ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Constitution And The Bathroom

Updated on April 9, 2016


POLITICAL MADNESS: Like a lame horse; someone should put an end to the runaway Constitutional madness that is engulfing many of the nation's political leaders. Many of them seem to think that transgenders desiring the Constitutional right to use the same bathroom as biologically born females is on par with the Constitutional equality fought for by Abolitionist and Civil Rights agitators. These officials assert that the Constitution of the United States mandates that transgendered men be treated as a biologically born woman. But common sense, a rarity now, dictates that few biologically born women desire to share a public bathroom facility with a transgendered individual who was originally born a male.

MEDICALLY ENGINEERED: From a moral perspective, there is nothing so asinine as a man receiving hormonal treatment, paying for reconstructive surgery, undergoing psychological counseling, donning on women's clothing, applying makeup, getting their nails and hair done and then strutting off to publically proclaim himself a woman. For under the women's clothing, behind the makeup, minus the hair and nails, beneath the hormonally enhanced breasts and somewhere within the tissue of an emasculated penis reside the biological leftovers of a man.

MORAL FOOLISHNESS: In my opinion, the transgendered argument for access into the women’s bathroom is comparable to an elephant being surgically made into a man or a woman and then fighting for the legal right to use the bathroom next to little boys and little girls. Without a doubt, the elephant knows that his or her request to use the boys and girls bathroom is absolutely foolishness. But because the elephant has undergone elective surgery in order to outwardly possess the same male and female appendages that biologically born males and females possess, the elephant insists that that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees it the legal right to enjoy the same civil liberties as its biologically born male and female counterparts. Therefore, it is expected that the elephant after receiving the surgery and subsequently declaring him or herself to be a human would want to use the same restroom facilities as biologically born males and females. As such, the greater foolishness lies not upon the elephant but upon the humans who insist that the surgically enhanced elephant has the same legal right to use the same bathroom that the unaltered little boys and little girls utilize.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: Certainly, the preceding argument poses an outlandish parallel between elephants and humans but in 1964 the idea of a man having a sex change operation and then insisting that he has the Constitutional right to use the ladies’ restroom would have sounded just as ridiculous. The 1964 Civil Rights legislation was not based on shifting sexual identifiers but upon the inalienable personhood rights that Thomas Jefferson originally articulated in the Declaration of Independence and upon Article 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, like its predecessors, sought to bring an end to the racial discrimination against African Americans. But greater still, the Act simultaneously guaranteed the civil liberties of all Americans and outlawed discrimination of all American citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 never required any citizen of the United States to change their original sex, their race, their political association or their religious affiliation in order to be protected by the Act or to be a benefactor of the Act.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS: Since separate but equal public facilities are provided to the public, women, who are biologically born a woman, have a legal and an equal right to have access to public bathroom facilities. When separate but equal facilities are provided for both sexes, women have the right to object to sharing their facilities with a man. They also have a right to object to sharing their separate bathroom facility with a woman who was previously a man, especially, when the man, through no state sponsored duress, intentionally chose to live his life as a woman. The right exists irrespective of the fact that the man presently possesses a medically crafted vagina and hormonally induced breasts or breast implants.

INTERNAL PHYSICAL REALITY: The point is every transgendered female knows that when they enter a female bathroom they have been operationally altered. So, too, a transgendered female knows that the alterations were performed by a compensated physician for the sole purpose of fulfilling the transgendered individual’s physical desires. More importantly, psychologically, a transgendered female is consciously aware that they have acquired a quasi-physical state of reality that can never be converted into a true state of physical reality.

EQUAL PROTECTION: In my opinion, much of the sexual equality that the LGBT community wants comes at the expense of the equality that the United States Constitution, its subsequent amendments, and Civil Rights legislation afford to all citizens of the United States. But since the government has decided to go beneath the clothing of its citizens, perhaps the government should create separate bathroom facilities for biologically born females who do not wish to share their most private moments with medically engineered transgendered females. Or perhaps the government should remove all sexual identifiers from all public restroom facilities and allow its citizens to venture in at their own risks.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Maybe that's what the government should do. In every state and in every federal building, the local and federal government should remove all biological toiletry signs and allow men, women, and children to all use the same public bathroom facilities and allow them to use them at the same time. After all, they are asking the general public to believe that there is no biological difference between a man who purchases his feminity and dons a dress and a natural born woman whose feminity was by birth and therefore dresses accordingly. There is no latent Constitutional theory or future Civil Rights legislation that addresses such moral depravity.



    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.