Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

Transgender Bathroom Issues

Reprinted with permission of author.

Transgender Bathroom Issues

On the Transgender Bathrooms and other pertinent issues facing us today in America. Where do we draw the line?

The bottom line in this issue confronting us, and in most issues confronting us, is the fact that one faction or another demands everyone see it their way, and accept the things they want accepted without any compromise. As far as Transgender bathrooms go, I believe the problem issues are being fought with the wrong principles and in the wrong arena.

Why not look at it this way; Have one type of Public bathroom for all people. In these model bathrooms, have fully enclosed cubicles, which can be locked from the inside affording privacy and security to the user, and with the necessary amenities incorporated within those cubicles?

This would not only afford privacy with dignity not only to Transgenders but to everyone. It would also totally benefit another group that is usually left out; Handicapped persons that need their spouse or friend of the opposite sex to enter and help them when they have to go.

It would make a lot more sense to do it that way instead of fighting over who can use what and what has to be forced on other groups. They could be set up similar to the Porta-Potty stalls at public gatherings the best of which have a toilet , a stand up urinal, and a washbasin with a mirror and paper towel dispensers. That way no ones rights to privacy would be compromised, no ones sensibilities would be compromised, nor would there be any Onus put on those persons who were different from the average majority.

Most importantly it would encourage TOLERANCE instead of LEGISLATING DEMANDED ACCEPTANCE. I feel that many Americans may not accept a different lifestyle, but they should be able and capable of showing tolerance for it without compromising any of their beliefs, stepping on anyones rights, and not having their rights stepped on by Legislation demanding Acceptance that takes rights from one person or group, to give them to another person or group under the guise of "Protecting Civil Rights of Individuals' or for anything else for that matter.

This idea of TOLERANCE for an issue, instead of Legislated Demanded Acceptance for an issue, goes way beyond the bathroom issue. It works both ways, promoting Tolerance from both sides in a legitimate dispute on what needs to be done in any given circumstances. It would be a start towards Honorable, Ethical, and Acceptable True Compromise /s and can be adapted to any issues plaguing America today. The main criterion is True Compromise where neither side gets their rights stepped on or diminished unless they are equally diminished for both sides.

Example other than the bathroom issue. Contraceptives. Instead of making Religions pay for them if it goes against their Religious teachings, how about a tax break for everyone ( men and women inclusive to be fair) during their reproductive years, and let the individuals pay for their own contraceptives by using that tax break money on them. It lowers taxes for individuals and makes it fair for all concerned.

The Gun Control issue is tougher but not impossible. Strangely enough the knee jerk attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama Administration, whereby it is trying to get Governors and State Legislatures to enact the gun rules it wants to see enacted, is actually a throwback to what the Founders intended, instead of the usual Liberal disarmament rhetoric. The Founders intended that the Individual Sovereign States set the rules for their own States within the boundaries of the Written Constitution, and if the people disagreed with those State rules, the people could either replace the representatives, or they could move to another State with laws that were more agreeable with them. That doctrine would work PROVIDED the States enacted Gun Laws commensurate with their individual State Constitutions and without Federal Government interference.

The Compromise could be;

1. The Federal Government stepping in and requiring the States to all have some sort of concealed carry license,with the individual States setting their own standards for that License.

2. Minimum standards for ALL States on safety training, applicable law, and physical competency with a firearm.

3. Reciprocity for concealed carry permits mandatory among all the States, and allowing for the transportation and carry of loaded personal weapons, covered by the Concealed Carry License, and preventing harassment by Police forces of the individual States of anyone so covered.

4. Legislation for the private transportation of personal firearms covering both with and without a concealed carry license, having all situations (One example being; Long Guns being required to be unloaded and secured within the vehicle during transportation) covered and reciprocal between all States.

5. Legislation binding on all States to 'prevent the sales/gifting/inheriting of weapons between private individuals of different States unless they went through FFL license holders'.

6. States to decide the criterion commensurate with their Individual State Constitutions, on mandatory background checks for sales within their States and whether to keep records of those sales, tracking of subsequent sales/gifting/inheriting etc.

7. States determining with hard and fast written in plain English rules with no generalities only specifics, on who would be proscribed from owning a firearm. i.e. Convicted Felons who have not had their rights restored by a Court of Law. Mentally Incompetent individuals, Known Terrorists, ( Again a hard and fast clear set of standards written in plain English [Medical Terms excepted but explained so a layman can fully understand them] with no generalities or terms like "and for other purposes" as the basis for denial with results reviewed and verifiable by independent review groups, and allowing for appeals), but those designations determined by the States NOT the Federal Government.. General Federal Guidelines can set up as advisories only, which can be followed by the States, but are not mandatory guidelines to be followed by the States in the Final Determinations.