A response to: Straight, Conservative Preacher’s Wife Drops a Transgender Truth Bomb Nobody Saw Coming
1. The Target restroom situation, realistically, needn’t have anything to do with supporting, or not supporting, "a leftist company" or the LGBT agenda.
A man is a man, a woman is a woman, a boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl. It’s science, supported by a wealth of empirical evidence. Public restrooms have been labeled and used accordingly, with the reasonable expectation by women there will be no man in the ladies' room. “Boycotting” is apparently an incendiary word or activity now, and I’ve no reason to employ it anyway, as it’s sufficient for me to say I will avoid shopping in any store where I may encounter a man in the ladies' room. I literally shrugged as I placed a period at the end of that sentence. No hatred. No agenda. No moralizing. Freedom of choice.
The thought of encountering a man in the ladies' room would be laughable, if it wasn’t so...not amusing.
2. Okay, let’s talk about boycotting after all.
Target should not be fined or closed on account of discriminating against women who do not want men in the ladies room with them. Neither should there be a fine levied upon a bakery that doesn’t want to create a wedding cake which transgresses the owner’s religious beliefs. Don’t like the policies of a business? DON’T SHOP THERE.
Christian hypocrisy isn’t even in the Target restroom picture. Additionally, no one – and certainly no long arm of the civil government – is forcing Target to do, or not do, anything. Maybe that is hypocritical.
Let Target rise or fall on the merit of its doings, gaining or losing customers.
Let the bakery rise or fall on the merit of its doings, gaining or losing customers.
3. A “family restroom” is . . . a family restroom, and one’s expectation when passing through the door is that one may find inside any combination of men, women, boys, and girls. It’s nice that stores offer family restrooms, and I’ve no idea why this is included in the original article.
4. Restroom “terror?” That hadn’t crossed my mind, so I’m thinking about it now.
I’ve finished thinking about it: No.
I’d say matters of modesty, expectation, science, and sanity are at issue when Target discriminates against women who expect there to be only females in the ladies' room. Since my now-expectation is that I might encounter a man in the ladies' room at Target, I will not be shopping at Target. To me, that seems like a very reasonable, rational, unemotional decision.
5. It’s my understanding a woman who feels like she’s a man, or a man who feels like he’s a woman, can use the Target restroom matching his or her feelings, rather than their actual, factual sex. If I am washing my hands next to a man who feels like he’s a woman, I’m pretty sure I’m going to know he’s a man. The author’s children might be "confused" or "a little scared" if they encounter the opposite sex in a sex-assigned restroom? The author recognizes even a child understands men are men, and women are women, and finding either in the wrong sex-assigned restroom can be disturbing.
6. Number six has nothing to do with Target’s – or any store’s – restrooms, and appears to be included simply for the cause of shifting the focus to demeaning the Body of Christ, the biblical Church, which has never claimed self-righteousness and has love toward all.
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (1 Timothy 1:15)
That’s the attitude of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Only Jesus was sinless, so I wonder why the author would choose to bring attention to her children having been hurt by "a whole bunch of church people." I don't know what church people are, but the reference seems to be an allusion to professing Christians. Have her children been hurt by school people? Neighborhood people? Playground people? Swimming pool people? Or do only church people harm her children? The charge seems odd.
No one need wait for, hope for, or seek an encounter with a pitifully confused man in the ladies' room in order to teach his or her own children to love others, including the wounded, the broken, and those lost in their sins. And please do not. We might consider the prudence of teaching our children that welcoming men into the ladies' room is, at best, disorderly and inappropriate.
[Aside: By all means, if God has called you to testify of His love and His ways to people in Target restrooms, I believe you should obey the call.]
7. The author’s definition of “pervert” is a mystery to me, particularly when used as she has in an article about men who feel like they’re women being welcome in a public ladies' rooms. I agree with the admonition to be cautious at all times, in all places, especially in a day when all manner of evil is called good, and good is called evil, thereby licensing by means of cultural adoption “do as you please.” [See dictionary entry: pervert]
8. Not wanting to encounter a man in the ladies' room has nothing to do with “love” or “fighting,” rather with common sense, reality, science, and facts. So calling a decision – individual or en masse – to not shop where one may encounter a man in the ladies' room “THE BIG ONE” seems a little shrill.
Has there been a public "temper tantrum?" Frankly, I simply don’t know. If there has, I haven’t seen it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there, and people of every persuasion can be guilty of not comporting themselves with aplomb on occasion.
The inference that not wanting to share the ladies' room with a man – whether he feels like a woman or not – makes one a pharisee feels like an unwarranted stone has been hurled at the Church. And any intimation that Jesus didn’t specifically tell people to stop sinning, seems dangerously errant.
It appears neither loving nor reasonable to shame people who prefer to shop where men and women use restrooms assigned to their factual sex.
The poor people who have perverted, deviant ideas about their sexuality are being encouraged to act that out, rather than being helped to embrace the truth. Welcoming into the ladies' room men who feel like women is neither loving nor Christlike. (Again, the concept of teaching our children about love and sin by admitting confused men into a public ladies' room seems extraordinarily strange.)
Never did Jesus say, “Continue in your sins.” Neither did He offer to aid us to continue to sin or make us more comfortable with sinning. He loved us, therefore, to do so would have been preposterous.
God recommends not an open mind, but a mind anchored in His word and His ways.
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” (Psalm 1:1-3)
“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Psalm 119:11)
There doesn’t need to be any religious thought whatsoever involved in the public restroom assignment issue, for empirical evidence clearly provides proof that men are men, and women are women. It’s genuine science. At issue is merely whether or not men and women can expect only men in the men’s room and women in the ladies’ room. Target is discriminating against men and women who want sex-assigned restrooms in the stores where they shop.
Yet, pretending there is no spiritual element involved when mankind embraces a clearly religious attempt to override factual creation with the fancies of men’s minds, thereby altering the culture, and discriminating against people who know God created us male and female, would be disingenuous. That is spiritual. It is religious. And that would be a reason for The Church to lift her voice. If she's going to love like Jesus did, be like Jesus, she should.