Non sequitur much? AFA Rekindles Target Boycott Over Peeping Tom

This week, a man was arrested after getting caught filming girls in the dressing room at a Target in Bedford, New Hampshire.  Shocker.  This has happened at virtually every store chain since the invention of trying on clothes before you buy them.

AFA President Tim Wildmon

AFA President Tim Wildmon

But since this happened at Target, the American Family Association has decided to get involved, since no one has been paying attention to them lately.  AFA President Tim Wildmon has called once again for a boycott of the retail chain over concerns for safety in its dressing rooms and restrooms.  Translation: by “safety concerns” we mean anyone not cisgender is icky and we don’t want them anywhere near us, so if you stick up for them, we’re not shopping at your store.

If you recall, the AFA originally called for the boycott after Target reinforced its restroom policy, saying that shoppers are free to use the restroom that matches their gender identity.  The AFA immediately overreacted, assuming this would open the door for predatory men to dress up as women and attack other women in the restrooms.  That’s pretty dumb, since that can happen anywhere, regardless of bathroom policy.  Viral videos ensued, usually showing jack asses like this family marching through the store yelling about archaic rules for desert-dwellers and being ignored by other shoppers.  But I digress.

The recent outcry by AFA is somehow trying to link the Bedford incident with the original call for the boycott, which is a stretch.  Suddenly, the AFA is concerned about general safety as it pertains to areas of the store people take their pants off in, not just safety from transgendered or faux-trans people.  If the AFA is concerned about general safety, and not just the invasion of gross trans people, their boycott should cover any store that does not have security in its changing rooms, not just Target.  So everyone.  I guess that means they’re all going to start making their clothes at home now.



  1. Kengi says

    The man was arrested. Meaning the Target policies didn’t protect the perpetrator. And they think this supports their premise that such policies would protect predators? I don’t understand that, but then I’m not swayed by the “Bad People! Booga booga!” argument.

  2. Siobhan says

    Not to mention all of the people who have been arrested for voyeurism or related charges have been…



  3. blf says

    I guess that means they’re all going to start making their clothes at home now.

    Shouldn’t they be doing that anyways, to ensure they aren’t wearing mixed fibres?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *