunteering for snopes and people reading our opinions then going "Aha, Snopes says..."

And everybody is just supposed to nod their heads and agree, cause it's Snopes, right?

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Very well, who's Dan Evon?

They seem to be claiming he wrote the evidence-free post under the "Snopes" post that was linked to.

$1:

Dan Evon

Dan Evon is a Chicago-based writer and longtime truth enthusiast. His work has appeared somewhere, and he earned a degree at the University of His Choosing. His exploration of Internet truth has been supported by grants from the Facebook Drug Task Force.

Now me, I'm even more cynical than OtI is. I don't necessarily believe Kathleen Crawford, Dan Evon or Target's story.

But I believe this. Letting men hang out in women's washrooms, because they say they're women is stupid.

[RUEZ]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But I believe this. Letting men hang out in women's washrooms, because they say they're women is stupid.

Transgender women don't make that decision lightly. It's not something they do so they can hang out in a ladies room. What do you think is going to happen?

[Delwin]

I kind of agree its a stupid issue but only because I dont see what all of the fuss is about. In women's washrooms, everything happens in the privacy of a stall.

Realistically, I'm sure the people whom are opposed to having drag Queens in the womens washroom would be no more welcoming to having a drag queen in the men's washroom so these is really just about outright oppression again, just like gay marriage. It will have zero impact on anyone's life but hey lets pick a fight and try to oppress people who already are born with a tough set of circumstances. Its just the usual bullying tactics of the perpetually losing side. Its ok though, it seems like everything they back just crumbles.

Abortion, gay marriage, universal health care, laws on segregation, womens right to vote, laws around pornography (roe vs flint), the war on terror, the war on drugs. Is there even a single cause the right has tried to champion that hasnt turned to shit?