Tuesday, May 17, 2016

I have rights, too

Simple solutions
To transgender
Bathroom woes


UNLESS THEY ARE EXIBITIONISTS, most people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom, shower, or locker room with a person of the opposite sex.

There are two possible solutions to Obama's latest attack on the majorities' civil rights.

OPTION ONE: Have three facilities: one for males, one for females, and one for transgender "works-in-progress."

Parents with very small children are exempt.

Perhaps Obama can pay for the additional facilities out of his own pocket; this should not be a burden on all taxpayers.

This "three facility" policy would apply to all public buildings, including schools, restaurants, department stores, bus/train depots, airports and seaports, etc. and "et al."

At the same time, all single-sex businesses must open up to people of both sexes; no more Shapes for women, no more men-only saunas.

The other option is to allow transgender people who have completed their sex change access to the facility matching their (new) body.

Transgenders "in progress" would have to use the facilities of their body's current sex. In other words, a male transitioning to female would be obliged to use the men's facilities until he has exchanged his penis for a vagina. Likewise, a female transitioning to a male would be considered a female until she surrenders her vagina for a penis that is permanently attached - no belts or other temporary attachments.

I am not concerned about the person's internal organs; I'm unaware that surgeons are able to implant the relevant organs to permit a formerly female person to impregnate a formerly male person.

BULFLASH: The CBS station in Boston MA reports that a Halifax Man Receives First Penis Transplant In U.S. At Mass General, so now there is hope for a transgender female to "man up" completely. (The story also appears in The New York Times and USA Today)

I am against civil rights laws for this group or that group. There should be one law that simply states: Discrimination is illegal. Period.

What is happening today is that the U.S. has laws prohibiting discrimination against everything EXCEPT John and Jane Doe who have no disabilities or conflicts with their sexual identity or preference.

A person with a disability usually does not elect to have a disability.

The argument continues to rage if a person has a choice in his or her sexual preference, or if there is a choice with which sex the person is comfortable.

It is MY preference, MY civil rights, not to have a female in a males' restroom; my spouse's preference is not have have a male in the female's restroom.

But, being broadminded and not wishing to trample any one else's civil rights - without surrendering my own - if the "man" standing next to me has all the physical attributes of a man, then well and good. If a "woman" has all the physical attributes of a female and chooses to use the women's facilities, fine.

Transgenders as a "work in progress" need to use the facility appropriate for their physical attributes.

An pro-transgender article on the left-leaning NPR web site dismisses crime reports as "anecdotal.' Apparently the NPR folks never bother to look up the word's definition.

Ron Baity, president of Return America and others with similar beliefs offer anecdotal evidence — crime reports — to support their claims.

No comments: