Last year I attended a panel discussion on the concerns of transgender people as regards the threatened repeal of the so-called "bathroom-bill" (ballot question three).

One of the featured speakers was the mother of a transgender boy. There was another young mother, school committee member Lizbeth DeSelm. The others on the panel were David, a distinguished minister, and a delightful young man named Eli. I was eager to hear from transgender people speaking from experience, and assumed that they would be invited to do so once the presentation had concluded.

Turned out that not a single transgender person was summoned to join the panel. The three transgender people introduced were already on the panel: The lovely Liz and her handsome side-kicks. All of whom spoke eloquently about the humiliation--the marginalization--of being denied access to gender-appropriate restrooms.

My message to all the misguided voters who are purportedly so disturbed at the prospect of encountering "inappropriate" private parts that might--they assume--lie beneath the underclothes of the suspect inside the stall: Be careful what you wish for. The irony of repealing transgender people's rights to conduct their private business as they see fit would soon be made manifest. Loud and clear. I can already hear the outcry of the outraged as they behold the dreadful sight: blatantly bearded men suddenly descending in hordes upon the ladies' rooms.

**********************************************

Segue to the related topic of rights--specifically, to marriage--such as impact the front end of the LGBTQ quintet. I maintain that proposals to ban gay marriage--on grounds of "unlawful wedlock"--don't go far enough.

Proponents of the ban contend that homosexuals must be forbidden to marry on the grounds that such unions have no potential for procreation. It therefore follows that heterosexuals past childbearing age or otherwise sterile should be forbidden to marry.

Funny that, in all these years of contention, not one of the grandiloquent opponents of gay marriage has extended part one-and-only of the argument to its part-two logical conclusion.

Certainly, such august minds couldn't possibly have failed to conceive of the obvious. Could it be, perhaps, that they are loath to unleash Pandora's Box Syndrome on their constituents?

Let's take, for instance, the contingent of single senior voters. If widowed or divorced, some would surely want the option to remarry. And what to do with voters vasectomized or tubal-tied or otherwise post/past-parenthood? Must their marriages be annulled? How about the numerous nubile voters planning weddings sans parenthood? Nix on their nuptials: Nix on their votes.

Let's keep it simple. Wanna scratch part two? Then scratch part one. Get back to ground zero. Forget about banning marriage, gay or otherwise. If you find the idea of two grooms distasteful, I've got good news for you dude: Guaranteed, you will still be permitted to marry a woman should such be your preference. And for the ladies: feel free to take a husband if versa be your vice.