Make ordinance gender neutral

To the editor,

Regarding the proposed ordinance on nude swimming and public indecency by the city of South Portland: I applaud the effort to make the language inclusive. However, in this case it only serves to expand discrimination against women’s bodies to include female identifying persons.

I ask why women and female identifying people must cover their breasts, but men do not have to. Why is it legally and ethically permissible to discriminate against women? If we were living in a fundamentalist religious society, it would make more sense to require women to cover up. Is the concern that children might see female breasts? Will whole families be traumatized?

In addition, the ordinance against female topless nudity only adds to the stigma around breast-feeding. While the ordinance makes an exception for breastfeeding, the prohibition against topless nudity does not help the cause. Women’s breasts are not shameful. Women are not shameful.

Lest you think allowing women to roam topless would result in hordes of bare chested ladies taking over our streets, please note that it has been legal in New York state since 1992 and last time I checked, was not a problem.

If we need an ordinance against public nudity, let’s make it completely gender neutral: All persons regardless of gender identity must wear a top in public; or, All persons regardless of gender identity may be topless if they so choose in public places.

Catherine Callahan

South Portland

Time is now to act on gun control

To the editor,

We ban books to protect our children but we protect assault weapons built to kill en masse. What could possibly go wrong with this mindset?

The answers are in almost daily reports of mass shootings and hate crimes. Books enrich lives, assault weapons take them. This is lunacy. How long can we continue to ignore the fact that countries who have banned such weapons are not plagued by constant mass shootings? What has happened to common sense? When will Congress actually represent the majority instead of NRA lobbyist with open wallets?

And, by the way, if the NRA were not a tax exempt 501(c)(4), perhaps those tax dollars could help support mental health care which has been touted by NRA enthusiasts as the root of these evil actions. A good start would be a multi-pronged approach.

A national gun registry, banning assault weapons outside of military use and ensuring gun owners have been properly trained to own them. The time is now for Congress to act. Voters need to act as well and support candidates who want to end this lunacy.

Pauline Huntley

South Portland