If the Democrats have their way, girls will be buying there panties next to jock straps in the department store. Based on this, dress shops and places like Victoria Secret will be forced to sell male clothing and sexy underwear for men as well—if boys and girls are no different, then men and women are no different. We already have “genderless” bathrooms. Is this the end of male and female? Looks like it.
“With all other problems in their state solved, California Assembly Members Evan Low (D–Cupertino) and Cristina Garcia (D–Los Angeles) have introduced a bill that would require all stores to have a unisex section for children’s clothing and products in the name of “inclusivity” or whatever.
“Brick-and-mortar shops would have to display the majority of their products and clothing aimed at children in one undivided, unisex area on the sales floor,” reports Reason. “They’d also be barred from putting up signage that would indicate whether a product was intended for a boy or girl.”
So little girls will be looking at their first bra’s next to boys looking for their jock straps. Thin of another reason to move families out of California?
California Bill Would Fine Stores $1,000 for Having Separate Boys and Girls Sections
By Matt Margolis, PJ Media, 2/24/21
With all other problems in their state solved, California Assembly Members Evan Low (D–Cupertino) and Cristina Garcia (D–Los Angeles) have introduced a bill that would require all stores to have a unisex section for children’s clothing and products in the name of “inclusivity” or whatever.
“Brick-and-mortar shops would have to display the majority of their products and clothing aimed at children in one undivided, unisex area on the sales floor,” reports Reason. “They’d also be barred from putting up signage that would indicate whether a product was intended for a boy or girl.”
The bill doesn’t just target brick-and-mortar shops either. California-based retailers would also be required to include a page on their website that presents the aforementioned products in a gender-neutral way, with the section being titled “kids,” “unisex,” or “gender-neutral.”
Low introduced a similar bill last year, arguing that children must be “able to express themselves without bias,” but the bill was sidelined to prioritize COVID-related efforts.
As ridiculous as this idea is, what’s even more offensive is that stores that dare to keep dresses in a separate girls’ section would be subject to a $1,000 fine. The policy would only apply to stores with over 500 employees.
A 2017 Gallup survey estimates that only 4.5 percent of the American are LGBTetc, while a Williams Institute UCLA School of Law study estimated that a mere .6 percent of American adults identify as transgender.
Some stores, like Target, have voluntarily shifted toward gender-neutral sections. Reason notes that “regulating how companies market their products online and in their stores could potentially raise First Amendment challenges.”
