Why Is Kamala Running From The Trans Issues?

[Ladsin2]

There's been a marked change in her response to questions about Trans-rights/ issues. Why?

Because Rust Belt Males Don't Like It

Because The American People Don't Like It

She Had A Change Of Heart

Other

[Anonymous]

The questions have changed from semi-genuine to just ragebait, so obviously if ur smart u don't take the bait & move on to serious questions.

[Ladsin2]

The recent question was with someone who wants her to win. A democrat news anchor.

[Opinion Owner]

What was the recent question?

[Ladsin2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO6Ta86wCDI
11:00-14:05

[Opinion Owner]

That was a vague question and a clear answer I don't know what you're on about. She was asked a blanket "do you think all trans people should get this?" And she answered "I think it should be up to doctors like the law says." No need to make it a special/political issue (like Trump is doing) when it's just medical. What clearer answer do you want?

[Ladsin2]

Can you show me which part of the question you thought was vague and which part you thought was clear in the response? I must be missing something so I typed a transcript so we are sure we both heard the same thing.
Q: "Do you believe that transgender Americans should have access to gender affirming care in this country?"
A: "I believe we should follow the law. I mean I think you're probably pointing to the fact that Donald Trump's campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars..."
Q: "They're trying to define you on this. I'm asking you to define yourself though. Broadly speaking, do you believe they should have that access?"
A: "I believe that people, that as the law states, even on this issue about federal law. That, that is a decision that doctors will make that is medically necessary. I'm not going to put myself in the position of a doctor, but let's also understand that Donald Trump is running tens of millions of dollars in ads to talk about two cases to distract from the fact that his policy and plan is to take away the affordable care act which provides health care for tens of millions of people in our country. That his plan is to undo the $35/ month cap on insulin. That impacts millions of seniors in our country. That his plan is to do away with the $2000 cap on prescription medication, the annual cap. That his plan is to get rid of the department of education. Which would mean getting rid of headstart. That his plan is to give tax-cuts to billionaires and big corporations and on the backs of middle-class working people. So let's not get distracted by the issues that, to your point, from the

[Ladsin2]

introductory point you raised. People want to know that their president has a plan to make their life better, and that includes bringing down the cost of living. It includes bringing down the cost of prescription medication costs. It includes addressing the housing crisis, and the affordable housing crisis in our country. It includes supporting our small businesses, investing in American industries and strengthening our economies."
Q: "I will move on, but I don't know that I heard a clear answer from you on the issue of gender affirming care. It sounds like what you're saying is that this is something that should be between trans Americans and their doctors. It feels like that's a long way from 'we see you and we love you' which was your message to trans Americans in May. What do you want the LGBTQ+ community to know as they're looking for a full-throated backing from you for trans Americans?"
A: "I believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. Period. And should not be vilified for who they are. And should not be bullied for who they are. And that is a true statement from me, my entire career. And that has not changed."

[Opinion Owner]

Okay.

Vague question: "Do you believe that transgender Americans should have access to gender affirming care in this country?" That's ANY/ALL trans people in America, and ANY/ALL gender affirming care. Blanket statement that obviously could lead to misinterpretation if she just answered "yes" or "no."

Clear response: "I believe we should follow the law."

When pressed further trying again to get her to answer "broadly" (second vague question: "Broadly speaking, do you believe they (any/all trans people) should have that (any/all) access?"

"Second" answer: she sticks to her first answer and explains that's because "that is a decision that doctors will make that is medically necessary. I'm not going to put myself in the position of a doctor."

She's answered, she's explained why she's not going to give a flat yes or no, and then she moves on to a bigger (related) topic of politicizing and medical care. Seriously don't know why ur confused on this. Sure she stuttered a little when she repeated herself, but i think that can be overlooked when she already said it clearly once and she explains it clearly and moves on clearly. Not like someone who just rambles nonsense for a whole 10 minutes (Trump).

[Opinion Owner]

Also that weird but from the interviewer "It sounds like what you're saying is that this is something that should be between trans Americans and their doctors. It feels like that's a long way from 'we see you and we love you' which was your message to trans Americans in May." That's wack as fuck. As a trans person, having my personal medical care be just between me and my doctor would be literally exactly what we want, so someone trying to make that happen absolutely "sees us" and at least gives enough of a shit to act on what we're asking for. 👍

[Ladsin2]

"Should have ACCESS to..." means "Should trans have access to gender affirming care." It's very straightforward. Dr's weren't brought into the question. Surgeries weren't brought into the question. The question is should trans people be affirmed and have access to care. Kamala had no problem with this question before. She in fact advocated for government funded transgender surgeries for illegal migrants in prisons. She affirmed this stance before both in writing and verbally.
IE: A much clearer response would've been something like...
Q: "Should children have access to routine medical care?"
A: "Of course they should. I've advocated for this for years. If any children don't have access to routine medical care I will make it a priority for my administration to close any existing loopholes to ensure that every child has access to the care they need."

It seems that we may just be at an impasse, but I don't understand how. Her answer is clearly obfuscatory to the extreme.

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah, they didn't bring up doctors or surgeries. It was VAGUE. It would be like asking "should women have access to reproductive health care?" While abortion is a hot topic. It's a vague question that no matter how you answer yes or no, doesn't actually give the answer anyone wants and can be misinterpreted by both "sides".

A better question would be like your example. "Should trans children have access to the same routine medical care as cis children?" That could be answered simply yes or no (and then expanded on).

Why don't you te me how do you think she SHOULD have answered this question clearly, and I'll explain why that wouldn't actually be a clear answer because the question was too vague. That should help us get on the same page i think.

[Ladsin2]

Perfect example. If Kamala was asked, "Do you believe that women should have access to reproductive health care in this country?" Do you think she would have dithered? I don't believe she would have. I believe she would have stated emphatically and repeatedly that "women need access to reproductive healthcare to be full fledged members of society. If women did not have access to reproductive healthcare then they will die. This is what the orange man wants, he wants women dying sick and alone in hospital parking lots because they don't have access to reproductive healthcare."
Do you think her answer would look more like that? Or do you think she would have said, "I think we should follow the law."

[Opinion Owner]

"Why don't you te me how do you think she SHOULD have answered this question clearly, and I'll explain why that wouldn't actually be a clear answer because the question was too vague. That should help us get on the same page i think." —me

[Ladsin2]

"trans need access to trans healthcare to be full fledged members of society. If trans did not have access to trans healthcare then they will die. This is what the orange man wants, he wants trans dying sick and alone in hospital parking lots because they don't have access to trans healthcare."

I think you're just being obtuse at this point.

[Opinion Owner]

Obviously right wingers would misinterpret that to mean she's saying children should have surgeries and there should be no safeguards it should automatically be done as soon as a kid likes the wrong color.

Just like with the abortion question it would be misinterpreted to mean she's saying those bs "post birth abortions" should be available on demand.

I think you're the one being obtuse, there's no way you don't realize why all politicians usually avoid direct answers to vague hot topic questions like that. Even your buddy Trump doesn't give simple yes or nos about vague hot topic questions he has been asked repeatedly.

[saraupstairs]

Because she only cares about winning.

[Ladsin2]

So you think that the Trans issue is a losing issue? Is it a losing issue with the American public, or only a certain subset?

[saraupstairs]

Gee, she said she wants to give illegal alien, incarcerated felons, thousands of dollars of elective surgery. What tax payer wouldn't want that? Screw the homeless vets sleeping on the street.

[saraupstairs]

PS Block that idiot who is fucking with you. No one is as stupid as he pretends to be.

[saraupstairs]

Thanks for the MHO

[Syntosi]

Does she even have to comment? Trump has already made it clear that he despises Trans so she gets a free win regardless.

[Ladsin2]

She was commenting plenty before. Now she is avoiding the issue. The question is why she's changed?

[Syntosi]

As I said, why should she? If your opponent gives you a free win you should just shut up and take it.

[Ladsin2]

Okay.

[loveslongnails]

It's just another dog whistle she doesn't have to pay attention to at this time.

[Ladsin2]

@loveslongnails Why would democrats be asking her about it then?

[loveslongnails]

How man "democrats" are bringing this up and who are they? Ask them.

[Ladsin2]

@loveslongnails
https://youtu.be/iO6Ta86wCDI
11:00-14:05

[loveslongnails]

Dude... so she got asked a question. It's a non-issue. You're either voting for the fascist, or you're voting for Kamala. The country will become Gilead, or it won't. Nothing else matters.

[jshm2]

There aren't enough Tranit-wits to affect the election either way.

[Anonymous]

Because it's insane and she's trying to win an election

[Opinion Owner]

After she wins it will be a different story