Target retail chain recently found itself in a hot soup after it formulated a contentious policy that aimed at allowing its employees and customers to use the bathrooms which matched their gender identity. This move aimed at benefiting the transgender individuals as it permitted them to use the bathroom which matched their sexual identity that is different the sex of their birth. However, this policy received mixed reactions from the members of the public, some of whom signed online petition to oppose the move. The petition was sponsored by American Family Association and it called the members of the public to boycott consuming the company’s products. Despite the fact there are federal laws, Equality Act which prohibits discrimination of any person on the basis of gender in the country or LGBT, majority of people feels that Target’s policy would turn out to bring more harms than benefits. Allowing of men to use the lady’s washroom or bathroom sounds absurd and it is likely to have adverse effects on the ob both genders since non existence of barriers would imply people cannot be stopped. This policy has
Lee 2
had adverse effects on the company as it has led to the decline in its popularity among consumers. There is a conflict of interest between Target Company which is attempting to implement the federal law that allows individuals from LGBT groups not to be discriminated and the American Family Association that is trying to mitigate the risks that are likely to occur should men and women be allowed to use each other’s bathroom in the work place simply because they identify as different gender different from sex of their birth. The purpose of this paper is to explore a common ground that should be reached by the two stakeholders in order to ensure both benefits in relation to the issue.
The Target Company decision to allow individuals to use the bathrooms that are meant for opposite sex simply because they identify as a gender different from sex birth is not out of context. On the contrary, it is rational and justifiable (Andrews). The federal Equality Act prohibits individuals or entities discrimination of another person on the basis of sexual identity. This implies that Target was only attempting to comply with the laws of the land and to mitigate the risks that are likely to arise because of violating the Act (Andrews). However, its decision to different sexes to use different bathroom meant for opposite gender has elicited mixed reaction from the members of the public. Some have expressed their disapprovals and they have sworn not to consume its products and this has led to the loss of its popularity in the market place. Each member has a right not be discriminated against because of his or her gender identity or sex orientation. The company was therefore trying to be ethical by complying with the laws of the
Lee 3
land and attempting not to discriminate against the minority groups. Nevertheless, the company’s decision was massively supported by the individuals supporting the transgender rights as well as advocate groups. This implies that not all people opposed the company’s move, but on the contrary) . Following making of this pronouncement, the company committed itself to ensure safety and security in the washrooms are enhanced and tightened. This meant that its bathroom facilities will be well secured and it will therefore be difficult for the sexual offenders to take advantage of the situation.
The American Family Association is trying to act responsibly by protecting the societal values that are likely to be lost incase women and men are allowed to share the same public bathrooms or washrooms and its decision was also not out of context. The move is likely to compromise the privacy of the individuals who are using the bathroom which are meant for the opposite gender. Just like the Case of the Target Company, in some states in United States such as North Carolina, a law has been passed which restricts the transgender individuals access to the bathroom. In order to compel Target to revoke its decision, the American Family Association called the members of the public to petition online by presenting their signatures (Andrews). It also asked them to boycott consuming the company’s products. Its decision has been seen to be a threat to women and young girls who are likely to be abused sexually when they are using these facilities. According to Washington Post writer, the Target’s policy makes it easy for the predators to have an access to the vulnerable population that is likely to fall victim of sexual
Lee 4
abuse by allowing men to get into the women’s bathroom (Andrews). The American Family Association’s decision of opposing Targets move was also informed by the fact that allowing the people to use the washrooms which are meant for the opposite gender usually makes them uncomfortable. The Targets decision has been discredited due to the fact it is based on perceptions and makes some women insecure or uncomfortable due to the presence of men in their bathrooms. Furthermore, their privacy will also not be compromised by the presence of the person of the opposite gender in the bathroom. Targets decision is based on perceptions and it cannot be verified scientifically, It is therefore appears vague. It would cause much problems if this criteria is many aspects in the country.
Based on the above observations, it is very clear that the two major stakeholders competing against each other in this case have a valid point that justifies the decision that was taken by each of them. Target Company formulated this policy in order to act ethically by complying with the laws of the land and ensure fair treatment of the transgender group by ensuring they are not discriminated against. On the other hand, American Family Association decided to oppose Targets move in order to protect women and young girls who are likely to be abused by the men who use the bathrooms meant for them (Wildmo). Since the decision that was taken by each stakeholder is sound and rational, there is need for each to compromise their stand and ensure a common ground is reached that will ensure of neither sides loses. In other words, it will be a win win situation for both stakeholders. This will be achieved through a
Lee 5
simple solution which entails maintaining of separate bathrooms for both males and females in addition to the construction other ones for the transgender. In this case, women and young girls will not feel unsafe and uncomfortable while the transgender groups will not be discriminated against if they are disallowed to use the bathroom for the gender they identify with and which is different from their sex birth (Hallowell). This will be a win win situation for the two stakeholders.
In conclusion, the two major stakeholders, American Health Association and Target Company decisions in this case are informed and rational. Target is trying to behave ethically by ensuring it complies with the Equality Act and ensure transgender groups are not discriminated against (Andrews). On the other hand, American Family Association aims at ensuring women and young girls are safe and cannot be abused sexually or feel uncomfortable due to presence of men in their bathrooms. Since the two Stakeholders decision are solid and rational, the two should compromise on their stand and negotiate for a common ground. Maintaining separate bathrooms for male and female individuals and setting up additional ones for transgender seem to be the best option. This way, all the problems will be resolved and it will be a win win situation for both sides.