Check the link again. The URL indicates that this did happen in a bathroom, and 'bathroom' and 'transgender' are tags in the article... but neither actually come up in the body of the article at all.

The article never once mentions trans people at all, let alone that the dude tried to pose as one. More importantly, this didn't even happen in a bathroom; the article mentions a dressing room, which a.) aren't covered by the type of trans bills that have you concerned, and b.) aren't put into different rooms segregated by gender; they are just stalls in the middle of the store that anyone can walk by (but that noone can legally do this kind of illegal filming in without expecting a visit from the cops).

It doesn't mention trans people? No shit! It's almost like I know what the hell I'm talking about.

Yet you people are still hell-bent on making this a trans issue. What the hell happened in the US for so many people to have their heads so crammed up their own asses they can't even seem to come up for air?

This happened in a Target store, that corporation that wholeheartedly embraced the notion that some fucktard can just go into whichever toilet/dressing room/whatever the fuck you want.

Furthermore, I believe that this issue was only reported because it happened in Texas, where they refuse to allow this kind of demented, abhorrent behaviour in public toilets. If this has already happened in states that are for the law, and I believe it already did, it will never be reported because Social Justice "Logic" is not allowed to be questioned by REALITY, period.

I want to believe it's only a very loud minority in the US that is very, very mentally ill, but that belief is whittled down every day.

Bottom line is, 0.3% of the population should never have more rights than 22.7%! It's absolutely insane! What the hell are you people drinking that you live so far detached from reality?

"Earlier this month the man who has now been identified as McKissack was seen entering a women’s dressing room at a Target store in Frisco. "

Be fucking serious & stop talking to me like I'm retarded. I'm pretty sure the text came up the same in your screen. Why did you read it differently?

People's sacrosanct feelings on progressive social ethics is more important to them than the long-range implications of said social ethics. In short, feelings trump logic.

It was the same thing with deinstitutionalizing insane asylums in favor of psychiatric outpatient programs and medication. What's happened since? Higher incidence of social fragmentation and violence (this isn't solely from this, but we'll overlook that for the timebeing). What do you expect when you let the crazy people out in society? And the reason this was done? Insane asylums were declared by-and-large to be inhumane. But letting these people out into society is totally humane. So long as they're drugged up. Seems like an airtight plan.

People don't look beyond the end of their nose at the cause-effect relationship of their actions, including fine examples like these which affect the very fabric of society and everyone in it. We need some Realpolitik choices to be made, not merely decisions based on what feels good in the moment by a bunch of ethical crusaders, at the expense of future progenies that have to contend with these situations.

According to you Target respects the gender identity of a person and will allow a TransWomen to use female facilities.
According to you Having a law that only lets people use facilities based on their assigned birth gender will protect children.

Except, in this Pro-Trans Target store the cops where called because someone was acting suspicious exactly as they would do if they stopped Tran people. The probably reason it took so long to intervene is because the staff had to call security to deal with the matter, rather than deal with it themselves or due to an anti lawsuit policy.

The ideology you so fervently back will not stop a criminal exploiting children. That 23% will still be at the exact same "risk" as before. A Risk so tiny that it makes news when it does happen. But for 0.3%, some 150 in a town of 50'000, it will make a difference.

No one here is saying its okay to increase risk to 23% of the population to help 0.3%.
We're all saying it is not okay to demonise 0.3% of the population by creating a law that will not, in anyway, alter the risk to that 23%.

Because the OP fervently believes adding an extra law will stop the person from breaking the original law.

Its a bit like making a law so that it is illegal to walk on red paint. Then all you need to do is replace prison walls with a big red square, and put red around houses to stop people breaking into them.

And if your colour blind,you are stuffed.

As others pointed out, that article has nothing to do with transgender bathroom laws OR big government despite the tags attached to the article. Knowing Breitbart being Breitbart, the reason behind those tags nevertheless being attached to the article (or any other article involving sexual predators being on the loose) is to cynically build up subtle associations in the readers' minds, even if those associations have no basis in reality. If you find yourself prone to feelings of panic and fright, may I suggest you switch your news sources. Since you're not a US citizen and thus cannot be terrified into consistently voting GOP, you're not even part of their intended audience.

That aside, the article really doesn't reinforce your point that transgender bathroom laws somehow lead to sexual predators being given a free pass and paedophilia being socially normalized in the long run.

First of all, the "paedophilia being socially normalized in the long run"-stuff you feel so terrified about is a very clear case of a slippery slope argument. The reason most folks here don't share your sense of terror is because they don't think the slope is slippery or that it even leads to where you say it leads. I saw these kinds of arguments back when the US was having its gay marriage debate. People argued that the sanctity of marriage was going to be destroyed because people would eventually start marrying their roommates in order to get tax deductions. Gay marriage is legal now and yet people aren't marrying their roommates left and right unless they're attracted to them.

Anyway, the article you linked to was about a sexual predator who got caught peeping on people and is still on the loose. That alone makes him irrelevant to your argument. If you want to make a RELEVANT case here, go and find some articles where:

1) A sexual predator was caught imposing on people of the opposite gender in a bathroom.
2) Said predator used the "I'm a trans awaiting surgery so I was in the right to be there"-defense.
3) The authorities were forced to drop his charges as a result.

Any article that doesn't meet these three requirements is irrelevant to your case.

but that's okay, because you're a small minority. it doesn't matter that the red zone law doesn't work.

And anyone not colour blind pointing out the stupidity of the red zone law is just a SJW.

Maybe,they could a big X so the colour blind people know it is the forbidden zone.

Because none of you could come to a conclusion on this I was forced to shit in my pants!

THANKS FOR NOTHING!

I think "thanks a pantload" would be more appropriate.

They still don't say how or why or anything other than ''research has shown''. Labeling children trans is simply useless because a child's body undergoes a lot of changes before full growth / maturity is reached and its just giving a probably temporary condition a name used to describe a more permanent one. Children aren't sexual before puberty, and any gender-related feelings before that can be truly anything. Something can only be conclusive in that regard only after puberty and subsequent hormone-induced changes.

Target differentiates between men's and women's changing rooms? That's news to me.

But still, as people have pointed out, the law was still broken. Now, if the dude had tried to claim that he was trans as a defense to being where he was, that might be relevant... except that even if that were true, photographs of this kind are still illegal to take. That means that the scenario described here:
Is impossible, because even if the dude raised the defense of being trans, it would do jack shit to get him off the hook for peeping.

I recently went to a Target and they only had, as far as I could tell, a "family" (meaning gender-neutral) changing area.