Of course: Missouri man caught filming women in Target dressing room

Let's get this out of the way right at the start: No one is mistaking Matthew Foerstel for a "transgender person" for lack of the better one-word noun I'm sure someone will come up with very soon. He's clearly just a male pervert going where he's not supposed to be. I don't even think he's claiming to "identify as a woman." But last week, Target took a step toward completely erasing the distinction between men's bathrooms/dressing rooms and women's bathrooms/dressing rooms when it told everyone to just use whichever one suits their, um, "gender identity."

This week, this:

An O'Fallon, Missouri man was arrested on April 23 after allegedly secretly filming women in a Target dressing room. Matthew Foerstel, 26, faces felony charges for invasion of privacy in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Brentwood Police Department arrested Foerstel on April 23 after he allegedly held a camera phone under a dressing room door while a female shopper tried on swim suits at the Target store in Brentwood. An officer went to Ranken Technical College to place Foerstel under arrest and reportedly found him in possession of a loaded handgun. In 2013, Foerstel was convicted of invasion of privacy in St. Charles County for "knowingly and intentionally" filming an 11-year-old girl while she was partially nude inside a department store dressing room.

The left will insist this has nothing to do with letting transgender people use the rest room of their choice, but here's why they're wrong: Some guy decides to wander into the ladies' dressing area. An employee sees him. Does the employee stop him? How does the employee decide? Maybe the guy doesn't look transgender, but is that the test? Who has defined it? And if anyone does define it, who's to say activists won't change the definition next week? The company has just made a very public show of announcing its intention to be "inclusive" by letting everyone go wherever they think they should go. If an employee stops a guy because he looks like a guy and that's the ladies' room, does the employee risk the wrath of the company because everyone was supposed to know this is A-OK? I'm sure Target is wasting all kinds of money developing a protocol and training employees for how to follow it, but if you're an employee, how can you really be sure the company will back you the first time you stop and question someone, only to find out he's got every activist organization ready with their lawyers and the media on speed-dial? With their announcement last week, Target basically gave the middle finger everyone who feels uncomfortable about a person of the opposite sex just showing up in their restroom or dressing room. This incident understandably will leave Target customers wondering if the company would really take steps to keep a guy like this from going where he doesn't belong. Would they? Really? Are you sure? I'm sure as hell not.

Dan Calabrese——Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.