I agree with much of this but I think you danced around the trans issue and kids. And it is not so simple. The sports issue is not as simple as college scholarships. Middle and high school sports are much bigger issues (far more relevant to the electorate even if Lia Thomas is a symbol) and it is a losing issue for Dems. But the larger and more difficult issue is puberty blockers and/or surgery for minors. It is also a losing issue for Dems.
The article implies that favoring taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners, medical 'gender affirming' treatment, puberty blockers, surgery, on minors, and sports participation for transgender women is unpopular. I would go further than not just supporting those, as Harris got nailed having gone on record for, but to opposing them if you want to play good defense>
Transitioned women have a clear advantage in sports as evidenced by the professional athletes who transitioned rising greatly in their rankings when they enter women's sports.
Why would prisoners get transgender surgery when many privates wouldn't pay for it. And I believe it is cosmetic surgery, despite the claims that mental health depends on changing your anatomy- imo a regressive belief, not having breasts or a penis is not a medical necessity. At a minimum it is controversial and why make the taxpayers pay for it which the majority oppose.
Lastly, with children, the liberal countries of UK and Sweden have taken a much more conservative approach. As a physician I wouldn't favor irreversible life changing intervention on a very young person based on a dearth of evidence. I wouldnt want a 15 year old to relinquish any chance of pregnancy or breast feeding, just because at that impressionable age where identities come and go they have a notion that is encouraged by an activist movement and the fashions of the day.
I think Democrats can pre-empt a lot of attacks by supporting a national minimum age for gender transition. I would suggest 16.
Adults should be allowed to change genders if they want, but we should not be too quick to affirm minors if they say they are trans. Teenagers are confused about a lot of things (religion, politics, family, friends, future careers, future education) besides gender identity. They deserve compassion, but their parents and doctors should think long and hard about whether they’re going to take so drastic a step as changing a minor’s gender.
We can address the mental health and suicide aspect of this issue by addressing teen mental health and suicide generally. Treating trans youths’ well-being separately from other youths’ is an invitation to more right-wing condemnation.
I agree with much of this but I think you danced around the trans issue and kids. And it is not so simple. The sports issue is not as simple as college scholarships. Middle and high school sports are much bigger issues (far more relevant to the electorate even if Lia Thomas is a symbol) and it is a losing issue for Dems. But the larger and more difficult issue is puberty blockers and/or surgery for minors. It is also a losing issue for Dems.
The article implies that favoring taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners, medical 'gender affirming' treatment, puberty blockers, surgery, on minors, and sports participation for transgender women is unpopular. I would go further than not just supporting those, as Harris got nailed having gone on record for, but to opposing them if you want to play good defense>
Transitioned women have a clear advantage in sports as evidenced by the professional athletes who transitioned rising greatly in their rankings when they enter women's sports.
Why would prisoners get transgender surgery when many privates wouldn't pay for it. And I believe it is cosmetic surgery, despite the claims that mental health depends on changing your anatomy- imo a regressive belief, not having breasts or a penis is not a medical necessity. At a minimum it is controversial and why make the taxpayers pay for it which the majority oppose.
Lastly, with children, the liberal countries of UK and Sweden have taken a much more conservative approach. As a physician I wouldn't favor irreversible life changing intervention on a very young person based on a dearth of evidence. I wouldnt want a 15 year old to relinquish any chance of pregnancy or breast feeding, just because at that impressionable age where identities come and go they have a notion that is encouraged by an activist movement and the fashions of the day.
I think Democrats can pre-empt a lot of attacks by supporting a national minimum age for gender transition. I would suggest 16.
Adults should be allowed to change genders if they want, but we should not be too quick to affirm minors if they say they are trans. Teenagers are confused about a lot of things (religion, politics, family, friends, future careers, future education) besides gender identity. They deserve compassion, but their parents and doctors should think long and hard about whether they’re going to take so drastic a step as changing a minor’s gender.
We can address the mental health and suicide aspect of this issue by addressing teen mental health and suicide generally. Treating trans youths’ well-being separately from other youths’ is an invitation to more right-wing condemnation.