Bill Would Require California Retailers To Have Gender-Neutral Sections; Violators Face Fines

[Metaphor]

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...gender-neutral-sections-violators-face-fines/

SACRAMENTO (KPIX 5) — Retail stores in California may be required to maintain gender-neutral sections for clothes, toys and childcare articles under a new proposal from a Bay Area lawmaker.
The bill introduced by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) would require retail department stores with 500 or more employees to maintain areas on their sales floor not divided by gender, which he says stigmatizes children who want to wear or play with something marketed for the opposite sex.

“Rather than having a separate boy’s or girl’s section, let’s just have a kid’s section. And that’s what the conversation is about. Let’s make sure that we remove the kind of stigma, the type of bullying that we still see, especially in this day and age,” Low told KPIX 5.
In a press statement, Low also said It also incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.
“I was inspired to introduce this bill after 8-year-old Britten asked, ‘Why should a store tell me what a girl’s shirt or toy is?’” the assemblymember said in the statement. “Her bill will help children express themselves freely and without bias. We need to let kids be kids.”
Low’s bill, AB 2826, would also fine stores up to $1,000 for violating the policy.

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

This seems like it will pass, since the Ds have total legislative control in California. Have the California Democrats run out of things to do? Why should the government tell shops how they must organise their shop floor space?

 

[LoAmmo]

Is there a transgender kid on your lawn again?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

Very telling that your first reaction wasn't to condemn the bullying.

 

[Trausti]

The tyranny of the do-gooders.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

Very telling that your first reaction wasn't to condemn the bullying.

IKR? Like, the only explanation I have for someone who brings up bullying and not condemning it is that they approve of the bullying.

I have news for metaphor: if a child is being bullied because they are wearing clothes that their peers say are inappropriate for them, it's not because the clothing is inappropriate; rather, it is because the kids who are bullies were given inappropriate messages about who is allowed to wear what.

 

[laughing dog]

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...gender-neutral-sections-violators-face-fines/

SACRAMENTO (KPIX 5) — Retail stores in California may be required to maintain gender-neutral sections for clothes, toys and childcare articles under a new proposal from a Bay Area lawmaker.
The bill introduced by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) would require retail department stores with 500 or more employees to maintain areas on their sales floor not divided by gender, which he says stigmatizes children who want to wear or play with something marketed for the opposite sex.

“Rather than having a separate boy’s or girl’s section, let’s just have a kid’s section. And that’s what the conversation is about. Let’s make sure that we remove the kind of stigma, the type of bullying that we still see, especially in this day and age,” Low told KPIX 5.
In a press statement, Low also said It also incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.
“I was inspired to introduce this bill after 8-year-old Britten asked, ‘Why should a store tell me what a girl’s shirt or toy is?’” the assemblymember said in the statement. “Her bill will help children express themselves freely and without bias. We need to let kids be kids.”
Low’s bill, AB 2826, would also fine stores up to $1,000 for violating the policy.

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

This seems like it will pass, since the Ds have total legislative control in California.

The Democratic Party is the least disciplined and least likely to have a hive mind. Numerical control of the legislature by a party does not guarantee that any bill introduced by a party member passes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is this only for kids’ stuff or will it apply to adult clothing sections too?

 

[TomC]

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

Very telling that your first reaction wasn't to condemn the bullying.

IKR? Like, the only explanation I have for someone who brings up bullying and not condemning it is that they approve of the bullying.

I have news for metaphor: if a child is being bullied because they are wearing clothes that their peers say are inappropriate for them, it's not because the clothing is inappropriate; rather, it is because the kids who are bullies were given inappropriate messages about who is allowed to wear what.

It's also rather telling that neither you nor [MENTION=124]GenesisNemesis[/MENTION]; condemned the bullying that the OP described.
The state forcing retailers to change their store layout to serve an ideological goal is bullying too. Big retailers are extremely sensitive to what works best for their customers. Making the store more confusing because some SJWs think boys should see sparkley sweaters next to the flannel shirts is pretty darned ridiculous and authoritarian.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that people tended towards sturdy gender-neutral clothes and toys and such. But government's enforcement powers are totally the wrong tool to use.
Tom

 

[repoman]

Big stores can do this easily and small ones if they still even exist, not so much.

 

[thebeave]

Yep. California is one of the worst states in the US to do business in, yet out state government keeps piling on more silly, costly regulations. Companies and residents are fleeing in droves because of all this nonsense and I don't blame them.

ETA: Just checked, and California is dead last for the last two years. Woo hoo! Go California!!

https://chiefexecutive.net/2020-best-worst-for-states-business/

 

[Trausti]

Big stores can do this easily and small ones if they still even exist, not so much.

It's not a question of whether a store can do it; it's a question of state imposed ideology. TomC 's insight that this is bullying and authoritarian is correct.

 

[TomC]

Big stores can do this easily and small ones if they still even exist, not so much.

According to the OP, it only applies to retailers with 500 employees. That's pretty big.

It still strikes me as state interference in private business for ideological purposes, no utilitarian value. That's not something I support, because I don't have those fascist tendencies.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

IKR? Like, the only explanation I have for someone who brings up bullying and not condemning it is that they approve of the bullying.

I have news for metaphor: if a child is being bullied because they are wearing clothes that their peers say are inappropriate for them, it's not because the clothing is inappropriate; rather, it is because the kids who are bullies were given inappropriate messages about who is allowed to wear what.

It's also rather telling that neither you nor [MENTION=124]GenesisNemesis[/MENTION]; condemned the bullying that the OP described.
The state forcing retailers to change their store layout to serve an ideological goal is bullying too. Big retailers are extremely sensitive to what works best for their customers. Making the store more confusing because some SJWs think boys should see sparkley sweaters next to the flannel shirts is pretty darned ridiculous and authoritarian.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that people tended towards sturdy gender-neutral clothes and toys and such. But government's enforcement powers are totally the wrong tool to use.
Tom

"the kids who are bullies... inappropriate messages" it is the bullying of children that I find problematic. The non-mortal entities that are companies and "retailers" are not so much my concern.

Ideally, we would just stop proclaiming which styles "belong" to whom.

I can't speak strongly as to whether or not an expectation of accomodations for those who do not wish to be gendered is acceptable; I suspect however that it is so acceptable.

Part of it comes down to the issue where kids are told and indoctrinated that certain styles are not options on the basis of what is between their legs, and a good deal of that indoctrination comes to the communication of this barrier through retail gender separation.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

IKR? Like, the only explanation I have for someone who brings up bullying and not condemning it is that they approve of the bullying.

I have news for metaphor: if a child is being bullied because they are wearing clothes that their peers say are inappropriate for them, it's not because the clothing is inappropriate; rather, it is because the kids who are bullies were given inappropriate messages about who is allowed to wear what.

It's also rather telling that neither you nor [MENTION=124]GenesisNemesis[/MENTION]; condemned the bullying that the OP described.
The state forcing retailers to change their store layout to serve an ideological goal is bullying too. Big retailers are extremely sensitive to what works best for their customers. Making the store more confusing because some SJWs think boys should see sparkley sweaters next to the flannel shirts is pretty darned ridiculous and authoritarian.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that people tended towards sturdy gender-neutral clothes and toys and such. But government's enforcement powers are totally the wrong tool to use.
Tom

I suppose you will be sent to the gulags too then. Oh well!

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, that's one out of eighty. Let me know if this gets any traction in the assembly. Then I might find it worthy of discussion.

 

[TomC]

Part of it comes down to the issue where kids are told and indoctrinated that certain styles are not options on the basis of what is between their legs, and a good deal of that indoctrination comes to the communication of this barrier through retail gender separation.

You know what else this state sponsored bullying tells people?

The gubbamint will tell you what to like and do. If you don't agree, they'll bully you into compliance.

Like I said, I agree with the goal. But I strongly oppose the method.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...gender-neutral-sections-violators-face-fines/

SACRAMENTO (KPIX 5) — Retail stores in California may be required to maintain gender-neutral sections for clothes, toys and childcare articles under a new proposal from a Bay Area lawmaker.
The bill introduced by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) would require retail department stores with 500 or more employees to maintain areas on their sales floor not divided by gender, which he says stigmatizes children who want to wear or play with something marketed for the opposite sex.

“Rather than having a separate boy’s or girl’s section, let’s just have a kid’s section. And that’s what the conversation is about. Let’s make sure that we remove the kind of stigma, the type of bullying that we still see, especially in this day and age,” Low told KPIX 5.
In a press statement, Low also said It also incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.
“I was inspired to introduce this bill after 8-year-old Britten asked, ‘Why should a store tell me what a girl’s shirt or toy is?’” the assemblymember said in the statement. “Her bill will help children express themselves freely and without bias. We need to let kids be kids.”
Low’s bill, AB 2826, would also fine stores up to $1,000 for violating the policy.

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

This seems like it will pass, since the Ds have total legislative control in California. Have the California Democrats run out of things to do? Why should the government tell shops how they must organise their shop floor space?

I do not agree with the bill, and I agree with TomC when he said the following:

It still strikes me as state interference in private business for ideological purposes, no utilitarian value. That's not something I support, because I don't have those fascist tendencies.
Tom

I do not agree with the OP in as far as it being likely to pass. I see no likelihood of it passing at all. I don't think it is all that uncommon, however, for State legislators to propose laws like this to appeal to their base. Living in a suburb of St. Louis, I see Missouri lawmakers proposing stupid legislation that is just red meat for their base all the time, and am well aware that there is no chance that the bill will get passed. Do you not get shit like that in Australian politics?

 

[TomC]

I suppose you will be sent to the gulags too then. Oh well!

Unless the ideologues who acquire the power to use state enforcement are more like me than you.

Then you'll be in the gulag and I'll have forgotten you ever existed.

Heck, maybe they'll have payperview executions to balance the budget, and I'll see you again . Think America is ready for that?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Do you not get shit like that in Australian politics?

I keep forgetting that he's in Australia. From his posts, he could be right up the road from me in Trumpistan, Indiana.

Tom

 

[TSwizzle]

California, homeless epidemic along with a host of other stuff that makes life living here miserable for a lot of people and Sacramento is fussing about where the store can put their stock on the shop floor. Fucking idiots.