Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by chris155au, Feb 26, 2021.
There is no need to have them in separate aisles,
What is wrong with men's/women's?
If I owned a bookstore, and I categorized my books as inspirational conservative books and stupid liberal books, and the government said I had to change my sign, they would be violating my freedom of speech. Same here.
Nothing. I was merely responding to the one person whose post implied, probably unintentionally, that if it were not organized by men's/women's then it was disorganized. Organization can take place in a number of ways.
So you can't name anyone?
Of course I could .. what a silly question .. as were the previous 3.
Because even people who are confused about their gender know what clothes they like or what doll they want to play with. This crap is a solution looking for a problem.
Business owners should be able to decide. It's their store.
To have what in separate aisles?
And that's what I was asking for.
What about it?
We all know this won't get passed. Now excuse me while I go back to my knitting...
Don't be so sure about that. California is RADICAL!
Just say'n what will happen with a Woke Society.
Woke aren't too good at reproducing - they have to bring in little brown people
to do all that for them. And one day these little brown people will tell you that
girls are girls and boys and boys, or else. It's kind of funny watching it happen.
What about my quote said otherwise. I spoke of logistics.
Arguments seems to be the answer to that. We can have them here or there, we can have them anywhere.
Ye olde online shoppe
It's a good article. I don't know if many have bothered to read it, but a salient point I didn't see anyone on the 1st page mention was that it would only apply to stores with more than 500 employees. Here is a snip, further filling out the picture:
Even without mandates, some retailers have been moving away from gendered in-store promotion. In 2015, Target announced that it would get rid of separate sections for bedding and toys.
At the time, the company was careful to note that they weren't eliminating all gender distinctions in their store layout and signage, saying that "some cases, like apparel, where there are fit and sizing differences" gender-based suggestions were appropriate.
Low's bill would deprive Target and other retailers of making that choice for themselves.
That stores like Target are voluntarily moving toward more gender-neutral promotions shows that mandating such a change isn't necessary to provide a genderless child section to shoppers. The fact that some haven't made the same move suggests that there may still be customers who find gendered distinctions helpful.
Regulating how companies market their products online and in their stores could potentially raise First Amendment challenges as well.
I agree that it's going overboard, & seems like it will lead to shopper confusion, as noted in the snip, above (as well as by some other posters, here), with regard to clothing. But I see it as a potentially good thing to put all toys in the same section (I'll finally be able to discover whether girls' soccer balls look the same as boys' ).
Still, I don't think government should mandate it. This is a bit too heavy-handed a way to engineer social change, even if I think there are advantages to weakening the inhibiting stereotypes that society imposes on children's ideas of gender-appropriateness. Athletics are very beneficial for girls, as well as boys. And even though I didn't start playing piano until my late teens, I was uncomfortably aware that others might make some reflexive connection between a pianist (a lover of Chopin, more than "Chopsticks") and an effeminate nature. But these are characteristics of our particular society, not all societies.
There are societies in which excelling in music or dance is considered masculine (including the Native American traditions that predated European arrival). NFL Players have vouched for the helpfulness of ballet. There are valid benefits to various stretching & strengthening techniques, like Pilates & yoga, which did not develop in a gender-specific manner yet, here, have that association, as being a woman's thing. There have even been societies in which the women have been the warriors. But that is not our way of seeing things. It is very clear that, to the general American mind, sexuality is far more worthy of censorship than is violence.
Whether this will ever change, is an open question. But there are also costs to be considered in putting one's child on the front lines of such a shift. So it is a far more nuanced issue than the black-&-white approach many seem to take to it-- BTW, as long as the kids' sections are co-ed, they can still be racially segregated, can't they?
(Just a bad joke; but maybe there's a point in there, somewhere).
Yes that would be. But that isn't the issue. Separating products by intended consumer isn't speech. It is organization. Organizing the merchandise doesn't require people to buy dolls for girls or action figures for boys. People can buy whatever they like for whomever they like. It simply organizes the merchandise to make shopping easier for its customers. Mixing them would simply take more of consumers' time. Separating them makes it easier. If someone wants to buy a doll for boy, it will be easier to find the dolls in the girls' section. The retailer doesn't even know that the doll is gift for a boy nor would the retailer care if told. The idea is to sell merchandise, not question the motivations of the customer.
As a long time retailer i can tell you that merchandise display plays an important role in sales and profits in many ways. Not only does this kind of government interference not help anybody, it is none of government's business. Wokeness is bad enough in the public. We don't need any of it in government.
I agree with you; I simply believe there would be SCOTUS standing if such a fine was imposed, and it would be a free speech violation.
Perhaps so. I'm not a lawyer but a free speech claim wouldn't make sense to me. Most of what government does fails to make sense to me, however.
The sign is a message It is speech.
The government can only restrict it for very specific reasons and times (prevent panic, espionage, insider trading, imminent violence, etc.)
Lame. Shopping is confusing enough without mixing it up.
Yes and I said so in my first sentence. It is the organization of merchandise displays that is not speech. That was my point.
Do you mean boys and girls toys in separate aisles?
Separate names with a comma.