Trans journalist Erin Reed called Douthat’s interview “hostile” and noted that El-Sayed previously stood up for trans rights when asked in August by Fox News’ Jesse Watters whether he supports “sex changes for minors.” El- Sayed replied, “The government shouldn’t tell you what kind of health care you should have, and if you’re a minor, that’s between you and your doctor and your parents.”
In September, a state university student asked about his position on gender-affirming care. El-Sayed answered, “I don’t think the government gets to have a say about what health care is provided in what circumstances and why.”
Reed also praised El-Sayed for remaining steadfastly committed to trans rights at a time when other Democratic politicians have adopted right-wing framing, saying they oppose government-funded surgeries for trans kids (something that almost never occurs) and “biological men in women’s sports” (an inaccurate and insulting reference to trans girls and women athletes who want to play on sports teams matching their gender identity).
“El-Sayed’s race will be one of the most important to watch on election night,” Reed wrote. “If he can win a highly contested seat despite the anti-transgender Republican money spent against him and the attacks from the right-leaning wing of his own party, it will be a clear case that embracing anti-trans views is not required to win swing states and swing districts across the United States.”
On his campaign website, under the heading “Healthcare Freedom for Women and LGBTQ+ Americans,” El-Sayed wrote, “Healthcare decisions should be made by a patient (and their parents if they are a minor) and their doctor–no one else. That includes reproductive and gender-affirming care…. I oppose any effort to criminalize certain medications and the use of lawfare or funding cuts to stop healthcare providers from providing full-spectrum healthcare that meet all the needs of their diverse communities.”
This is the most braindead take I have ever heard. What if someone owns a bathroom and decides that not only can trans people not use it, but they don’t want black people to use it, or jews, or muslims, or christians. People can just discriminate however they want because they own something? Also governments can absolutely own things you fucking dipshit, public property is clearly a thing, all over the world. I’m honestly hoping your a bot because I cannot imagine a living breathing human being that is this fucking stupid.
Yes, lol. It isn’t for you to decide how someone else can use their property. The only thing you need to concern yourself with is if they are using it to violate the will of others per a logical order of operations.
For example, if Joe owns his bathroom, he absolutely can say black people can’t use it. It’s his bathroom. What he can’t do would be to shoot a black person with his gun. The reasons for each of these are logical and follow a very particular pattern of reasoning predicated on whether or not either is an initiated action against another’s preexisting will or not.
Public property is a misnomer. You are so very wrong and I hope you rethink your positions in light of how very inaccurate about the fundamental, logical aspects of reality that you’re so wrong about.
What exactly is this “logical order of operations” you’re referring to? Can you define its premises and demonstrate how you draw your conclusions from them?
You also declare that “public property is a misnomer” without offering a single argument to support that assertion. There is quite a large body of legal precedent that says otherwise.
Your entire response seems to consist of declaring your opinions to be fundamental truths, wrapping them in unnecessarily convoluted language, and then insisting that anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand logic.
That’s not logical reasoning. That’s intellectual posturing.
I’d be genuinely interested in seeing you express your argument as a set of clearly defined premises and a conclusion. Preferably without using the word “logical” as a substitute for actually demonstrating logic.