February 27, 2021

"Do you support the government’s intervening to override the parent’s consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or amputation surgery of breasts and genitalia?"

That was Rand Paul's question to Rachel Levine, Biden’s nominee for assistant health secretary. He's quoted at "The Absurd Criticism of Rand Paul’s Rachel Levine Questioning" (National Review). 

It's a precise question. If it can't be answered, why can't it be answered? If it's an outrageous question, that must be because the answer is plainly "no," so why couldn't Levine forthrightly say "no"? There are some questions where the right answer is to refuse to answer — for example questions that nose into an individual's private life — but was Rand Paul's question a question like that? Is anyone making a clear statement of why these were questions that should not have been dignified with answers?

199 comments:

Lewis Wetzel said...

I don't think that is Levine's natural hair color.

tim in vermont said...

Clearly Paul’s question was hate speech and not protected by 1A.

Iman said...

What a character. Sickness dressed up in taffeta and curls.

Lurker21 said...

Rachel isn't rocking the whole chick thing.

My first thought was "forgotten character actor Richard Deacon."

Though TV tranny Jeffrey Tambor is in there as well.

Tell Biden he muffed it not giving the job to LaVerne Cox.

tim maguire said...

Won’t be confirmed. And we have Senator Paul to thank. It might even be a turning point in “transphobe studies” as people get to see just how deranged trans rights activists have become.

Fernandinande said...

You can read Levine's worthless, evasive non-answers in this transcript.

Senator Paul: (04:13)
"Let it go into the record that the witness refused to answer the question."

DavidUW said...

He can’t answer the question because his answer is yes and that might reflect poorly on slow Joe and the Ho and the trannie/denial of reality lobby.

Mikey NTH said...

Because there is no honest answer that can be given that wouldn't outrage millions of people.

RMc said...

It's a precise question. If it can't be answered, why can't it be answered?

Because shut up, racist.

MayBee said...

Trans activists are among the most intransigent activists. Nothing is allowed to be publicly questioned. But I have a lot of questions! Adults can go ahead and do what they want. But children? Children are whimsical and their lives shouldn't be set on a path they can't return from.

With the trans activists, we went fro 0 to 100 really really fast.

Whiskeybum said...

Corporal Max Klinger could really give Levine some tips on appearance.

KJE said...

What does the science say about all this?

Leland said...

If it's an outrageous question, that must be because the answer is plainly "no," so why couldn't Levine forthrightly say "no"?

Because the answer is "yes". I'm not sure why the answer is plainly "no", when Democrats support government overriding parent's consent to an abortion including obtaining and using abortion pills. It is a silly government in which kids can't even have cough drops without parental consent, but can take permanent life altering drugs without parents knowledge.

rhhardin said...

It's a gotcha question, where either answer gets you in trouble owing to your position.

I myself have no position because I haven't thought about it and have no responsibility for having one.

Probably her best answer is that you guys are the legislators, not me.

Odds are that the kid is wrong about it, though.

Lucid-Ideas said...

It couldn't say no because he is a ghoul. He can't do a lot of things - because he is mentally Ill - but boatloads of enablers will defend his dodging a forthright question because like him, they too are ill.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

She regurgitated the same rehearsed non-answer twice.

What garbage.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Stop. Using. Her.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

the corrupt left and the woke left agree - you are not allowed to ask leftist cretins any questions. Just worhsip blindly.

Glen Filthie said...

What a farce. It’s time to stretch necks.

Breezy said...

There is nothing nuanced about life altering surgery.

Browndog said...

So, one guy wants an answer to a simple question, and the other guy says it's too complicated to answer in public, but is willing for both guys sit down in private to explain all the nuances involved in answering a simple question.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

If it's an outrageous question, that must be because the answer is plainly "no," so why couldn't Levine forthrightly say "no"?

Because that would piss off the current Democrat base that expects the Biden administration to actively promote transgenderism?

wendybar said...

It's sick. Let the CHILD be a child. When he or she turns 18, they can decide for themselves. Until then, it is child abuse.

Lewis Wetzel said...

So much of what the Democrats do these days seem based on the idea "This will be a thumb in the eye of Trump and his supporters!" In MN, I think that the election of Ellison as state AG and Ilhan Omar were a direct result of this.
But hating people isn't a philosophy for governance.
If Leftism is a religion, it is a religion based on hate & retribution rather than love and forgiveness.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

He/she is a check box for the Woke left's American decline into insanity.

Oso Negro said...

The better question might have been "should the government require removal of all male genitalia at birth?". Think of the planet and how many problems could be solved.

donald said...

Anytime you refer to this fat dude as she, or her or anything else, you are wrong.

daskol said...

It is a question that should make even the dour looking Marx smile. If you're wondering who the hero, romantic revolutionaries are in this drama, ask where the contradictions being heightened reside, and who's doing the heightening now, assholes.

chuck said...

Baal hasn't aged well.

daskol said...

Rand Paul unfortunately has a dweeby look about him that there's little he can do about, but he has learned to bring the rhetorical zing.

BUMBLE BEE said...

AFAIK, they're all Bozos on that bus.

chickelit said...

When did Rachel Levine escape from that Quaker Oats label?

Transparency for thee but not for me.

Amexpat said...

Fair question and one that needs to be asked. Levine had a deer in the headlights moment when Rand didn't accept her boilerplate evasive answer.

Another question is what role are the pharmaceutical companies playing in promoting these expensive treatments? They've already promoted the medicating of healthy active kids who can't sit still during boring school days.

Browndog said...

It's worse than you can even imagine-

Read this provision in the Equality Act the democrats are trying to make law

Yes, they will take your kids if you object.

gilbar said...

in iowa, a minor can't get a tattoo (i'm pretty sure, not even WITH parental approval)
Why? Because a tattoo is something they'd HAVE TO LIVE WITH for THE REST OF THEIR LIFE

BUT! Castration? sure, why not! No need to tell your folks

Christopher said...

When I was a kid in the 1960's, it was easy to envision a world with radically less race discrimination--Loving v. Virginia was 1967--and fuller participation of women in public life.

To be clear, those are good things.

But who, other than a lunatic, could have predicted this insanity. And this is just one flavor.

May God protect us from the convulsions to come.


Tom T. said...

As the Department of Health director in PA, Levine moved her own aged mother to a hotel before ordering nursing homes to accept COVID patients.

wendybar said...

When did Rachel Levine escape from that Quaker Oats label?

I was wondering why it looked so familiar!!!

Ann Althouse said...

To talk about Levine's looks is to fall for a distraction. I've framed what I think is the important issue, and it doesn't have *anything* to do with Levine's looks or Levine's status as a transgender.

Ann Althouse said...

Here are my questions:

"It's a precise question. If it can't be answered, why can't it be answered? If it's an outrageous question, that must be because the answer is plainly "no," so why couldn't Levine forthrightly say "no"? There are some questions where the right answer is to refuse to answer — for example questions that nose into an individual's private life — but was Rand Paul's question a question like that? Is anyone making a clear statement of why these were questions that should not have been dignified with answers?"

And I'll add some more: Do you think the answers to these questions are affected by Levine's status as a transgender? That is, does she get a special privilege not to answer, because it's an outrage to ask her? Are nominees for govt positions entitled to refuse to answer questions when they have a personal, emotional stake in the topic under discussion? Can a President cut off certain lines of inquiry by nominating a person with a special status privilege in the subject?

Michael said...

Her appearance has nothing to do with her unwillingness to answer Paul’s very basic question. Of course it is preposterous to permit children to make these decisions and to answer otherwise or fail to answer at all is revealing. It would do no disservice to transgenders to have answered the question by saying of course children should not make these decisions or be subject to these treatments. They can and must wait until they are adults at which time they can ruin their lives as they wish.

Lurker21 said...

But isn't a transgender person under pressures that another nominee might not be subject to?

Is it harder for a transperson to duck the question than it would be for a cisperson?

Maybe Biden should have appointed Ralph Northam and then we'd hear that the child should be kept comfortable and resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desire.

RoseAnne said...

Yes, it was a reasonable question to be asked. If it were asked of Dr. Levine as an everyday person who happened to be transgender, then I would have no problem in her refusing to answer the question. However, in the position that she is applying for, it is not only a reasonable question but a critical one. The fact she did not answer would be troubling if I had to vote yes or no on her getting the job.

Narr said...

I want to be on record as proposing that the creature Levine be drowned.

Narr
In a latrine

Drago said...

Althouse: "It's a precise question. If it can't be answered, why can't it be answered?"

Why this charade?

You know perfectly well why he/"she" wont answer.

The marxist/maoists are far along in their boiling of the frog and utter destruction of objective truth but are not quite yet comfortable being completely honest about their true End State intentions so Double Speak/Green Grocer Creation continues apace.

Tina Trent said...

It was entirely rational for Rand Paul to ask the question, and he framed it well. He’s a smart guy.

I also think he would ask the same question of a non-transgender nominee because the Biden Administration has made it clear that they are submitting to the radicals on all issues transgender including mutilation of children’s reproductive abilities, and Paul’s also a very consistent guy.

If Biden or whoever does his thinking for him believed that putting up a transgender nominee would silence legislators who oppose the radical political trans agenda, they lost this round. I like Rand Paul more and more.

Having worked to pass the anti-FGM law in Georgia, I’m anticipating the pro-FGM lobby to be jumping into bed with the radical transgenders to get their right to mutilate little girls back. The intersectional opportunities are limitless.

Drago said...

This dude was specifically put in this position to obfuscate the issue until such time as sufficient Enabling Laws can be enacted to remove all parental rights and make illegal any "thought crimes"/opposition to marxist dictates.

Yes.

Its just that simple.

But lets pretend we have to delve deep to understand what is happening wholesale across our entire society.

Drago said...

Tina: "Having worked to pass the anti-FGM law in Georgia, I’m anticipating the pro-FGM lobby to be jumping into bed with the radical transgenders to get their right to mutilate little girls back."

The left has long been pro-FGM (at Althouse as well) as they genuflect at all radical islamic practices.

chickelit said...

Ann Althouse said...To talk about Levine's looks is to fall for a distraction. I've framed what I think is the important issue, and it doesn't have *anything* to do with Levine's looks or Levine's status as a transgender.

That's rich. You were all on board with poking a little fun at Rand Paul's hair: link

Maybe YOU are granting license to the Quaker Oats guy because he's transgender.

mockturtle said...

Levine's looks are more than a distraction. They are emblematic of his/her mental derangement regarding his/her identity. Someone so obviously confused should not be making important decisions regarding children.

And gender manipulation of anyone under 18 is child abuse by the parents and anyone else who participates.

Achilles said...

Lucid-Ideas said...

Stop. Using. Her.

Let her call herself whatever she wants.

Just don't let her play in women's sports.

Priorities are important here.

Ann Althouse said...

If you try to figure out why she won't answer, it's not easy. Here are some different ideas:

1. Complete disgust with Paul for trying to make an issue out this. Pure resistance. He doesn't deserve an answer. He's grandstanding. Playing to the deplorables. Best to regard him as a nonperson.

2. It's a question that should be studied in detail, the extent to which the government ought to intervene to protect children. Paul didn't ask, whether govt has the power to regulate this matter, but whether it ought to do something right now. It would be wrong to give a yes/no answer to that.

3. There really does need to be government regulation here, so the answer is, in fact, yes, but transgender activists would blow up if they got a yes, so it's best to be discreet here and not stir up resistance to what really will need to be done.

daskol said...

I think Rand Paul showed stones in asking the question because the implication of Althouse's question above is, I suspect, the main reason to center Levine: it's risky in our era to put such a question to a trans woman, because you're guilty of doing violence by speech in triggering what must be difficult thoughts in her mind. Sorta like how if girls insisted too strongly that only biological girls could compete in girls' sports, they'd be doing violence to the trans girls in their midst by being so exclusionary.

daskol said...

I think she won't answer because the answer she wants to give is "no," but she's smart enough to know that you don't say the quiet part out loud. That's probably the main qualification for a candidate after race/gender considerations, that they know what they're not supposed to say out loud.

MayBee said...

She can not answer because the activist dogma is this: Nobody makes a choice to be trans. You are born a gender and sometimes your genetalia and appearance do not match the gender you actually are. That's why they come up with convolutions like "dead names" or now retroactively refer to Bruce Jenner as Caitlyn or Ellen/Elliot Page as a "he", even in movies like Juno.
If it isn't a choice, but a correction, then no it can't wait.

But that is a story and not science, so Rachel Levine knows answering it in public will not sound right to the average American who really does not care if adults want to be transgendered but don't buy into all the mythology around the trans rights people.

Kate said...

This is not a professional hairstyle. I don't care if you're a natal woman or a transwoman. You're before Congress as an appointee. You go to a professional salon and get a style, or you wear it up and contained. Yes, I should focus on the questions and the issues, but I won't. The hair is too distracting.

Ask if that's her objective in presenting something so juvenile.

MayBee said...


3. There really does need to be government regulation here, so the answer is, in fact, yes, but transgender activists would blow up if they got a yes, so it's best to be discreet here and not stir up resistance to what really will need to be done.


I propose she would like to answer:

4. Children should be given gender reassignment surgery and medications, but most Americans aren't really on board with that, so she isn't going to answer it in public.

RoseAnne said...

1. Dr. Rand Paul is a medical doctor so I don't see this as working as well as if it were a different legislator who was a businessperson. A different candidate (Neera Tandem?) had previously stated that "Republicans don't believe in science". The OB-GYN, orthopedic surgeon, and one other medical specialist on that committee challenged the comment.

Dr. Levine is not answering the question because "yes" is the answer and they "don't" plan on seeking a government regulation. If Executive Orders work for everything else, why bother.

Bob Boyd said...

These are not policy questions that should be considered in a public forum. The public should be told whatever soothes them while the policy is decided by the experts behind closed doors.
That rascal Rand Paul is not a Prog. Airing these issues in public throws a wrench in the Prog motorwerkins, which is obviously not in the interest of the greater good.
But don't worry, the press will keep the damage to a minimum, the closed door meetings will take place, followed by appropriate treatments for the children.

Bob Boyd said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
I don't think that is Levine's natural hair color.

Maybe you should take a peek.

MayBee said...

The President who just signed an executive order so that males can participate in female athletics has *not* chosen a trans person to be Assistant Health Secretary because she is *conservative* about trans issues.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...

If you try to figure out why she won't answer, it's not easy. Here are some different ideas:

1. Complete disgust with Paul for trying to make an issue out this. Pure resistance. He doesn't deserve an answer. He's grandstanding. Playing to the deplorables. Best to regard him as a nonperson.


Ad Hom. Terrible Reason. Watching the testimony Levine didn't address any of the question in good faith so I am leaning 1.

2. It's a question that should be studied in detail, the extent to which the government ought to intervene to protect children. Paul didn't as whether govt has the power to regulate this matter, but whether it ought to do something right now. It would be wrong to give a yes/no answer to that.

That isn't the answer Levine gave. Levine was an ass. There are complexities to this question and she refused to even bother with Paul's legitimate concerns.

There should always be an argument against use of the government monopoly on force. It has to be considered even if it ultimately ends up being wrong.

3. There really does need to be government regulation here, so the answer is, in fact, yes, but transgender activists would blow up if they got a yes, so it's best to be discreet here and not stir up resistance to what really will need to be done.

I think 1. was in Levine's mind. If it was 3 then she would have addressed the concerns.

Even I think there needs to be government intervention here. I find this question hard. You have to take this to the logical termination:

Are you willing to lock up a 14 year old in a cell and restrain them so they cannot mutilate themselves until they are 18?

Are you going to force a 14 year old to go to therapy to convince them they do not want to mutilate themselves for years?

The answer might be yes. But everyone here blindly raging about the fat guy in a dress needs to sit down and think about what they are saying and what it means.

Ann Althouse said...

You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks. Everyone is wearing a costume. 20 to 60% of people have silly hair...

Achilles said...

I would have liked to see Rand Paul answer those questions.

Ray - SoCal said...

Kudos to Rand Paul for showing some balls in his questioning.

I no wonder if there is any treatment possible for the wimpy ness of other gop members to question the narrative.

They are afraid of being labeled transphobic.

Gahrie said...

Is anyone making a clear statement of why these were questions that should not have been dignified with answers?

I will. Because the answers would make the Left look bad.

mockturtle said...

You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks. Everyone is wearing a costume. 20 to 60% of people have silly hair...

With all due respect, Professor, you are the one who consistently fails to notice the elephant in the room.

RoseAnne said...

The question was "puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and/or amputation". Not about any other options.

Those are not the ONLY 3 choices the 14 year old has, but they are ones that carry a lifetime health risk.

And, there is no guarantee that the 14 year old will not harm themselves even if they get the treatment.

Tina Trent said...

The hearing is in fact about asking this question, because Levine has been very outspoken in promoting a radical trans agenda that involves government intervention with homeless and foster care kids, and government intervention to impose the trans agenda on schoolchildren, and even government intervention that can come between parents and children to make medical decisions.

Rand Paul was doing his job. He was the only person in that room doing the job they were sent to that room to do, including and especially Levine.

This is going to screw up the anti-FGM code section. How ironic. We were the first state to pass that law, and it wasn’t all that long ago. If you had told me then that I would be watching the male trans lobby pushing an agenda to legalize mutilating children...well, I wouldn’t have been the least bit surprised, because I was fully aware of the trans lobby’s open hatred of “breeders,” especially women, by 1997 at the latest. I had to sit through quite a few meetings with this one guy who referred to heterosexuals as “breeders.” If they can officially change my gender to the slur “cis” anything, I can ask my elected official to ask them about it.

Bob Boyd said...

You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks.

Or we're just having fun. Deplorables will do that, you know.
I have silly hair myself, but the good news is, there's less of it all the time.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Stop. Using. She. Do not participate in the lie. Do not give up your agency.

Stop.

daskol said...

Lucid-Ideas, I take it you don't like it when people tell you pronouns to use, so kinda funny you're explicitly telling others what pronouns to use. It's one thing if the state or even private entities compel the use of certain pronouns. Humoring another person's delusion can simply be good manners, and is increasingly necessary these days in the conduct of social intercourse, although I suspect that it ever has been.

Yancey Ward said...

I don't think the question was properly formatted because I don't think the yes/no line is clear. I see how all of you have interpreted it to mean that Paul was asking Levine whether the government has an interest in having the power of overturning the parents' consent to hormone blockers and surgical sex changing.

I don't read Paul's question in this way- I read it the other way- that Paul was asking whether the government should have the power to override the parents' decision when the parents' haven't consented to the procedures. Tell me why I am wrong?

unknown said...

“You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks. Everyone is wearing a costume. 20 to 60% of people have silly hair...”

“Did he mean women should all adopt a feminine fashion style? I don't know. I'd object to that, even though I think we should be able to talk about how people look. But you ought to let them choose how they want to present themselves, so don't criticize them for failing to do something they're not trying to do. If a woman is going for a boyish look, talk about whether it's a nicely done boyish look. You're a jerk to talk about how it's not feminine.”

If a man is going for a girly look, can we talk about whether it's a nicely done girly look?

daskol said...

The phenomenon of successful, often high intelligence, often high T men going trans is fascinating. He's a controversial guy who is now published at a very controversial platform, but you could do worse than burn a few hours exploring Steve Sailer's posting history on this topic, which goes back many years to a high powered tech/satellite entrepreneurs he knew personally. I won't post the link because it would probably attract the eye of Sauron, but it's interesting stuff.

daskol said...

I don't read Paul's question in this way- I read it the other way- that Paul was asking whether the government should have the power to override the parents' decision when the parents' haven't consented to the procedures. Tell me why I am wrong?

He definitely asked it the other way, which was about whether the gov can override a parent's consent. And that is the more interesting question, because if you put it other way, it's easy to wiggle out by saying that's an over-extension of govt authority. Here, to make that claim would be to heighten the contradiction between contemporary progressive ideology and every sane human in America who thinks it's wrong to let a 14 yo mutilate his or her genitals or breasts or endocrine system.

JaimeRoberto said...

"does she get a special privilege not to answer, because it's an outrage to ask her?"

The Dems think so. That's the whole reason behind the first black, first woman, first gay, first trans propaganda. If you ask a hard question or criticize these people you are racist, misogynist, homophobic or transphobic. It's a shield.

Yancey Ward said...

"I won't post the link because it would probably attract the eye of Sauron, but it's interesting stuff."

It probably really does attract the Eye. I use Google Chrome as my browser, and every single lately when I go the Sailer's blog, the browser informs me it is checking that site out before taking me there. This started almost a month ago.

Yancey Ward said...

Daskol,

Yeah, I wasn't clear myself in the comment. I took Paul to be asking whether the government could override the requirement of consent from the parents. In short, I thought he was asking if the government, either at the executive or judicial level should have the power to give the consent when the parents won't.

Yancey Ward said...

If some other senator had asked the question, I would probably have read it the way others have here, but not when Rand Paul asks it.

Lewis Wetzel said...

To understand why the Dems are so crazy, you have to look at the people who select their candidates. There are guarantees that large numbers of these delegates are drawn from people who identify as belonging to groups profoundly alienated from American society.
That is why Democrats cannot simply say that they love America. It is because they hate America.

Yancey Ward said...

I read it this way because it is exactly what a great number of trans activists want- the ability to override the parents who refuse to give their children such treatments.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...

You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks. Everyone is wearing a costume. 20 to 60% of people have silly hair...

I think this was calculated. This was the democrats learning from Trump.

They put this ridiculous caricature on TV to generate a reaction. Levine purposely attempted to look as ridiculous as possible and still sit behind a desk.

And obviously people are falling for it.

Yancey Ward said...

I think this issue should be easily settled- people have to wait until they are legal adults to mutilate themselves in this manner. If a child wanted to be a paraplegic, should we allow them to be surgically paralyzed? Of course not. If a child wanted to be blind, should we allow their optic nerves to be severed? Of course not.

J Melcher said...

[D]oes she get a special privilege not to answer, because it's an outrage to ask her? Are nominees for govt positions entitled to refuse to answer questions when they have a personal, emotional stake in the topic under discussion? Can a President cut off certain lines of inquiry by nominating a person with a special status privilege in the subject?

No. No. No.

Nor does Paul get special authority as an MD to ASK the questions. He has the same authority as any other Senator -- or journalist, for that matter. No more, no less.

Nominee has the same responsibility to respond. No more, no less. Sometimes the response will be "no comment". Which is itself a form of comment.

The public might expect rules on tattoos, abortion, and trans-assignment surgery to be consistent but the legislature is under no obligation to meet those expectations. The public does have the authority to insist POLICY questions be debated in the LEGISLATURE; no decided by underlings in the executive bureaucracy.

Isn't this a state's issue, just like cannabis, abortion, "stand your ground /castle doctrine" and other controversial issues? Why does the federal government have any authority to impose a top-down, one-size-fits-all, policy on this?




daskol said...

Still easier for Levine to wiggle out of that by saying that's the govt going too far, thereby evading the trap laid by Paul. I bet if Paul had gotten a response saying yes, the govt can intervene to override parental consent in this case, he would have followed up using the other case: can the govt override parental LACK of consent to a less invasive example of trans behavior (e.g. if a boy declares trans and wants to play girls' sports).

donald said...

Everything about Levine is about mental illness AND “transgender”. The only serious issue here is how a completely mentally disturbed male is being proposed for any serious position.

daskol said...

He's already established that she believes govt has legit power to override parental consent.

DavidUW said...

AA--
You're reading way too much into this.
Levine is not intelligent, nor subtle.

He refused to answer the question because he knows his answer, which is "Yes, the government should override parents who refuse to accommodate their children's temporary mental illness with permanent drug/surgical treatment," is not popular, nor the "centrist" illusion the *Biden junta wishes to maintain.

If you don't believe that's his answer, you're being obtuse on this issue. Levine is on record supporting hormones and surgery on children with this mental illness. Period. That's his viewpoint and why Paul asked the question.



Francisco D said...

Where is "Science" in this debate?

Do 15 year olds have the cognitive and emotional capacity to make life altering decisions based on current fads?

Research Psychologists know the answer but they risk being cancelled if they speak out.

walter said...

chickelit said...When did Rachel Levine escape from that Quaker Oats label?
--
Don't give Quaker any ideas! (They compete against Wheaties)
Paul should have begun with allusion to background "she" brings to the position, then asked her, based on her disorder specialty, whether she wanted to transform the food pyramid. People need to know.

"It's a precise question."
It was..surgical.

mockturtle said...

J Melcher @10:57 AM: I concur that this should be a state decision but should parents be forced to move to another state to protect their child from this insanity?

Tina Trent said...

J Melcher: the government is planning to pressure the states using DOJ, DOE and HHS funding to push this agenda through multiple agencies, just as they do with all “gender” ideology agendas. So it’s the carrot or the stick, and no state is structured to refuse the money. This is going to be devastating for foster kids and others with neglectful parents. Child protection workers are already aware that the pool of good adoptive and foster homes will shrink dramatically because a lot of these folks are religious and they can’t afford to become targets of the Left. They’re quietly discussing this, but they don’t dare talk about it out loud. I know religious conservative groups who help kids and also CASA volunteers who are reconsidering their commitment too. I certainly wouldn’t go back to volunteering for CASA in this climate. The race stuff is difficult enough to navigate, but throw in open season by the gender radicals...

With this behavior, the Democrats have just added to the misery of the most defenseless among us — children in foster care or on the streets. They are utterly ruthless.

mockturtle said...

Imagine someone looking like Charles Manson, replete with a swastika on his forehead, sitting before a Senate committee deciding whether or not to let him make children's health decisions. Are they to ignore his appearance as a mere distraction?

Browndog said...

Yancey Ward said...

I think this issue should be easily settled- people have to wait until they are legal adults to mutilate themselves in this manner. If a child wanted to be a paraplegic, should we allow them to be surgically paralyzed? Of course not. If a child wanted to be blind, should we allow their optic nerves to be severed? Of course not.


Agreed. It needs to be banned in America.

People that say "well, so-and-so should decide.." have already lost the argument, and are complicit.

mockturtle said...

Daskol, you have obviously drunk the Kool-aid.

Narr said...

Achilles, I'm not following your objections, your "falling for it" observation.

Please clarify.

Narr
Somebody do a craniorectotomy on the creature Levine, stat!

Douglas B. Levene said...

Why did Lavine refuse to answer Senator Paul’s question? Reasons. Do you have any other questions?

mockturtle said...

More objectionable [to me, anyway] than the trans themselves, are the fawning leftist progressively enlightened ones who are still straining to see clothes on that naked emperor.

daskol said...

mock, are you hitting the vodka early on a saturday morning? which comment of mine inspires this take on my drinking habits?

Joe Smith said...

I watched a lot of the clips from this...it was equal parts chilling and fucking evil.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Democrat party. They all support this policy.

I want to know if Levine has gone 'all the way' with the transition.

If so, I would have more respect for her.

If not, it's just a guy playing dress-up.

Speaking of balls, Paul is one of the few Republicans who has them these days.

J Severs said...

That is what I call heavy shelling.

walter said...

Joe,
Reportedly, he is post-op.
MD Paul did not confirm.

Joe Smith said...

"Are nominees for govt positions entitled to refuse to answer questions when they have a personal, emotional stake in the topic under discussion? Can a President cut off certain lines of inquiry by nominating a person with a special status privilege in the subject?"

No! They have even MORE of a responsibility to act because they have a clear bias in one direction.

Related (sort of), I understood the strategy when RBG died to nominate a woman to replace her, but I found it juvenile. It's not the designated 'woman's seat' on the bench any more than the Senate seat from Massachusetts 'belonged' to Ted Kennedy.

Fucking politicians have turned themselves into royalty and we let them.

Joe Smith said...

"You're taking the bait if you talk about how Levine looks.

You are correct, it's an easy dig. But he Quaker Oats comment was funny.

Everyone is wearing a costume. 20 to 60% of people have silly hair...

Or none at all in my case : )

Scott Patton said...

My cynicism goes into overdrive with this stuff.
"1. Complete disgust with Paul for trying to make an issue out this. Pure resistance. He doesn't deserve an answer. He's grandstanding. Playing to the deplorables. Best to regard him as a nonperson."
That is the most charitable angle.
The point is forcing your enemies to pretend that they don't see what is in front of them - Baghdad Bob style. The point is not to believe Baghdad Bob. The point is to force us to act as if we believe him. From the twisted world view of some, Rand Paul's (and the rest of our) purpose on this planet is to think, see, do and speak as we are told.
When someone dares to do otherwise, the details are irrelevant to these people. If they had their way, Paul would be dragged out like the traitors in the 1979 Ba'ath Party Purge.
The best part is, they don't get to have their way, and it makes them increasingly desperate and obvious.

hpudding said...

It's an absurd question because it was asked by an ophthalmologist who thinks he's too good for membership in the national ophthalmology medical society - (having instead created one of his own over which he not only presides but is basically the only member) - and who now presumes to be above any professional medical guidelines issued by physicians working in transgender healthcare and actively treating these patients. This was nothing more than a show of feigned outrage by a guy who doesn't care to and couldn't figure out how to avoid contracting and spreading a deadly pandemic illness, and who must know better about the fact that irreversible surgeries aren't encouraged on minors. Contrast that with the social pressure "traditionally" exerted by physicians in the past who regularly mutilated intersex children as young as at birth in order to help them (surgically) "conform" to the basic gender binary.

Paul is a disgrace.

Lurker21 said...

Something about Pennsylvania:

Ben Franklin => Quaker Oats Guy => Rachel Levine

Sorry I can't say something serious about the issue, but it seems like she is inevitably part of the show, more than anything else. But it looks like she may not have addressed the issue either. And did she really rise this high because of professional competency? Or because of the box she checks?

Joe Smith said...

"He's grandstanding."

90% of a politician's job description.

"Stop. Using. She. Do not participate in the lie. Do not give up your agency."

If a former 'man' cuts off his cock and balls to live life as a woman, then I will give them their due. That shows quite a bit of commitment.

Who am I to say what people should be called?

People call me 'asshole,' 'motherfucker,' and 'moron' all the time even though those are not my name : )

DavidUW said...

From the twisted world view of some, Rand Paul's (and the rest of our) purpose on this planet is to think, see, do and speak as we are told.
>>
100% foretold by Orwell.
If it weren't trannies, it would be any issue where the answer is obvious to any thinking, sane individual, and trying to force those sane, thinking individuals to lie to themselves and the world. For power's sake. 2+2=5. You will say it. Once they force you to, they can force you to do anything.

Say it with me, thinking, sane people. Rachel Levine is a man, and a man who is quite probably insane. He is not a "her." I don't give a shit what a crazy man wants me to call him. Why? He's crazy. I don't take orders from people who are batshit insane.

This insane man will be in charge of the department of Health and Human Services where he will do insane things, like force boys and girls to shower together in schools. Why? Because he's crazy.

State the obvious.
Repeat the obvious.
Don't conform to the lies.

DavidUW said...

To the "bottom surgery" argument.

Eunuchs are still men. Emasculated, but men.

Whatever surgeries or "treatments" Levine has had do not change the fact that he is a man.

Gospace said...

A quick quote from a google search: For good measure, the lead interrogator also devises a test meant to inflict mental anguish: He points four bright lights at Picard and asks him, repeatedly, to say that there are five. (A clear homage to the four-vs. -five-fingers sequence in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.)

Is Rachel Levine a male or a female?

The truth, of course, is male.

What are you going to answer if asked? Four lights or five? Four fingers or five?

hpudding said...

Medicine has standards of care - standards which Paul generally thinks he's above and loves violating when it comes to pandemic management, and probably even in "his own" field of ophthalmology. He's not worth taking seriously when grandstanding about his own confusion between irreversible surgeries (not performed/generally permitted on children - though at one time they WERE, much to the supposed delight of the "traditionalists" who could force intersex newborns into a clear binary) and hormones, the effects of which are irreversible. His grandstanding also allowed him to confuse sex reassignment surgeries with clitoridectomies, by calling them "mutilation" or genital mutilation or something of the like - thereby throwing red meat to people consumed by hatred toward Muslims. Paul is contemptible and not worth taking seriously, in any of his careers.

Achilles said...

Narr said...

Achilles, I'm not following your objections, your "falling for it" observation.

Please clarify.

Narr
Somebody do a craniorectotomy on the creature Levine, stat!



There are serious issues here with no good answers. They need to be talked about honestly and with a great deal of care.

We are talking about taking a young person and locking them up in a straight jacket so they don't mutilate themselves. We are talking about forcing a person into therapy until they are at least 18. We are talking about having the government do these things to a person using the Government's monopoly on force.

There are other serious issues like what to do with adults who try to convince a young person to genitally mutilate themselves.

These are serious issues that the Democrats and the Regime DO NOT want to discuss. They just want it done.

If your goal that the Regime is pushing is to have people running around destroying the lives of young kids by leading them into decisions that permanently and quite effectively eliminate their ability to ever be happy for the 6-10 decades they can reasonably expect to live and creating a legion of disaffected victims that forever act in rage then I would put a fat ridiculous asshole in front of reasonable people like Rand Paul and create a circus.

And I would highlight all of the mean things that the people say about that fat ridiculous asshole and completely shunt off the considered discussion on the topic.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...


“To talk about Levine's looks is to fall for a distraction.”

Um, no. Not now and not historically.

Step back. Take a deep breath. Clear your head. Now look again.

Does what you’re seeing look like competent, rational government respectful of the nation it serves, or does it look like some wildly absurdist parody? How Levine looks is exactly the point. For both Right and Left. That’s what tokens are for.

walter said...

The question, as you frame it, is then whether Paul's question was "mean".
Or is it that even a reasonable question can be negated by a troll?
i.e. How would you suggest Paul question Rachel?

Howard said...

This is one of those one in a million issues that is so triggering to people on both sides that folks think there's some great national importance requiring government action.

It the flea on the tail wagging the dog.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

And, as much as they insist we celebrate this madness, there must be legions of Leftists who cringe at seeing Levine aired publicly. Lola he is not. Unless there’s some weird focus group data somewhere that says tranny-as-your-grandma is likely to elicit folk’s sympathy.

Achilles said...

hpudding said...

It's an absurd question because it was asked by an ophthalmologist who thinks he's too good for membership in the national ophthalmology medical society - (having instead created one of his own over which he not only presides but is basically the only member) - and who now presumes to be above any professional medical guidelines issued by physicians working in transgender healthcare and actively treating these patients. This was nothing more than a show of feigned outrage by a guy who doesn't care to and couldn't figure out how to avoid contracting and spreading a deadly pandemic illness, and who must know better about the fact that irreversible surgeries aren't encouraged on minors. Contrast that with the social pressure "traditionally" exerted by physicians in the past who regularly mutilated intersex children as young as at birth in order to help them (surgically) "conform" to the basic gender binary.

Paul is a disgrace.



This is the case in point Narr.

hpudding is completely unwilling to discuss these issues in good faith, make any compromises, or try to come to a solution that balances the disparate needs of the society.

hpudding is going to latch on to every joke told and use it to ignore the discussion until they get the power to inflict their will on everyone else.

Then they will punish you for being disobedient.

But you will have your fat jokes. What are those fat jokes good for? Did they accomplish any goals other than giving you a brief release of dopamine?

Dave Begley said...

It should be a crime to administer puberty blockers to children. I find it hard to believe doctors do this.

max said...

The real problem with Levine is she is not competent. She did a piss poor job as PA Health secretary.

https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/spl/rachel-levine-pennsylvania-nursing-homes-data-joe-biden-senate-confirmation-20210225.html

https://hosted.ap.org/thetimes-tribune/article/7f4438604ef33677ba131b9cdddf1f2d/covid-related-nursing-home-deaths-pennsylvania-fuel-blame

Lucid-Ideas said...

You don't have to use 'he'. You can use 'male'. Do not indulge it. He is not she. He is not her. I don't care what bastardization rationalization you want to use for the language. Everytime you rationalize and bastardized it you justify it.

I'm not even talking about tranbominations. I'm talking about any field where scientific description requires certainty and clarity. Like physics.

Males are not females. I will not use vowels and consonants that imply something contradictory. If you value implicit purity of essence and not form like I do you will agree.

Rabel said...

Yancy Ward wrote:

"I don't read Paul's question in this way- I read it the other way- that Paul was asking whether the government should have the power to override the parents' decision when the parents' haven't consented to the procedures. Tell me why I am wrong?"

You are correct.

mockturtle said...

Then they will punish you for being disobedient.

They don't have the power to punish us unless we give them that power. And every time we 'see' five fingers when four are held up, we give them more power. Resist, resist, resist!

Rabel said...

As far as appearance, Levine appears to be morbidly obese. She has been nominated for HHS Assistant Secretary for Health.

The new BMI charts should be interesting.

Will the new Food Pyramid have Strawberry Cheesecake as a base?

n.n said...

A question of normalizing trans-social, trans/neogender, trans/homosexual, and hybrids through indoctrination (e.g. social platforms, media outlets, classrooms, Progressive Churches/Synagogues/Offices/Clinics etc.) and physiological corruption (e.g. medical, psychiatric). From a real and imagined extreme to a real and progressive extreme with a risk of liberalization.

n.n said...

This is the difference between trans/homosexuals and trans/neogenders. Both are genderphobes to varying degrees, but the latter cannot reconcile their divergence from normal in their given physical state. This is the so-called stability argument given to support normalization of trans/homosexuals by politically congruent ("=") advocates and activists.

n.n said...

With the trans activists, we went fro 0 to 100 really really fast.

Once you go Pro-Choice, selective (e.g. wicked solution), opportunistic (e.g. political congruence or "="), relativistic (e.g. "ethical"), it's a progressive path and grade.

Jim at said...

The sooner this transgender fad fades into history, the better. It's already gone on too long.

It's insane.

MayBee said...

Yancey Ward said...
If some other senator had asked the question, I would probably have read it the way others have here, but not when Rand Paul asks it.


Yes, that's exactly how I'm reading the question. Can the government give consent for the child to get the treatment if the parents don't want it. I didn't and don't really see another way to view his question.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Jim

A day will come when public opinion views it in the same way they now view lobotomies, early 20th century Americans viewed patent medicines, and all of us view blood-letting.

They can call anything normal. Anything science. Anything progress. And it can be anything but. Only iterative development and effort - which takes work - results in the result you're looking for. It's like nukes...anything short of perfection results in fizzle. You have to be right, and the formula is difficult to get to but not distant once known.

The screams of regret and howls of affirmation when the trend peters out are going to be earth shattering. But the lawyers will have a field day....

gilbar said...

mockturtle said...
They don't have the power to punish us unless we give them that power. And every time we 'see' five fingers when four are held up, we give them more power. Resist, resist, resist!


That's Easy To Say; but i do NOT like Rats!
LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!!

MayBee said...

A day will come when public opinion views it in the same way they now view lobotomies,

Yeah, that's why I can't jump into hpudding's huff about Paul not listening to the doctors who work in the field. It used to be the doctors who worked in the field who thought lobotomies and shock therapies were great. Who thought sterilizing people who were low IQ was just fine.

Dave64 said...

remember 2+2=5 in our new world!

Narr said...

Nobody needs a medical degree to see an incompetent freak being proposed for an important office of public trust.

FTR, I didn't reference the creature Levine's weight at all, but if it is confirmed we'll be so fucked it won't matter anyway-- so I'll ridicule and jeer our very jeerable ruling class until somebody shuts me up.

Narr
I call Doc Levine Cousin It

hpudding said...

"discuss these issues in good faith,"

Faith is for priests, shamans, Evangelicals, QAnon, Forever Trumpers, conspiracists and capitol insurrectionists. Facts and reason are something different.

The good thing about facts and reason is that they provide a workable reference point, instead of guessing what's inside someone's head or worse, their "heart." People can discuss things factually and rationally instead of trying to make a test of faith out of them. Behold the power of science.

And that's also the reason that people go to doctors nowadays instead of to faith healers for their physical or psychological problems.

Whether NRO or the commenters on a political blog are doctors or even scientists is one thing. Paul technically is, but he lied and said that operating on kids was a care standard that Levine might support. It is not. Nevertheless, he was very angry and worked up about this show he made to sensationalize something that wasn't happening, going so far in his rhetoric as to liken it to genital mutilation - to further work up American hyper-nationalists who worry that we're becoming like sub-Saharan Africa or whatever other "s---hole" country they're worried about and have never been to but seem to know so much about.

In the past traditionalists had such a stranglehold on medicine that they routinely "mutilated" kids by operating on them at birth in order to force a physical gender presentation on them regardless of what their chromosomes were or the effects those chromosomes had on the body and brain and the patient's sexual development. Thank goodness those days are over, and what a horrible pity that the same traditionalists are (in bad faith?) pretending that modern medicine is imposing an inverse surgical brutality on kids when it is in fact doing no such thing.

The Gipper Lives said...

It can't be answered because there is no non-evil answer.


He kills old people and wrecks children. Monster.

mockturtle said...

I gather hpudding is, himself, a transgender.

Achilles said...

hpudding said...

"discuss these issues in good faith,"

Faith is for priests, shamans, Evangelicals, QAnon, Forever Trumpers, conspiracists and capitol insurrectionists. Facts and reason are something different.

um...

...

Do you truly not understand what the term "good faith" means?

Andrew said...

Child wants to stick a peanut up his nose, follow the child's lead.

Child wants to eat all his Halloween candy all at once, follow the child's lead.

Child wants to drive the family car, follow the child's lead.

Child wants to run with scissors, folow the child's lead.

Child wants to smoke, follow the child's lead.

Child wants to play with matches, follow the child's lead.

This Doc is one sick fuck.

Achilles said...

The Gipper Lives said...

It can't be answered because there is no non-evil answer.


He kills old people and wrecks children. Monster.


If both parents and an 8 year old kid all agree that they want to do gender re-assignment surgery on that 8 year old what do we want our government to do?

There is no good answer to that question.

It is something we need to deal with.

The Gipper Lives said...

We just passed a law last year that said even if you are a licensed driver, a registered voter, a 20 yr.-old married man with children and serving in a combat zone, we do not think you are mature enough to purchase cigarettes.

But a 5 yr.-old can give meaningful consent to gender reassignment surgery?

We've got 12-yr.-old girls getting double mastectomies because they were propagandized. There are twisted parents who want so desperately to virtue-signal with their SJW trophy child, they're willing to do it on the child's severed genitals. If the parent is even involved. One 2nd-grade boy drew a family picture where he was wearing an oversized Lakers jersey. His teacher decided it was a dress and diagnosed him as a girl, threatening the parents with CPS notification. I assume they fled California.

This is Dr. Mengele-level evil, done by and for adults on the children. They can't even blame Hitler this time.

mockturtle said...

This is Dr. Mengele-level evil, done by and for adults on the children.

Nothing less.

DavidUW said...

aul technically is, but he lied and said that operating on kids was a care standard that Levine might support. It is not.
>>
False.

Levine is on record as stating that children should be able to get hormones and surgery.

n.n said...

This is Dr. Mengele-level evil, done by and for adults on the children.

In modern families: Cecile the Cannibal, the psycho progression, and em-pathetic liberals under the umbrella of the trillion dollar sociopolitical complex.

hpudding said...

What the term "good faith" means.

It means not indulging lies like the one told by Randy Paul. Children are not being amputated on. They are not receiving the surgeries Randy Paul tried to shock you with.

When someone lies as much as Randy Paul does, and with as much access to facts as Randy Paul has, then you should conclude that he is a liar, and not pretend that anything he brings up (especially with as much emotion and feigned outrage as he acted out) is being brought up in good faith.

But some people have the type of faith that lets them believe very readily in all sorts of BS conspiracies, even one as nonsensical as "the kids are opting for their genitals to be amputated and the doctors are agreeing to it and doing it!"

None of those points should be too hard for someone with a brain to understand. People who have no use for facts will invent their own sense of reality so there is no point in discussing anything important with them. Fantasists are only good for others who are frightened enough by reality to invent one of their own, and live entirely within it. They are people who choose schizophrenia over enlightenment. I don't recommend spending too much time with them.

The Vault Dweller said...

I'm amazed at how quickly society has moved on this issue. I suspect a lot of that movement is not real. And it is more that many people are afraid to voice opposition to anything near to 'woke' culture. The simple fact is when dealing with trans people who want to remove their breasts or alter their genitalia, there is nothing physiologically wrong with them that we can identify. When those surgeries occur surgeons are cutting into healthy tissue. And permanently scarring a person's healthy body. If anything Rand Paul's question is muted. He is merely asking if the candidate opposes the government acting against parents' wishes to alter the parents' child's body. The real question should be whether transitioning whether through hormone treatment or any surgery should be permitted for children at all. I would like to be able to say that despite this I fully support an adult's decision to transition but I don't. I worry that many if not most of adults who decide to transition are making a terrible mistake. Ultimately the real problem isn't that their body is wrong, but rather the way they feel about their body. I worry that individuals can get set on a path where they feel like they just need one more treatment, one more surgery and then their body will be right, and they will feel right. But for many I do not think there is ever any light at the end of that tunnel. That being said, part of freedom is the freedom to make the wrong decisions. And I do know that transitioning can improve some people's lives. But that freedom doesn't and should not extend to children for things like this.

n.n said...

Faith is for priests, shamans, Evangelicals, QAnon, Forever Trumpers, conspiracists and capitol insurrectionists. Facts and reason are something different.

The Twilight faith (i.e. conflation of logical domains); Pro-Choice selective, opportunistic, relativistic (e.g. "ethical") quasi-religion; and liberal (i.e. divergent) ideology of Progressive Churches/Synagogues/Temples/Mosques/Corporations/Clinics/Chambers etc. Throw another baby on the barbie, cannibalize her profitable parts, and sequester her carbon pollutants. Such a burden. Forward!

That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. Principles matter.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Achilles said...

Just don't let her play in women's sports.

Particularly not beach volleyball.

Unknown said...

This is not a policy that should fall under federal jurisdiction but to the states.
It is also ethically child abuse to do this. Children do not grasp in the slightest what being an adult male of female is like because the hormones have not kicked in. An 8 yr old boy can't decide he is "really" a girl because he is still a child. Of course further we do not let children make serious decisions: not to vote, sign contracts, buy a gun, drive a car, get married. Children believe in santa and the tooth fairy (of course dems believe in unicorns so maybe they don't see the problem...) and want to be a bulldozer when they grow up, so what could go wrong?

The Vault Dweller said...

As far as the good Doctor's refusal to answer the question I can think of two reasonably possible explanations. The first is that the nominee actually does support the government intervening against parents' wishes to transition children and revealing that now could jeopardize the confirmation because this is a deeply unpopular position that cuts across political parties. The second is that the nominee does not support it but doesn't want to reveal that yet because that would jeopardize political support from a portion of the Democrat's political base. If you are going to disappoint your supporters it is best to do so quietly, unannounced, and when the fewest people are looking. For what it is worth the first scenario seems far more likely. There is a common fantasy among trans people, particularly among MTF (Male to Female) trans people, that if they had only transitioned when they were younger before their bodies were 'ruined' by puberty that then their lives would have been normal. This is the coping mechanism many turn to when even after transitioning and undergoing many different treatments, the individuals still don't feel like they fit in properly. Making it the norm that young children, even prepubescent children are guided into transitioning if they have identity issues, helps keep that fantasy alive for many. It also keeps up a steady new supply of people who are in the same boat as current trans people. Other people sharing the same hardship can make it easier for a person to bear their own hardship. I think many trans people worry about being left out there all alone so to speak if the current medical strategy of altering the body to match a person's self-image changes to identifying and fixing what is going on in a person's head to give them that different self-image in the first place.

DavidUW said...

The first is that the nominee actually does support the government intervening against parents' wishes to transition children and revealing that now could jeopardize the confirmation because this is a deeply unpopular position that cuts across political parties. The second is that the nominee does not support it but doesn't want to reveal that yet because that would jeopardize political support from a portion of the Democrat's political base.
>>
The second reason doesn't hold water. Levine gets support from the D's base simple because he pretends to be a woman.

The first is the correct reason. Levine, as he has stated prior to the hearing, supports children getting their mental illnesses indulged, and (although I don't believe he has stated this second part publicly) intends to use the power of the state to do so.

These people are mentally ill and they are demanding that we not only validate their fantasies, but that we expand their fantasy world to include children.

If your daughter were anorexic, would you tell her, "You're fat, you should diet"?
Would you lock the cabinets to aid her dieting?
Would you happily watch her starve herself?

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

hpudding said...

Principles matter -

Randy Paul's seem to be:

1. Lie about the care standards (pretend that kids are operated on, let alone without a parent's consent)
2. Feign outrage over it and call it "mutilation" - to conflate it with non-elective FGM/clitoridectomies. Which are of course "traditional" religious principles, just not the religion of the Forever Trumper insurrectionist Evangelical QAnon conspiracists.
3. Stigmatize the transgender nominee by directing boiling anger at her personally for nothing, the biggest nothing being a COVID spreading, self-certifying ophthalmologist's contempt for care standards that any HHS nominee should attempt to uphold, whether they can personally relate to them or not.
4. Stigmatize the transgender nominee who admittedly does not present too gracefully as a physical/natural woman, despite the funny presentation of his own looks. As Trump once said of Randy Paul, "There's plenty of subject matter there."

Does Randy Paul wear a wig? I noticed above there was a reference to his ridiculous hair.

Gahrie said...

If both parents and an 8 year old kid all agree that they want to do gender re-assignment surgery on that 8 year old what do we want our government to do?

At the very least make it illegal to have such surgery under the age of 18.

Gahrie said...

A day will come when public opinion views it in the same way they now view lobotomies,

Yeah, that's why I can't jump into hpudding's huff about Paul not listening to the doctors who work in the field.


IIRC, the hospital that developed trans gender surgery no longer performs trans gender surgery because it does not significantly improve the patient's health.

n.n said...

Randy Paul's seem to be:

1. Underage children are indoctrinated and/or mutilated to force a consensus between a social preference for sex, gender, or identity.
2. There has been a concerted effort over several decades by the modern religion to enable choices ranging from elective abortion to normalization of transgender treatments (e.g. psychiatric manipulation, social indoctrination, medical corruption) in courtrooms, mainstream media, social platforms, steering engines, and classrooms through semantic games, conceptual corruption, conflation of logical domains (e.g. Twilight faith), and cancel culture.
3. The trans/neo-female nominee is asked questions about forward-looking "treatments", consequences, and collateral damage to underage boys and girls, and health standards that normalize the unstable end of the transgender spectrum, which has a history of affirmative progression of cognitive dissonance in a subset of trans/homosexuals.
4. His appearance is a matter of diversitist sentiment and and emotional issue for people predisposed to color judgments.

n.n said...

Levine gets support from the D's base simple because he pretends to be a woman.

Feminists work for themselves, first, women and girls, second when politically congruent ("="), third, fourth... when not.

Twilight faith. Pro-Choice religion. Liberal, typically generational, tribal, factional ideology. Progress (i.e. monotonic).

n.n said...

of course dems believe in unicorns so maybe they don't see the problem...

In Stork They Trust

Joe Smith said...

"At the very least make it illegal to have such surgery under the age of 18."

Exactly...

This shouldn't be a huge hurdle for elective surgery.

If both parents regret having the child 8 years later, can they have the child legally euthanized with the government's permission?

I know, don't give them any ideas...I'm sure they're already working on it.

n.n said...

Just don't let her play in women's sports.

That's one, physiologically-motivated concern. Another is diversity dogma of modern religion, where people... persons are labeled under color judgments and subject to affirmative discrimination.

mockturtle said...

Are we still paying for transgender surgeries for prisoners?

n.n said...

If both parents regret having the child 8 years later, can they have the child legally euthanized with the government's permission?

Planned Parent/hood is a forward-looking option. The State-established Church and ostensibly "secular" religion has, one diverse occasions, advocates that if a child is deemed a "burden", perhaps classified as nonviable, then an elective abortion is a legal and moral/ethical choice under the Twilight Amendment/faith. That is to say, when carried out behind a wall, in a chamber, in privacy. Just be em-pathetic and cannibalize her profitable parts first.

hpudding said...

A day will come when public opinion views it in the same way they now view lobotomies,

That day has come, thanks to the care standards that arrogant Paul and his insurrectionist friends here feel that they're too good to review.

Used to be standard for traditionalist dogma to guide medicine into operating on intersex kids at birth, forcing them into the binary that "seemed" or "felt" closest to what could present "naturally" as male or female, leading to many lives irreversibly altered for the worse based on what parents/medical experts such as Paul thought would be most socially accepted as early as possible. But that isn't the course that's pursued any longer, much as Paul and his goofy allies here want to project that kind of mismanagement onto transgender medicine as it's currently practiced.

You people really are averse to the facts, aren't you? Too bad that all it takes for you to believe something is to have huffy puffy Randy lie about it.

Reality awaits.

DavidUW said...

Mockturtle in California yes.

DavidUW said...

Hey pudding. Are you a trannie or what?

hpudding said...

Oh, I forgot how inferior "elective abortion" is to the alternative of forcing pregnancies to term. Freedom lovers await a benevolent state to implement The Handmaid's Tale paradigm. Yee Haw.

The rest of what political spin Doctor n.n. wrote is unintelligible gibberish. Hopefully it made him feel good to write it.

Lol, who am I kidding? Conservatives are miserable no matter how many of anyone else's freedoms they restrict or steal. None will ever be enough to revert to the time period they're most in love with, because too few people ever want to go back to such benightedness. Technology won't allow it. Society won't allow it. Reversing into the inferior morality/society of whichever past epoch is an unattainable errand.

But they still try. Oh, do they try.

hpudding said...

No DavidUW. Why, are you an intersex baby that was forced surgically or socially to present male or female?

You really seem to take personally the idea that most people are comfortable not forcing others to be something they're not.

Creepy is creepy, no matter what you're trying to force on someone. No matter how few other things conservatives have to concern themselves with.

Joe Smith said...

"That day has come, thanks to the care standards that arrogant Paul and his insurrectionist friends here feel that they're too good to review."

Jesus H. Christ, give it a rest.

Did Paul piss in your cornflakes?

Did he fuck your wife/husband?

If you don't think his questions should be asked (and answered) then I doubt your sanity.

Levine should answer forthrightly or get voted down.

We (you know, taxpayers) have an absolute right to know.

DavidUW said...

Nah, I’m a man and have never been confused about that fact.

You seem somewhat confused and indulgent of mental illness.

hpudding said...

The more Randy Paul speaks the more I understand why his neighbor beat the shit out of him.

The more his defenders here speak the more I understand why they feel so alienated by a society that's not obsessed with making people conform to something just because it's simple enough for them to understand. Not everyone is so simple, nor do they have to be. It's not like only people who think they should be pay taxes, either.

Levine answered forthrightly; it was Paul who mixed up different surgeries and different treatments. As a doctor he should welcome being able to discuss care standards with another doctor - unless he feels a need to misrepresent and lie about them.

Joe Smith said...

So pudding is an MD I guess.

Little Johnnie wants to fly an airplane. I guess it's OK.

Little Janey wants to be a porn star. I guess that's OK too.

These are children by every normal definition.

They are not capable of making these kinds of irreversible decisions, and it's NOT up to the parents or the government to do it for them.

If you think the parents are the ones to decide, then you must believe that 7-year-olds can be pilots and porn stars with the parents' permission.

If this is the hill you want to die on then you need more hobbies.

hpudding said...

P.S. Paul isn't board certified, despite calling himself an ophthalmologist. Instead he created his own "board" and put his wife and father in law in charge of it!

Couple that with his disdain for the care standards of managing the coronavirus pandemic so's you political types can get a taste of how proud the fake doctor Paul is to spread misinformation about the trannies' doctors. ;-)

Iman said...

Maybe YOU are granting license to the Quaker Oats guy because he's transgender.

Perhaps all cats AREN’T grey in the dark.

hpudding said...

"So pudding is an MD I guess."

Levine is an MD, and board-certified.

Paul's MD came without board certification, but he compensated for that by inventing his own pretend ophthalmology "board," putting his wife and father-in-law in charge of it, and acting like he's the resident expert on coronaviruses and, now, trannies. Despite lying about the latter and recklessly catching coronavirus early, but not before he could try spreading it around in the senate gym and pool.

So that should give you an idea of how seriously to take Paul's medicine creds. Which is why he instead spews political gobbledy-gook about genital mutilations as if the C-SPAN people can't tell the difference between Somalia and San Francisco. Well, I guess his defenders can't, anyway!

DavidUW said...

The difference between SF and Somalia is Somalis have lower taxes but an equally effective government.

hpudding said...

I forgot that conservatives think the pinnacle of effective government is the failed state of Texas.

So nice of the federal government to bail out a state that couldn't manage its own "independent" electricity grid, while Democrats like AOC and Beto O'Rourke came to aid residents burning toys for warmth after Texas Ted bailed off to Mexico. Cause he couldn't "stand up" to his wife and daughter's demands for a Ritz Carlton-furnished vacation stay away from his state's failed policies.

Joe Smith said...

I won't even try to reason with a moron...good riddance.

hpudding said...

Oh no. A tax payer pretending to be a tranny medicine specialist might not be happy. Awww.

No intervention Levine supported was "irreversible." For Rand to not know the difference between a puberty blocker and a sex hormone just shows how much he's willing to either lie about or distort. Add endocrinology to the list of medical topics he lies about, along with infectious disease. Maybe he can invent his own boards to certify him in those areas, too.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@hpudding

You will never be a woman. Deal with it. Your skeleton will be excavated in 1000 years and aliens will categorize you as 'male' with feminine characteristics. No one thinks you're pretty. Everyone laughs at you, especially those who tell you to your face they're on your side. Your credentialism arguments are retarded and a sign of the depreciation of standards in these times.

Deal. With. It.

daskol said...

There is no good answer to that question.

It is something we need to deal with.


This is true, and just saying ban the surgery for people under 18 doesn't get you out of the sticky situation because what about chemical castration and puberty blockers? Irreversible damage, but not surgery, and much harder to prevent. If the question is what can the govt do to protect children from parents who consent to these treatments for their underage kids, the answer is indeed tough. And that's how I read the question, even though I fully understand the inverse of that question to be indeed the desired policy: trans activists would like to govt to be able to override parental non-consent to such treatments, e.g. if the parents don't agree to it, can the govt step in to assert the child's rights to transition.

But I also now see what Yancey meant. The question can be read both ways and the complete non-response from Dr. Levine means we can't know for certain which one Paul intended. I still lean to thinking Paul was asking if the govt could override a parent who DOES consent to such treatments for a minor, because of the general approach he was taking in the questioning. But I'm not so sure. Either one works, although I think the parental override on non-consent is rhetorically the better approach.

daskol said...

@hpudding, Lucid-Ideas is right, but if it makes you feel better, I can use your preferred pronouns. Just don't try to force me. Ask nicely, and there are few delusions I won't agree to humor.

Rusty said...

The fashion of the hour seems to require quite a large amount of graft. Another grievance category created for the simple reason of snagging some of that sweet taxpayer money.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

As a physician and rational person, Sen. Paul seems well aware of the insanity of the whole sex transform thing. As a compassionate person, he would want to protect children from this indignity and abuse inflicted by parents.

As a Libertarian and advocate of limited powers of Government, one might hope that Sen. Paul would demure at the prospect of legislating such protection.

As to the confirmation process as a whole, it is political theatre.

There are NO questions which nominees are "entitled" to refuse to answer.

There are NO questions which a Senator should be prohibited from asking - however embarrassing to the nominee, however unrelated to qualifications of the nominee. The nominee is free to respond in any way he/she (in the present instance there being some doubt) desires to - however the response may or not be related to the question.

It is up to the Senators to approve or not the nomination. It is up to the voters to evaluate the entire process and elect the next cadre of congress critters.

The media will do what the media does - spill ink and fill airtime with bullshit.

I blame the voters.

Danno said...

Wow, puddinghead defecated all over this thread.

The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...
As a Libertarian and advocate of limited powers of Government, one might hope that Sen. Paul would demure at the prospect of legislating such protection.


I think Sen. Paul framed his question with Libertarian mindset. He asked if the nominee supported Government intervening to aid in transitioning a child against the parents' wishes.

The Godfather said...

Sen. Paul is no fool. Every time he asked a question, the camera focused on Levine, who looks like a freak. She's NOT Cailtlyn Jenner. Do you want to facilitate troubled children to become like Dr. Levine?

Hercules, not that one though said...

MayBee- "Trans activists are among the most intransigent activists."

No. They stand on the shoulders of LGBQ. Tolerance. What did LGBQ want? Lower the age of consent to 9 years old. That was the pinnacle. LGBQ had no interest in 'marriage' other than to destroy the definition.

Terry Bean, the founder of the Human Rights Campaign, recognized that folks were appalled by the activity at 'Gay Rights' parades.

Terry Bean, whose hobby was raping male children, knew the 'normies' weren't responding to the sickening 'Gay Rights' parades.

He was clever. He rewrote the narrative from raping children to 'civil rights'. Got to give him that...Satan knows his audience.

Women line up to be 'allies' of LGBTQ. The Q stands for 'questioning'. The Q are those kids who are misfits, or quiet kids, who can be groomed for sex by the L's and the G's.

Our Public Schools facilitate this.

todd galle said...

Pennsylvania thanks the Biden Administration from having to deal with the daily Covid briefings of the fetching Dr. Levine. Thing is, Levine started out OK, fairly reassuring, then went off the rails, with changing rules, recommendations, etc. My wife was done with 'her' after a month. Her Muppet like chant of "Wash your hands with warm water and soap for as long as it takes to sing 'Happy Birthday' twice" was cringeworthy after week two, almost a year ago. The new Acting Secretary seems nice, and is a real girl.

n.n said...

I think it was Johns Hopkins that conducted trans/neogender surgical corruption in the latter part of the 20th century, along with transgender spectrum psycho therapy, and determined there was no statistically significant outcomes to force a consensus between sex, gender, and liberal identities. In fact, the disorder and cognitive dissonance persisted and progressed. Trans/neogenderism is very much a Pro-Choice belief and solution, and is a progressive risk to children... "adults" before puberty and with normalization some time thereafter for what the faithful chaacterize as "social progress".

Rosalyn C. said...

If the answer was yes and Levine said so she’d be committing political suicide by saying so.

Known Unknown said...

hpudding is another PNA. Do not engage with PNAs. They're not here as a serious commenter.

Bunkypotatohead said...

The laughingstock to the world.

Tina Trent said...

HPudding is advocating life-threatening beating of political foes. The attack on Paul broke several ribs and left him debilitated. Attacks that break ribs can do serious damage to lungs and other organs. The assailant should have been charged with attempted murder or at least first degree aggravated assault. He was not.

So consider all the putching that went into that transgression of justice. Also, HPudding is a fascist.

hpudding said...

Haha - so there are now five conservative-authoritarian clones who need to lie about me to feel better about how they failed to make their point - which is apparently that Paul is right to lie about and badger the nominee, just because. I guess after so many failed court cases to disenfranchise millions of Americans and worshipping a golden idol of their one-term failed president at their Orlando convention, they are feeling really sensitive.

Why should someone be a transexual to explain why Paul is wrong? There's this ugly habit conservative-authoritarians have of assuming you have to be similar to someone in a certain way in order to agree with or argue their point. It's like how they hate gays and deprive them their rights - until one of them shows up in their family. And even then they will often excommunicate them. Or try to force them into being something they understand or identify with. This is like how people got called "n-word lovers" for being against slavery, Jim Crow, miscegenation statutes, etc., etc., ad infinitum. If you're only capable of defending the rights of yourself or people like yourself, you don't believe in rights. You believe in tribalism.

We know Paul doesn't take the health of his senate colleagues or other Americans seriously, so Trent's compassion for such a cruel, compassionless hairpiece-wearer as himself is touching. Maybe if she were a veterinarian she could have attended to his wounds personally. I guess unless I'm forced to sympathize with him (as I never advocated anyone break any law and there's no evidence that his neighbor was politically motivated) then I'm a fascist - yes, that makes a lot of sense. Forced compassion being advocated by the same compassionless anti-fascists(?) who defend Paul's ignorant abuse of nominees, his senate colleagues and the American people. Irony, much?

Try to lose more gracefully.

hpudding said...

Your credentialism arguments are retarded and a sign of the depreciation of standards in these times.

So good to know you think Paul's credentials don't matter. If only he did, though. They matter so much to him that he invented his own medical board to certify himself in ophthalmology! Got his wife and father-in-law to preside over it, in fact!

So apparently credentials do matter very much to Paul. Just not credentials that anyone recognizes. Just the creds that he makes up himself to "feel" like he's associated with a medical board of the sort that exist to regulate physician practices nationally but that no one else belongs to! He made his own club for himself alone to join and attest to his super awesome eye doctor skills!

Great argument for someone who says that it doesn't matter what people "feel!" LOL! Rand "feels" so well-qualified that he made up his own medical board to say that he was! Hahaha.

stlcdr said...

Pudding guy/gal/it is one of those nasty projectionists who attack the person rather than the argument. They are one of the minions of evil that good people are trying to fend off. None of what they posted is in relation to the questions asked by Rand Paul.

Good people will not accept abnormal and damaging behavior as normal. The questioning is quite reasonable, albeit a harsh and uncomfortable subject. For someone who will be the ‘health authority’ for the country to inadequately address that demonstrates their unsuitability for the role.

hpudding said...

Actually everything I posted was about the nasty accusation (disguised as a question) posed by Paul.

Anything else that followed addressed the assumptions made by authoritarian conformist conservatives who religiously believe everyone has to be exactly like them or else they are "abnormal and damaging." Engineers who don't understand people simple-mindedly believe everyone is just a faceless, clone-like interchangeable part to fit in their social machine, which is why they're often unsuited to hold public office.

Conservatives would reject their own families out of frustration for failing to control their sexuality. Impulses that controlling are abnormal, generally/often criminal and show no respect for an individual's autonomy and healthy development. People who can't feel good about themselves unless they're controlling others - especially when it comes to something as personal as sex - don't belong in a democracy and can only be destructive to it. I guess it's no wonder Republicans would identify with such impulses though given how much abnormality we've seen in congressional conservatives like Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, Jim Jordan and other pedophiles and their enablers.

RigelDog said...

Francisco D asked a trenchant question: "Where is "Science" in this debate?

Do 15 year olds have the cognitive and emotional capacity to make life altering decisions based on current fads?"

The evolving criminal law, as pushed by the Left, is trending strongly towards minimizing or eliminating punishments for those who havent' reached at least the age of 18, if not 25, under this exact theory: People are not cognitively developed enough to be held responsible for their decision to commit crimes below certain ages.

First the US Supreme Court eliminated the death penalty for anyone who committed a crime as a juvenile (AGREE). Advocates then successfully appealed the imposition of life sentences for juveniles in state courts, which in Pennsylvania anyway means that now all those cases are being reexamined closely, with the standards weighted towards NOT maintaining the life sentence (BASICALLY AGREE).

For several years now, advocates have been assisting prisoners in bringing appeals based on extending the above precedents; claiming that SCIENCE shows us that our decision-making ability doesn't actually fully mature until at least age 25.

So, yeah, the Left's position that young, pre-pubescent "trans" children can make incredibly complicated, serious, and risky decisions to alter their bodies and their lives forever is in direct contradiction to their position that people are not fully capable of appreciating the consequences of their criminal behavior until at least age 18 and probably not until they are over 25.

RigelDog said...

RE Rachel Levine's weight/obesity: Imagine his/her horror when he/she realized that estrogen is a M-F'r when it comes to putting on weight! Transitioning into female isn't all glamour and boobs.