• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California bill would ban ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ departments in stores

tacomancer said:
I think this particular law maker is stupid, but also this legislation is completely harmless as well.
Click to expand...
And unwise. If Johnny wants to buy ‘girls panties’ let him stand there with a 5 o’clock shadow under the soft porn signs for ‘Girl’s’ dept.
 
VySky said:
And unwise. If Johnny wants to buy ‘girls panties’ let him stand there with a 5 o’clock shadow under the soft porn signs for ‘Girl’s’ dept.
Click to expand...
LOL What?

Trying to understand this comment... I take it to mean that you are concerned that some pervert will try to buy panties in a clothing section? Am I correct in trying to discern what you wrote?
 
tacomancer said:
LOL What?

Trying to understand this comment... I take it to mean that you are concerned that some pervert will try to buy panties in a clothing section? Am I correct in trying to discern what you wrote?
Click to expand...
The bill is to take that stigma away. Now they’re just buying panties that Normally women wear.
 
VySky said:
The bill is to take that stigma away. Now they’re just buying panties that Normally women wear.
Click to expand...
The bill is to take the stigma of being a pervert away? So they couldn't use amazon until this bill passed? They couldn't just buy it (I had to buy clothes for my daughter when she was young, never once got grief or even an odd look about it) at a store now? They couldn't use the self checkout if they were concerned? They couldn't drive a couple of towns over if it was a small town?

This is the best you can come up with? Also what happened to the whole parents not telling their kids no thing, did you abandon that argument?
 
Monica33 said:
The exodus from California is huge . And ex cities like LA and San Fran are now part stink holes infested by syringes and human excrement .
No wonder Trump polled 75 % in the true election figures with Cal turning red .
Click to expand...
What "true election figures" ??
 
Doubt anyone would be buying less stuff because of this.
 
tacomancer said:
The bill is to take the stigma of being a pervert away? So they couldn't use amazon until this bill passed? They couldn't just buy it (I had to buy clothes for my daughter when she was young, never once got grief or even an odd look about it) at a store now? They couldn't use the self checkout if they were concerned? They couldn't drive a couple of towns over if it was a small town?

This is the best you can come up with? Also what happened to the whole parents not telling their kids no thing, did you abandon that argument?
Click to expand...
Why couldn’t gays drive to another town to get married? Or to another town for that wedding cake?
 
VySky said:
Why couldn’t gays drive to another town to get married? Or to another town for that wedding cake?
Click to expand...
Why are you asking random questions that have nothing to do with the topic in the OP?

The pervert thing, while completely absurd, at least sort of had something to with the topic, even if completely from a silly and paranoid angle.
 
VySky said:
lol. Keep on digging.
Click to expand...
Well if you want to keep on digging until you stumble onto an effective argument, go ahead. As a debate method though, it opens you up for any number of effective oppositional responses.
 
VySky said:
I think not. The minute the bathroom cesspool started it was on. No more pink or blue stocking caps for new babies too.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my comment. I agree that there is nothing wrong with separate boys and girls sections in a department store, and the push to degenderize everything is unnecessary.

Frankly, it's PC culture spiraling out of control.
 
Monica33 said:
The exodus from California is huge . And ex cities like LA and San Fran are now part stink holes infested by syringes and human excrement .

No wonder Trump polled 75 % in the true election figures with Cal turning red .
Click to expand...


California ranks #7 in % of people moving away, being 6.9% more than moved in, in 2019. That isn't definitively and "exodus".

This post sounds like a QAnon CT regarding CA turning red.
 
it's not the law. it's a bill.



"The bill, co-authored by Democrat, Evan Low, who chairs the California Legislative LGBT Caucus, and Cristina Garcia, who chairs the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, was first introduced last year but scrapped as the pandemic came to the forefront.

Low told the Sacramento Bee he was inspired by Target Corp.’s move to do away with gendered signs in 2015.

“As much as I’d like to think of this as watershed legislation, this is something the industry is already doing. We’re just trying to play catch up,” he said.

He also cited a staffer’s 9-year-old daughter, who complained the science toys were in the “boys” section of a store."
 
bluesmoke said:
California ranks #7 in % of people moving away, being 6.9% more than moved in, in 2019. That isn't definitively and "exodus".
Click to expand...
they keep lying about that. it must be all over Rush (before), Sean, Fox, and the other two new crazy Republican stations.
 
Monica33 said:
The exodus from California is huge . And ex cities like LA and San Fran are now part stink holes infested by syringes and human excrement .

No wonder Trump polled 75 % in the true election figures with Cal turning red .
Click to expand...
Another moronic delusional lie from Monica33.
 
tacomancer said:
I think this particular law maker is stupid, but also this legislation is completely harmless as well.
Click to expand...
I think regulating how large stores arrange their products, beyond obvious handicap accessibility, is stupid red tape that serves no common interest other than increasing costs of goods and services.

But, that's California.
 
Metric Mouse said:
I think regulating how large stores arrange their products, beyond obvious handicap accessibility, is stupid red tape that serves no common interest other than increasing costs of goods and services.

But, that's California.
Click to expand...
So less signage will increase costs, how exactly?
 
VySky said:
And unwise. If Johnny wants to buy ‘girls panties’ let him stand there with a 5 o’clock shadow under the soft porn signs for ‘Girl’s’ dept.
Click to expand...
As a father of a girl and a partner to women, I have absolutely stood in aisles marked "girls" or "ladies", red eyed and unshaven, picking through products that women traditionally use. And if asked I'll do it again.
 
tacomancer said:
So less signage will increase costs, how exactly?
Click to expand...
Removing signs may not comply with "undivided sales area". Wouldn't separate aisles be divided? Would a cart path through the middle of racks be "divided"? If blue shorts are on one side and pink shorts on the other, are they divided?

It's these stupid legal questions that have to now be answered by these stores that add cost and complexity. A single law isn't the problem, but as they pile up they grow more burdensome.

I've got no problem scrapping gender norms, but this virtue signaling laws, that stores were already complying with (per the op) is just silly.
 
From the OP link the Bill is a proposal. It has not passed yet. " The proposal would require stores with 500 or more employees to maintain “undivided areas of its sales floor” for childcare items, kids clothes and toys, “regardless of whether an item has traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys,” according to the legislation. "

There are man Bills in every State that are proposed and some make headlines. Many of the proposed Bills never get passed.

As far as the California Bill. What a stupid Bill.
 
VySky said:
Enough is enough people. California is sickening.

———


Big stores in California would have to get rid of separate “boys” and “girls” departments for toys and clothes under a new bill.

The proposal would require stores with 500 or more employees to maintain “undivided areas of its sales floor” for childcare items, kids clothes and toys, “regardless of whether an item has traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys,” according to the legislation.

nypost.com

California bill would ban ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ departments in stores

Big stores in California would have to get rid of separate “boys” and “girls” departments for toys and clothes under a new bill. The proposal would require stores with 500 o…
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Great idea. They should just have a "kids" section. Besides, who the hell shops in stores anymore?
 
🤣

This discussion is very much like the Muslim/Terrorist conversations.

Muslim Terrorist: "Im killing in the name of Allah!"
Leftist: No...that's silly...he isnt really killing in the name of Allah."
Conservative: Yes...he is killing in the name of Allah. That's literally what he said."
Leftists: No...but...that's silly...what he REALLY meant is that he is expressing a grievance of the oppressive nature of western values."
Muslim Terrorist: "No, you daft bitch...I'm literally killing in the glorious name of Allah."
Leftist: "Hush dear...Don't worry...I've got this. Now...when he says he is literally killing in the name of Allah that doesnt mean he is literally killing in the name of Allah even though that isnt what he just said."

Leftists are literally legislating the promotion of gender confusion because so many of their ranks are so completely ****ed up and gender confused...shocking after their history...I know...and even though their announced intent is to criminalize gender norms, leftists defend their actions as really just being a parent choice situation, ignoring the fact that the only reason this is a discussion point is that idiot leftist politicians are literally passing laws to criminalize gender norms.
 
I don't support this bill, but I not freaking out either. I believe the intention is reduce "gender stereotyping" and "gender expectation" in our culture. While I do agree with intention, I don't think this is a type of stuff the government should be mandating.

If Little Johnny wants to wear a dress, he shouldn't be discouraged from wearing one, because it is seen as a "girl thing." By that same token, if Tiffany wants to wear a suit to the prom, she shouldn't be discouraged to do so. At the end of the day, it's just plastic and cloth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom