Sen. Rand Paul shining a light on Biden's blind spot re children transitioning

[HBGKC]

This is Biden's nominee for Assistant Health Secretary of Health & Human Services, refusing to answer a very simple question about whether minors can consent to genital mutilation surgery:

I hope that link works. Horrifying.

Mmmmm. That should help things along nicely.

This just upsets me so much. I can't believe anyone hearing that exchange wouldn't feel horrified.

Effectively, 'confirm me and I'll answer the question'.

Or, 'saying nothing looks bad but saying that I actually favour letting children destroy their fertility and sexual function before they understand what that even is and without their parents' consent will sound far worse'.

Is there any chance Levine won't be confirmed?

Have you seen the way the media is reporting this? “Awful transphobia” apparently. Not sure how we got to a place where questioning unnecessary surgery on children is considered bigoted. Scary

@Chipsandchesses

Have you seen the way the media is reporting this? “Awful transphobia” apparently. Not sure how we got to a place where questioning unnecessary surgery on children is considered bigoted. Scary

I've seen the news stories in Twitter. And I've seen the right kicking they're getting in the replies. Useful sunlight.

Rand Paul is a horrible man.

He opposes maternity pay.
He opposes insured contraception.
He opposes widening medicare.
He is VERY anti abortion.
He opposes free nursery provision.
He opposes after school clubs.
He voted against COVID bail outs
He supports locking up child migrants.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The US is so in tank for trans mythology, I despair.

And instead of not confirming this pinhead, you watch, they'll keep on bullying the highly qualified Neera Tanden for being "mean" to them. The media will both-sides the stuffing out of it and the general public will put their luxury belief pin a bit higher on their lapels.

It's almost like they have no trouble figuring out who's female.

I often wonder whether this is how my parents felt about, I dunno, gay rights. Or anything else we now consider uncontroversial. It's depressing, because of course I think it's mental, but it's how things are going to be.

In a word, no. It's not how your parents felt about gay rights. I'm probably old enough to be your grandparent, so I was there.

The big difference is gay rights were never taking anything away from anyone else. The problem was people wanting to tell gays & lesbians how to live. Not the other way around.

Trans activists are trying to make everybody else use their language, their rules, their beliefs. Gays never did that. So it felt completely different.

Gay people just didn’t want to be prosecuted for being attracted to people of the same sex. Gay people never insisted that they share a prison cell with someone of a different sex, that if they are male that they stood in women’s competitions or races and gay men never asked to enter women’s changing rooms or toilets.

Previous thread

Senator Rand Paul questions Rachel Levine about puberty blockers www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4176775-Senator-Rand-Paul-questions-Rachel-Levine-about-puberty-blockers

But what can we actually do? We're the majority and we are bullied by a zeitgeist. The deputy editor of vogue is a very aggressive trans woman who wrote on twitter that she'd love to get pregnant becaaue it'd piss off the right people.

@Ohnomoreno

I often wonder whether this is how my parents felt about, I dunno, gay rights. Or anything else we now consider uncontroversial. It's depressing, because of course I think it's mental, but it's how things are going to be.

I think this just represents the fact that America has some very deep rooted problems.

People who call themselves 'progressives' are unable to recognise a conflict of rights because it doesn't fit their privileged understanding of the world.

Rand Paul couldn't care less about anyone's rights, but the flaws in the progressive argument are so obvious that he can use them to own the libs.

Thanks for the link to the other thread, @WarriorN. (I'd had a quick look for one but didn't see it.)

@merrymouse "People who call themselves 'progressives' are unable to recognise a conflict of rights because it doesn't fit their privileged understanding of the world.

Rand Paul couldn't care less about anyone's rights, but the flaws in the progressive argument are so obvious that he can use them to own the libs."

Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly. USians in general seem incapable of dealing with conflicts of rights. They always seem to decide one has absolute precedence instead. Religion uber alles. Or free speech absolutism. And when it inevitably causes trouble, the only solution they seem able to envision is to run in circles, shouting "What to do? What to do?"

What professional or personal qualities does Levine have to bring to the role? Hoping USA-based MNers can make a case for the defence.

I know Levine as the one who was pilloried on social media for being the ultimate person in charge when Pennsylvania released their covid advice about what to do "if you attend a large gathering where you might end up having sex".

[Link so you can read the whole thing in context: www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Guidance/Sexual-Health.aspx]

I could see what was being aimed at with the document, but I thought that overall, it risked leaving a reader (who wouldn't have met up with someone off tinder otherwise) with the impression that shagging strangers could be made low-risk if you avoided kissing while you were doing it.

Sorry, broke the link

www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Guidance/Sexual-Health.aspx

Trump just gave a speech at CPAC and specifically said “We must protect the integrity of women’s sports.” So it looks like the Republicans will be focusing on this issue.

Nothing Rand Paul said was incorrect - for once - but in the US media this is being reported as a hatefully transphobic line of questioning. I saw a Democrat politician that I generally have high regard for describing it as an ‘utterly grotesque question’ to ask.

He was right in one way: the language Paul used sounded grotesque but only because he was shining the light of day on procedures that Levine and her supporters believe under-18s should have the right to opt for without any parental involvement. The entire process of medicalisation of gender non-confirming behavior is grotesque but we are not allowed to question it and even mentioning the procedures involved or questioning their safety is considered morally wrong, somehow.

The reasons the right may focus on it are threefold

1. They want to keep strict gender roles for men and women (the main one)
2. They know that plenty of left leaning people don't agree with it and so will split their opposition
3. They know that when ordinary people start to understand what it all means they'll think it's ridiculous

I don't think the right want to keep strict gender controls for women. This is just left wing fear mongering. And the list of what makes Rand Paul horrible is mostly silly. I would say that the right is interested in liberty, freedom of belief, personal responsibility and limited government. Candace Owens is interesting and brave with quite a bit of reach. That does not mean I agree with everything she says.

Candace Owens is interesting and brave with quite a bit of reach. .

Her views on Harry Styles in a dress are the exact opposite of what GC feminists believe. She very much does believe in gendered roles.

She isn’t interesting or brave. She has just found a lucrative market telling people who watch OAN what they want to hear about race.

She very much does believe in gendered roles.

Actually who knows what she believes. She knew that her target market would approve of the view she expressed.

I don't think the right want to keep strict gender controls for women.
Abortion
Maternity pay
Childcare
Ante natal treatment
Yup the American right REALLY want women to have control over their bodies and lives

Candace Owens is interesting and brave with quite a bit of reach. That does not mean I agree with everything she says
Fully agree with this, Candace Owens is a Black woman who has the right to her opinions due to her lived experience and to express herself freely.
I find the lefts attempt to attribute her opinions to pandering both racist and infantalising. The funniest thing is the contortions to try and paint her as some sort of "Black" White Supremacist. Candace was on fire on Tucker last night
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvWrBSkesU