It appears the type of incidents people fear have already taken place. In 2015, St. Louis, Missouri’s KMOV-4 reported an incident involving a peeping tom at a Target store.
An O'Fallon, Missouri man was arrested on April 23, 2015 after secretly filming women in a Target dressing room. He served a one year sentence for the offense in the St. Charles County Jail.
The Brentwood Police Department arrested Foerstel after he held a camera phone under a dressing room door while a female shopper tried on swim suits at the Target store in Brentwood.
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.
Let me be clear: No one is mistaking Matthew Foerstel for a “transgender person” for lack of a better word which I’m sure someone will come up with very soon. He’s a male pervert who went 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, uhh, “gender identity.”
The progressive left will insist this has nothing to do with letting transgender people use the rest room of their choice, but here's a scenario why they’re wrong: Some guy decides to wander into the ladies’ dressing area. A Target 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 defines the criteria? And if anyone does define it, who’s to say activists won’t change the definition next week?
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).