Rachel Levine Makes History As 1st Openly Trans Federal Official Confirmed By Senate
Let’s remember the Rachel Levine story of her pulling her mom from a nursing facility during Covid while at the same time implementing policy directing Pennsylvania’s nursing homes and certain care facilities to admit recovered COVID-19 patients who were treated at nearby hospitals.
The next bit of footage is Rand Paul questioning Rachel Levine on gender affirming care to minors. Mr. Paul is asking if Levine believes in genital mutilation to minors and if minors are able to make decisions regarding their gender for themselves at this age. Levine is instructed to read from a template to answer all questions which should be indicative of the responses she would give if she were honest (and why our system is totally fucked up).
Allowing the Minority to Make Decisions For the Majority
A conservative estimate extrapolating our meta-regression results, while excluding the latest NCHA wave of data as a potential outlier, suggests that the proportion of transgender adults in the United States is 0.39%, or 390 per 100 000, and almost 1 million adults nationally.
Do I know what the assistant to health does in our government? I don’t. What my issue is that .39% of the people in the US identify with Rachel Levine, yet she’s making policy decisions that affect the other 99.21%. She is a human being who was born with a penis and now identifies as a female. Without being told I’m a huge bigot, which I don’t doubt people will believe, it has to be a bit confusing to know if you should go to the restroom and use your schlong standing up or sit down in the stall and fake it. Calm down, it’s a joke. So when Rachel has a decision to make if we should add a 3rd identity to all public restrooms which will cost businesses billions, yes, I have a feeling she will have a bias towards these decisions. With our current system, the Democrats voted her in as a figurehead for the Trans community.
It’s clear why Ms. Levine gets continuously voted up the power chain of our government, inclusivity. Democrats are clearly excited by equal rights for everyone. Transexuals should enjoy the same rights as everyone else because I 100% agree that all humans should have the same rights. I don’t believe in bigotry and will firmly stand behind that. However, I don’t agree that decisions of power should go to people who may not be best suited for the job, but are a certain type, which is what I see happening here. Can Ms. Levine do the job as well as her peers? If the answer is yes, then I’m fine with her becoming the secretary. However, if she’s an advocate for children growing up with the idea that cutting of their breasts or mutilating their penis is a “normal” course of action, I don’t believe that is a natural accordance of life. The opposing side will argue that I’m close minded, not “woke”, and she’ll do a better job than any other candidate. Perhaps they’re right. However, voting ideas into office without caring about the outcome is stupid. When teenagers who are part of this new society start to regret their newly found freedoms under Ms. Levine’s guise, just remember that’s what happens when you vote ideas instead of outcomes. My suggestion would be to put Ms. Levine in a section of government that she knows best, not overseeing millions of people’s “health”.
As co-poster on the blog, I’ll comment.
First, the line of “What my issue is that .39% of the people in the US identify with Rachel Levine, yet she’s making policy decisions that affect the other 99.21%.”, aside from the math error (99.61% unless I’m missing something), feels wildly ignorant. You’re saying that only transgender people can identify with Levine because she is transgender, and that’s the only factor. Black people only make up 13% of the population, do you have a problem with them making policies since you can’t seem to identify with them either? How about women? Or Jewish people? What exactly is your criteria for a policy maker other than ‘I have to be able to identify with you’ and ‘you can’t be transgender’? Shouldn’t the policy itself be the defining factor, not the person it’s coming from? When you say that you have an issue with her making policies SPECIFICALLY because she’s trans, that is, literally by definition, transphobic.
I’ll ask – is there a scenario where a trans person could be voted to a high office without you transposing the idea of ‘this person isn’t qualified, democrats and their inclusivity are behind this’? You don’t really know anything about Levine, right? And you admitted you don’t know anything about the office she holds. Everything in this post, aside from the nursing home ‘scandal’ and the Rand Paul clip, is conjecture. And those two things are hardly disqualifying. You don’t site a single policy she’s made that you have a problem with, you just assume that you’ll disagree with her.
If you can’t come up with a better argument against her than this post, then you should fully expect people to say ‘Tom just doesn’t like trans people’.
TL;DR – You more or less say ‘I don’t know what the Assistant to Health does, or anything about Rachel Levine’s qualifications for the position other than she’s transgender, and for that reason I don’t think she’s qualified for the position and democrats clearly only put her there for inclusivity’s sake. But to be clear I’m not against trans people’. If this were a school paper on why she’s qualified or not for the position, I’d give you a D-.
A black man identifies with 100% of men. A Jewish woman identifies with 100% of women. Biology disagrees with Rachel Levine being a woman. So who does she identify with? I’m not certain who can answer that. If you want to answer 100% humans, than so do your examples.
I agree with this line, “Shouldn’t the policy itself be the defining factor”. Did you watch the video? She won’t define her policy which should scare people but it doesn’t. If her policy is gender mutilation is acceptable in teenagers, which Rand Paul suggest, then yes, I don’t agree with her.
What does that mean though – A black man identifies with 100% of men? What if he feels like being black is way more part of his identity than being a man? I’d guess most black men identify more with black women than with you or me. And I’d bet there are men who identify more with Rachel Levine than they do with you.
So why is gender where the line is drawn for you as opposed to the dozens of other aspects of peoples’ identities? It just comes back to, again, WHY is she not worthy office, but a black man or Jewish woman of the same credentials is?
I did watch the video. She deflected completely. But politicians do that all the time. If she came out and said “I support genital mutilation in teenagers”, then I agree you could make an argument as to why you don’t want her in office, but it just seems like you’re jumping to a lot of conclusions.
I’ll vote for the fit, Peloton instructor as our secretary of health and you’ll vote for the over weight transexual. My instructor could be a ditz and do a terrible job and yours may turn everyone into stellar human beings. This is the beauty of life.