Here's What I and MOST People Actually Believe the Laws Should Be Regarding Transgender and Homosexual Persons

The ruling class uses its liberal media to declare that what most people think is reasonable is actually transphobic or homophobic bigotry. It does this to divide-and-rule us.

Most Americans think this—a 100% adult male swimmer competing against women in the women’s team—is just wrong!

Here is what I and at least 80% of Americans would find it reasonable and acceptable for the law to be regarding transgender and homosexual persons:

Transgender persons

• Individuals who passed through male puberty should not be permitted to compete in female sports teams and leagues.¹

• With respect to public-access locker room and shower facilities, people with apparently² only male genitalia (whether born with them or not) use facilities designated for males, and likewise people with apparently only female genitalia use facilities designated for females, and people with apparently both male and female genitalia (yes, there are a minuscule number of such people!) use a private one-person only facility which must be made available.

• There should be private single-person bathrooms, shower areas and locker rooms for any individuals who for any reason do not want to use a multi-person room or area. (For example, some children in middle schools or high schools are demanding to be permitted to use bathroom, locker and shower facilities assigned to girls on the grounds that they identify as female despite having male genitalia from birth (and vice versa.) Such students should be limited to either the facilities in which people have the same type of apparent genitalia as they do, or to private single-person facilities.) [This is discussed further here.]

• It should be illegal to perform "sex change" and “puberty blocker” medical/surgical procedures for minors when the only purpose is treatment for gender dysphoria. (This is discussed here.)

• The parents of elementary and secondary school students should always be fully informed about any school policy regarding gender re-assignment of their child, and parents have the right to withdraw their child from any school.

• Schools should never teach that a child’s confusion about his or her gender, or inclination to behave a certain way, means that they are, or may be, in a body of the wrong sex.

• Discrimination against transgender people should illegal.

• Nobody should be required to register for the military draft.

Homosexuals

• Discrimination against homosexuals should be illegal.

• Same-sex marriage should be legal alongside with the following law regarding the conception of children (read why ONLY alongside the following law here):

• It should be illegal to deliberately conceive a child with a gamete (egg or sperm) from a person who, at the time of conception, does not fully intend³ to raise the child and know and be known by the child as its co-primary⁴ parent (mother or father as the case may be.)⁵ It is child abandonment when a man donates sperm anonymously or a woman donates an egg anonymously. Deliberately depriving a child of the right to know and be known and love and be loved and RAISED by both of its biological parents is too often HARMFUL to the child (as one can read about in detail including from now-adult children of anonymous donor conception here) and it violates the principle that the needs of children trump the desires of adults.⁶

Why Don’t Our Politicians Enact Such Laws?

Our politicians are beholden to the ruling billionaire plutocracy and not to us. The politicians enact laws that help the billionaires keep us divided against each other. The method (see examples here) is to enact a law that one wing (conservative wing or liberal wing) of the mass media will tell its followers is wonderful and the other wing will tell its followers is horrible. Such a law will always be such that very close to half the population can be persuaded it’s wonderful and very close to half that it’s horrible.

Good laws such as those described above—that more than 80% would think are good—wouldn’t enable the ruling class to divide us this way, so such laws only get enacted, if at all, when there is so much anger at the bad laws that the politicians fear what might happen if they don’t enact more reasonable laws.

Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to have good laws and not divisive ones.

1. Transgender people in sports is a different question from transgender people in bathrooms and locker and shower rooms. The issue in sports is fairness. In many kinds of sporting events, there is a good fairness-related reason for having separate male and female teams. If the event is one that makes superior physical strength an advantage, then males who have gone through male puberty will have an advantage over females. In a swimming race, for example, making women compete against such males would be unfair the same way it would be unfair to make women compete against dolphins. It is unfair to make girls/women who have worked hard for many years to excel in a sport on the understanding that they would be competing only against other women then have the rug pulled out from under them by being made to compete against innately stronger men. This is why, very properly, "Back in 2022, World Aquatics decided that it would tighten its rules regarding transgender inclusion in women's sports. Only athletes who transitioned before age 12 can compete in women's events." Based on this sensible decision, the transgender swimmer, Lia Thomas, who identifies as a woman but has a fully developed male body, will not be allowed to compete as a woman in the 2024 Olympics.

Trans-women who have gone through male puberty should not compete against women. Trans-men, having not gone through male puberty, do not have an unfair physical-strength advantage over men and may thus fairly compete with men in a sport where superior physical strength is an advantage. Where physical strength is irrelevant (such as a chess match), being trans or not is also irrelevant to who can compete fairly with whom.

2. i.e., based on simple observation, not any invasive method nor by any research into a birth certificate, etc.

3. Obviously a law requiring merely "intent" is a weak law and one that is difficult if not impossible to enforce. The value of this law is that it establishes what society thinks is the way things ought to be. A marriage vow ("till death do us part"), for example, does this even though we know people sometimes get divorced. If this law were in effect, it would mean, for example, that when  encountering two women on the street wearing identical wedding bands and pushing a baby carriage with a cute baby in it, one would be perfectly in keeping with social etiquette to reveal in one's conversation that one assumed the child's father was part of its family.

What about the case of, say, a woman using frozen sperm from a man, perhaps her late husband, who donated the sperm before dying, in which case the man would not be alive at the time of conception and could not therefore intend anything at that time? Such a conception is one that guarantees, by design, that the child will not know and be known by its biological father, and should not be legal.

4. "Co-primary" because the biological mother and biological father are the two people who are primarily responsible for the child's conception. (At least for human beings this is true, even if perhaps not for mice created from two male mice and no female mouse as scientists made happen as reported here.)

5. Here is how a same-sex couple could have a child "of their own" (i.e., not an adopted child) without breaking the bond between the child and its biological father (or mother, as the case may be). Say two lesbian women are married and want a child of their own. One of the women could get pregnant with the sperm of a man, and then that man (the father) and the two women would live together in the same house (perhaps one bedroom for the father and one for the two women) as a  family, in which the child would know and be known by both its biological mother and father, as much so as in a traditional opposite-sex marriage-based family. An analogous arrangement could be used by two married gay men. This way, both biological parents of the child are still raising the child and still know and are known by the child as its co-primary parents. This way, the child's biological father (or mother) is neither completely unknown to the child (as is the case with anonymous sperm or egg donation) nor known merely as a person who lives across town or in another state. The principle that the needs of a child trump the desires of adults is the reason why the same-sex couple and the other biological parent should should live together as one family, even if this is inconvenient or not what the same-sex couple or the other parent desire. When people produce a child they have a moral obligation to do what is right for that child. Before dismissing this notion as bizarre, read here how even the very liberal (and pro-same-sex marriage) Young Turks agree with it. If people don't want to do this, then they can adopt an already-existing child instead of insisting on producing a child.​

Here is another true-life example of how a lesbian couple and the father of the child arranged to ensure that, despite the mother and her lover living together the father remained a part of the family unit so that the child would know and be known by both its biological parents and be raised by both of them. In her autobiography, Out of Line, Barbara Lynch--a woman raised in a South Boston housing project who became a James Beard award-winning chef and owner/operator of many wonderful restaurants in Boston--describes the story of her husband, Charlie, her lesbian lover, J, and her daughter (with her husband), Marchesa. The story in the excerpt below starts with Barbara informing her husband for the first time that she was romantically involved with a "family friend," J, (who had children of her own) with whom Barbara had been spending a lot of time.​

"I was making dozens of lobster rolls for the guests, mostly food-industry friends. But once J told her kids, word might leak to Charlie, so I had to pull him aside. 'There's something you need to know," I began.​

"At first, he said only, 'Hmmm...okay...' It was a lot to process.​

"Later, as we talked it through, he asked, 'Is this a phase? The change of life? Something you needed to get out of your system?'​

"I didn't think so, but I honestly had no clue. On some level, Charlie was relieved that I'd fallen for another woman instead of a guy. And if it had to be a woman, at least he knew and liked J and her two boys.​

"'Are we getting a divorce?' he asked.​

"Weirdly, I hadn't considered it. Charlie and I were intertwined, to some extent professionally in that he'd helped me build the business and had remained my truest ally, but even more because we shared a daughter. We'd be in each other's lives forever. But we didn't live together full-time, so my romance with J wasn't destroying a household rhythm. Couldn't we keep the same pattern of space and connection without putting Marchesa through the pain and upheaval of divorce?​

"'We're great parents, and we can stil be,' I told Charlie. 'You're a fantastic father.'"​

"It was true. He'd risen to the challenge of caring for three kids alone after his wife's death. When Marchesa came along, she united us as a family; and Charlie, as our friend Sarah Gulati puts it, having reached a life stage when he was no longer 'rushing,' experienced a 'rebirth.' We'd visit the Gulatis at their summer place in Gloucester, where Charlie would help Marchesa, as a toddler, climb over the rocks to the water's edge. There, he let Marchesa explore, turning over stones, peering into the water to spot the little fish, just 'enjoying her inquiring mind...He was so patient,' Sarah said.​

"Now Charlie was patient with me too. A more straitlaced husband would have hauled me into court in a heartbeat. But Charlie had already enjoyed a traditional marriage and recognized that ours would be different (though even I didn't expect that it would be this different.) He 'got me'--accepting my restlessness, my impulsiveness, my relentless work drive, my need for solitude. He knows who he is and was secure enough in himself to give me what some might consider a lot of breathing room.​

"Over the coming months, we functioned as a unit that must have looked strange from the outside. We all spent that Christmas Eve with J's family, the women with whom I'd made cappelletti--J and I as a couple, J's sons, and Charlie and Marchesa as my guests. It was awkward, but, with the truth known, I felt unchained. Charlie's family, unshockable, was more accepting."

​Here's yet another example, reported by a person on Quora, of how same-sex couples can have children who will know and be known by, and raised by, both of their biological parents:​

I had an online friend a few years ago who had (and presumably still has) the most fascinating family setup. She and her wife had formed a family with a gay male couple, and at the time I knew her they had three kids.

My friend was the biological mother of all the children, and they called her Mama. She was a stay-at-home mother, focused entirely on the children.

Her wife was Mom, and worked full time.

The biological father of all the children was Daddy, and also worked full time.

The nonbio father was Papa. He was an artist of some sort, and created his art at home while also doing the cooking and housework.

All four parents were very engaged with the kids and shared all decision making equally. 

Still think that's one of the coolest families I've ever heard of.

6. Most people who currently oppose same-sex marriage would find it acceptable to be legal if this law about the conception of children were also enacted. For example, the Catholic Church--one of the largest organizations opposed to same-sex marriage, has a reason that is clearly about a concern for children, as one can read on its United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website here:​

“Any honest consideration of marriage must think about children, the hope of our future. For millennia, people of every generation and of every culture have understood that the marriage of a man and a woman is the central pro-child social institution and the rock of the natural family. Marriage has never been about the relationship of just any two adults. Marriage brings together a man and a woman who unite as husband and wife to form a unique relationship open to welcoming and caring for new life. As the union of husband and wife, marriage is a union open from within to the blessing of fruitfulness. Children are born “from the very heart” of marriage, from the mutual self-giving between husband and wife (CCC, no. 2366). They are the “supreme gift” of marriage and its “ultimate crown” (GS, nos. 50, 48).“Made for Life,” the second video in the Marriage: Unique for a Reason series, discusses the gift of children and the unique love that fathers and mothers give to children. “Made for Life” is the perfect sequel to “Made for Each Other,” which explores why sexual difference matters for marriage. Only a man and a woman can authentically speak the language of married love, because only a man and a woman can engage in the act which, by its nature, is designed for bringing new life into the world.” [emphasis added]

​Most Catholics would find it an acceptable compromise if same-sex marriage were legal AND this law about the conception of children were also enacted. Consider that most Catholics pay little attention to the Church’s dogma prohibiting contraception, and the Catholic Church itself has clinics that teach couples how to tell when the woman is or is not fertile (ovulating); this is nominally to enable couples who have trouble conceiving to conceive but it also just as well helps couples who want to have sex without conceiving to do that.

See "Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples if the rituals don’t resemble marriage." (Also here and here.)