In any reasonable democracy the government is ruled by law and not of men. Simply said what is essentially followed is the so called “rule of law.”
It is likewise understood and accepted that in the crafting and enactment of laws considerations are made with respect to natural laws and what is generally accepted in society and the world as the basic standards of human life.
While nature may be finicky at times there is nevertheless no confusion that when humans came into being there were only two kinds, the female kind and the male kind. It is extreme rarity to produce a human being by natural means without any distinguishing feature as to its sex. In fact right down to the early and primitive ages human beings were divided into only two genders which is the male and female.
Unfortunately in this modern age we now learn of various sexual orientations where human beings originally born with the sexual apparatus and organs of a male will decide to alter themselves physically in order to become a female, and vice versa.
That is their preference and that is their choice. In fact the law itself grants them that right and privilege to do whatever they want with their bodies and physical make-up without of course infringing on the rights of others.
That is the rule of law.
What is therefore surprising is for these physically modified and altered human beings to claim and demand some other right that is ordinarily not accorded to regular and physically unaltered human beings.
Take for instance access to comfort rooms. It is generally accepted that only females, not in sexual orientation but possessing the female sexual organ and apparatus, is entitled to enter the lavatories reserved for their kind. Ditto with the males who possess the male sexual organ and apparatus who must enter the toilets reserved for their kind.
Since urinating and defecating is a private affair any trespass to such a privacy right will subject the violator to sanctions under the law. To illustrate a male person entering a toilet for females will likely be charged for violating some provision of the anti-obscenity law or charged in court for malicious mischief.
The separation by status, tradition, hierarchy, and culture of the male and female is widely accepted and acknowledged. The law itself makes such a distinction. There is no discrimination there. What is for the male is for the male and what is female is for the female.
It therefore becomes confusing when there is now a proposed law that would -using discrimination as a leverage- allow male persons who believe themselves to be females, and have physically modified themselves accordingly, to be entitled to enter female restrooms.
In other words, they want to have a law that would practically go against the very laws previously enacted providing for standards of division and separation between females and males and demanding that their sexual orientation which is by choice and voluntary be given preference.
The SOGIE law is a dangerous precedent that would prejudice the majority and only benefit the minority, or those who think of themselves as privileged human beings because of their sexual orientation.