Senator Rand Paul questions Rachel Levine about puberty blockers

[andyoldlabour]

This is well worth a watch, because Rand Paul is bang on about this subject.

Google Rand Paul right now though and you'll see the headlines that come up are largely critical and emotive ("anti trans rant", etc). The first ones up are from the Independent and Vox, which is exactly what you'd expect from them. This hysterical invective from the media does not help matters, as it makes it so difficult to stand up against the narrative.

Sorry, to add.

It's the questions and language he used.

He used genital mutilation. He said amputation of women's breasts.

As a pp said, The questions are what need to be repeated.

The obfuscation of language is what's been a big issue.

But PamDenick I think it's easier to do that in the U.K..

I think America is SO polarised all ideas are black and white, left and right.

What do I dislike about him - he's a massive Trump enabler and normally a complete moral coward.

What I fear, and I have already seen some Biden supporters or left supporters taking this position, is that he is such a discredited individual that this important issue gets discredited with him.

None of the TRA has queried why left wing activist feminists are against selfId. They are assuming GC feminists are in thrall to right wing alpha (or even beta) males all of a sudden. I'm sure the right wing are exploiting this for their own purposes but I don't care at this point.

The issue is like a PP said, no one will listen to Rand Paul. He's a right wing Trumpist nutjob

What we can hope is that Biden is about bringing people together (now that he has got rid of Trump). Maybe, just maybe this can be a point of unity. Maybe there can be clarity to the ridiculous executive order he signed which lumped TRA in with the important issue of equality for gay men and lesbian women.

So, it's come to this. He's damned for being a right-wing Trumpian nutjob - and yet he speaks with a moral clarity and force that eludes vast swathes of the left.

If you didn't know this man's reputation you'd be applauding him.

What an absolute indictment of the state of left-wing politics that people who think of themselves as owning the moral high ground are now advocating for performing double mastectomies on healthy teenage girls. What an utter fucking disgrace.

@FuriousAndFrustrated

I have no idea who Rand Paul is, but I don't see how anyone could watch that video and think he was anything but utterly reasonable and correct, and that Rachel Levine was anything but evasive and uncaring.

The headlines are "Rand Paul goes on an insane transphobic rant".

So here's your new reality, adjust accordingly.

Just want to repeat this comment from page one, by a PP, because it's on point.

It seems to many it’s more important that it’s the “wrong” person asking the right question. The problem is as soon as the “right” person asks the right question they immediately become the “wrong” person, and too many “right” persons are happy to ask the wrong questions to make sure it doesn’t happen to them.

As I've said a few times on this thread @Kettlingur, the media perception of this is a big problem. Why would anyone risk sticking their head above the parapet to even start to query any of this, if it runs the risk of being condemned as an 'insane anti trans bigot' in public, no matter what you say? There's no redemption from that, no matter what you do.

I don't like the phrase 'being captured' as it's a bit conspiratorial for my liking but there's something about the way these media outlets amplify this narrative these days that is incredibly damaging to the cause of common sense and intellectual debate.

What robust research is Levine speaking about? There is not robust research supporting transition - this all dates back to John Money and research since then has not exactly been robust this goes double for research on puberty blockers. I see they won't /can't answer the question.

Good to know they are also gung ho about experimenting on poor children without parents to protect them. How ... benevolent. I hadn't realised this was Levine's stance. No surprise the question was evaded - this is a standard response. Still, excellent news to hear they are up for that private re-education, sorry 'talk', in his office since after all, this obviously isn't a matter of public health and clearly the public can't understand the complexities and nuance (in the way a child clearly can).

On that matter, most notable is Levine's repetition that transgender science is 'complex and nuanced' - is that so? Why then are you expecting children to understand this 'complex and nuanced' area sufficiently to make those life changing decisions?

Is there any chance Levine won't be confirmed?

He is such a discredited individual that this important issue gets discredited with him

Well, he can't be that discredited then. You surelycan't dismiss someone as an individual purely on the basis that they support some things that you do not. How did he "enable" Trump? By being a Republican? Trump was democratically elected wasn't he?

He comes across as a compassionate and reasonable person to me - and not just because of his alignment with me on this issue.

Ed Pilkington of the Guardian (who I think signed that horrible Suzanne Moore letter) wrote this:

'As the confirmation hearing got under way on Thursday Levine faced hostile questioning from some of the Republican members of the Senate. Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, compared transgender surgery misleadingly to genital mutilation and accused Levine of supporting “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia”.'

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/25/rachel-levine-assistant-health-secretary-senate-confirmation-hearing-historic

News reporting is supposed to be impartial. And yet here we have the Guardian's US news editor editorialising with the word "misleadingly". To think that some of us used to look to the Guardian for moral leadership. Who'd have thought we'd see the day when the paper was justifying mutilating children's genitals?

Dunno who Rand Paul is or context, but he is speaking very sensibly here. The person repeating the non-answer monotonously appears somewhat deranged and incapable of basic interactions.

Rand Paul mentioned that street children were maybe vulnerable to being rushed through the medicalisd trans path? What is this about? Anyone know?

@RoyalCorgi

Ed Pilkington of the Guardian (who I think signed that horrible Suzanne Moore letter) wrote this:

'As the confirmation hearing got under way on Thursday Levine faced hostile questioning from some of the Republican members of the Senate. Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, compared transgender surgery misleadingly to genital mutilation and accused Levine of supporting “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia”.'

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/25/rachel-levine-assistant-health-secretary-senate-confirmation-hearing-historic

News reporting is supposed to be impartial. And yet here we have the Guardian's US news editor editorialising with the word "misleadingly". To think that some of us used to look to the Guardian for moral leadership. Who'd have thought we'd see the day when the paper was justifying mutilating children's genitals?

Money talks.

@JackieWeaversZoomAc

Gosh just had a look on Twitter. Does no one on "the left" in USA engage in critical though or give a fuck about vulnerable children?

If they have been through the college in the last 10 years they'll have had it drilled out of them.

@Justhadathought

Rand Paul mentioned that street children were maybe vulnerable to being rushed through the medicalisd trans path? What is this about? Anyone know?

I was a shocked by this too. I have no idea what this is about and want to know more too.

Rand Paul mentioned that street children were maybe vulnerable to being rushed through the medicalisd trans path? What is this about? Anyone know?

I don't know about street children, but there have certainly been reports of very high incidences of children in care being put on trans pathways. I believe this is one of Jenn Smith's particular campaign issues in Canada.

It seems intuitively likely that this is a probable outcome. All the factors converge: troubled children, relatively high likely of history of abuse, high exposure to institutions that have been captured by the ideology, high exposure to other troubled children for contagion, no stable family to push back against those institutions.

I can't find it now, but I think I saw a headline suggesting that homeless transgender people would/might get free surgery in the US under new legislation.

I think there are large numbers of homeless transgender minors/young people in the US. Plus poor legislation to protect them getting access to healthcare and accommodation.

How have we got to this point where middle aged adult males, most of whom have no genital surgery can push drugs and surgery onto children without question.

This^
There is no need to assume anything nefarious per se, but middle-aged people with unresolved dysphoria/other issues just aren't the right people to make these decisions about children whose dysphoria won't necessarily persist into adulthood.
It's absurd.

I think there are large numbers of homeless transgender minors/young people in the US. Plus poor legislation to protect them getting access to healthcare and accommodation

Of course, young people run away from troubled home lives, and I suspect many who are identifying as trans might actually be gay; besides 'healthcare' surely does not mean young people being given surgical or hormonal treatments for what most likely amounts to mental and emotional health issues.

I think there are large numbers of homeless transgender minors/young people in the US. Plus poor legislation to protect them getting access to healthcare and accommodation

And, apparently, no legislation to provide them with a safeguarding framework so that extreme ideological gender activists working in for-profit medicine cannot take advantage of their gender confusion, which will be accompanied by multiple comorbid issues such as abuse and trauma - why they are homeless in the first place.