The Marxist goons in Leftistan (DBA California) passed a law requiring retailers with 500 or more employees to include a gender-neutral children’s section or face a 500.00 fine. Well, of course, they did, but wait until you hear what the sponsor had to say about it.
Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), who introduced the legislation, said, “We need to stop stigmatizing what’s acceptable for certain genders and just let kids be kids.” The bill, he said, was designed to “encourage more businesses across California and the U.S. to avoid reinforcing harmful and outdated stereotypes.”
“Part of it is to make sure if you’re a young girl that you can find a police car, fire truck, a periodic table or a dinosaur,” Low reportedly said. “And then similarly, if you’re a boy, if you’re more artistic and want to play with glitter, why not? Why should you feel the stigma of saying, ‘Oh, this should be shamed,’ and going to a different location?”
There are more reasons to make fun of this statement than we can shake a copy of Gender Queer at, but in the interest of staying over the target, we need to ignore them. They are distractions like how a parent might buy their daughter a truck or their son glitter without the state forcing stores to carry things they’d not otherwise sell to appease the virtue-signaling idgits in Sacramento. Or how they could deliberately go to stores that have these things to do that without any mandate. Or not. The issue is that a gender warrior of the land of the genderless genderqueers assumes boys like trucks and police cars and the Periodic Table and girls are more artistic and like glitter.
Bigot!
Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! And isn’t that the problem? Take Drag Queens, for example. Burlesque queens would be more appropriate. Men dressed as caricatures of slutty women. What’s gender-neutral about that? Nothing. Not a damn thing. It is insulting to not just women but slutty women.
It is lousy cross-dressing. Something you’d expect to see coming out of the Target-Sponsored clown car at the gender-neutral circus, except, as we noted, it’s not neutral.
Garish and over the top is OK, as long as you’re honest about what it is, and yes, I brought it up to make a point. If California can force retailers to carry products for which their customers don’t typically shop, when can we expect a new law mandating costumes and makeup for drag queens? They can’t shop just anywhere for that stuff. Shouldn’t they be able to find what they need at Home Depot or Hobby Lobby – if they happen to be either handy, artistic, or crafty – and isn’t the absence of such accouterments shameful?
Drag shows are all about promiscuity and sex. Think of all the entenders one might double with a DEWALT 20v 1/2 inch drill driver on a tool belt wrapped around your green sequined velvet Mikado (knee-length to show off your rhinestoned snake-print leather lace-up Doc Martens)? All of which Home Depot would have to sell if Assemblyman Evan Low’s law was taken to its illogical conclusion.
You can’t just be neutral about gender; just ask him about the toys boys and girls prefer.
So, what does one “not stock” to make room for what the state says you must have on hand to satisfy an abuse that can never end because it would be discrimination even to define what “gender neutral” means?
And here’s the thing about that. Retailers must make decisions about the already high cost of doing business in much of California. At some point, it will no longer make sense to be there.
Especially if the inspectors show up and cite them because the “gender-neutral” section had just been looted by shoplifters who know they won’t be prosecuted.