Posts Tagged ‘transsexuals’

Do Heterosexuals Have Any Rights?

May 22, 2016

The current assault on women’s right to privacy in public restrooms implies that only those born with Gender Identity Disorder have any personal rights. GIDites believe that people with male anatomies who are dressed as women should be able to use restrooms designated for people with female anatomies. Women are justifiably concerned that sexual predators can take advantage of this situation and dress as women to gain access to women’s restrooms. Depriving women of their right to sexual privacy to accommodate men with a mental abnormality makes women second class citizens.

The GIDites claim to be harmless, but are actually Trojan horses who are creating opportunities for sexual predators who wish to deprive women of their sexual privacy.

Psychologists first used the term “Gender Identity Disorder” to describe persons who believed they had a brain of one sex trapped in the body of the other (transsexuals). Recent research using functional
MRI’s indicates that transsexuals really do have a brain of one sex in the body of the other sex. This research indicates that those who consider themselves “homosexuals” have this same birth defect but don’t recognize their condition. “Transvestites” are males who like to dress as females. It’s unclear if this desire involves a brain defect. I’m not aware of a term for females who like to dress as males.

GIDites claim that transsexuals and transvestites might be attacked if they used a men’s restroom while dressed as women. GIDites seem incapable of understanding that sexual predators occasionally dress as women and enter women’s restrooms in search of prey. If GIDites can enter women’s restrooms dressed as women then so can sexual predators. Doctors can use an MRI to determine if a person is a transsexual, but there is no test to determine if someone is a transvestite. Some sexual predators have taken advantage of this situation to gain access to potential victims.

GIDites reject a compromise that would provide the option of individual user restrooms for men dressed as women who don’t want to use a men’s restroom. Single user, or family, restrooms would help solve other problems. Parents are sometimes concerned about having a child of the opposite sex use a public restroom because they cannot be sure who will be in there.

A single user restroom would provide a safe place for a child to go. Public schools should switch to single user restrooms for all students. A poll indicates 43% of students fear harassment in restrooms.

Some adults might welcome the possibility of using a “private” restroom. For example, some have medical conditions that require them to use diapers or similar products. The women’s restrooms I used to clean had small trash receptacles for feminine hygiene products but I don’t know if all women’s restrooms have them. Men’s restrooms generally don’t have them so there is the potential for embarrassment when disposing of such products. The availability of single user restrooms would allow government to prohibit sexual predators, particularly those who prey on children, from using communal restrooms.

Government could eliminate the problem for transsexuals by having Obamacare cover sex change operations. Being born with a brain of one sex and the body of the other is a birth defect and surgery to put the body on the same sexual page as the brain is corrective surgery.

There can be no justification for increasing the risk of rape so that some men can dress up as women. Alternatives are available so such men can access a restroom. The potential cost to rape victims is too great to provide such men access to the same restrooms as women.

Rape can be an extremely traumatic event for women 31% of rape survivors have problems with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is sometimes a problem for men who have been in extreme military combat. 13% of rape survivors attempt suicide and many turn to drugs or alcohol to escape the memory. 26.6% of women with bulimia nervosa reported they had been raped.

Those who want men dressed as women to have access to women’s restrooms obviously have no respect for a woman’s right to sexual privacy or safety. Congress should impeach any federal official who attempts to deprive women of their right to sexual privacy and increase the risk of sexual assault.

Protesting Obamacare 60’s Style

April 11, 2014

No, I’m not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card or stage a sit-in in the office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius. Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a “sue-in”. They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will harm them as individuals.

The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn’t force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals. Individual cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected being forced to purchase insurance. General government guidelines may not allow for the financial situations of everyone. Some individuals will lose their ability to obtain the health care they need if they have to purchase insurance that won’t cover their treatment.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that health care decisions involve the right to privacy. Requiring people to pay for health treatment by purchasing insurance could be portrayed as being inconsistent with the right of the individual to control personal health care decisions.

Some young adults have huge education debts that would be difficult to pay off it they have to pay for health insurance. In some families the oldest child may want to help younger siblings pay for college. Some are willing to take the risk of not having insurance so they can save money for the down payment on a house or realize the dream of starting a business. What right has the government to tell them they must forget their dreams? Don’t “the Blessings of Liberty” the Constitution is supposed to guarantee include a right to take personal risks to obtain those blessings?

Those who claim a financial hardship could offer the judge a choice of eliminating the requirement they purchase insurance or changing the guidelines that determine who receives government assistance to purchase insurance.

Insurance companies don’t cover all potential treatments for medical problems. Often they rationalize not paying for the treatment by calling it “experimental”. A law that requires individuals to purchase health care through insurance companies in effect may make it illegal for people to seek some types of potentially life saving medical treatment. Such a law would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.

Recent scientific research confirms the claims of some transsexuals that they feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex. Brain studies indicate some people do have a brain of one sex and the body of the other. Thus surgery to make the body of the same sex as the brain is corrective surgery rather than elective surgery. Transsexuals shouldn’t be prevented from seeking such surgery because they have to use their health care money to purchase insurance that won’t correct the birth defect that causes their Gender Identity Disorder.

In cases such as those involving experimental treatment or sexual correction surgery, plaintiffs should ask the courts to either exempt them from having to purchase insurance that won’t help them or require insurance
companies to cover the treatment these people need. Attorneys might want to point out to Supreme Court Justices that if government or insurance companies can decide insurance doesn’t have to cover some procedures then coverage for abortions could be eliminated.

Perhaps non-profit organizations opposed to Obamacare could help finance these lawsuits. Another possibility would be for the states that filed class action lawsuits to represent individuals filing their own lawsuits, Assistance by non-profit groups and governments could encourage a sufficient number of individuals to file lawsuits to convince the courts there is a problem with the law.