Nates Notes

Well, Target caved. It gave in. The multi-billion dollar retail chain made headlines recently because of its response to “gender identification.”

On April 19, Target sent out a press release bringing to light a major policy change in the name of “inclusivity” — whatever that means.

The release further reads that Target is all for the federal Equality Act, which “protects” LGBT individuals. Again, whatever that means.

None of those acknowledgements come as any surprise.

However, the next paragraph provides an alarming bit of news.

“In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways,” the press release reads.

“Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

Essentially, if you feel like a woman that day, go to the women’s bathroom.

If you are feeling like a man, walk right in to the men’s changing room. And by all means, do not worry. There will be no repercussions.

Target is inviting you to do this. After all, the press release ends with “everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”

So guys, if you feel out of place in the men’s room, slide on into the women’s.

This is what Target is proclaiming in the name of “inclusivity.”

Naturally, this thought process is established upon skewed and flawed logic.

One’s gender is no longer established by birth. It is entirely based on how you elect to identify yourself that day.

Obvious concerns instantly come to mind when I hear this thought process encouraged.

Anyone can walk into any bathroom or changing room at any time. That is not a good idea.

Since when did the privacy and the safety of people take a back seat to “inclusivity?”

I am not alone in my opposition of Target.

The American Family Association (AFA) is not a fan of the store’s recent policy change either.

So on April 20 — one day after Target’s decision — the AFA began a petition.

“I pledge to boycott Target Stores,” the petition reads.

“Target’s store policy endangers women and children by allowing men to frequent women’s facilities.

Until Target makes the safety of women and children a priority, I will shop elsewhere.”

Less than one week later, the petition has procured more than half a million signatures.

And the number increases by the minute.

The AFA provided multiple examples in which men and sex offenders have done harm when they were not even allowed in women’s bathrooms in the first place.

Target’s ruling, and those like it, opens the proverbial door for these types of people to do their harm and potentially get away with it.

Which brings me back to the main point: When did the privacy and safety of people — especially children — take a back seat to “inclusivity?”

HAYWOOD is the editor-in-chief.