I don't assess the value of someone's thoughts on a particular issue based on what sort of label one might be attached to them.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read that piece closely enough to discuss it. I don't know why so many on the right are so obsessed with the transgender issue; I suspect for some it's just the new, fashionable bi…
I don't assess the value of someone's thoughts on a particular issue based on what sort of label one might be attached to them.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read that piece closely enough to discuss it. I don't know why so many on the right are so obsessed with the transgender issue; I suspect for some it's just the new, fashionable bigotry that hasn't yet been completely dismissed as such; I suspect for others (like Sullivan) it's just the hot-button issue of the day -- due to rightwing hysteria -- and so of course as pundits, they are compelled to weigh in.
FWIW, I used to read Sullivan regularly, many years ago. Then he started announcing that he was ending his blogging career, and then starting it up elsewhere, and then ending it again, and eventually, it didn't seem worth trying to keep track. But back then, I read him because I considered him one of the "reasonable conservatives" -- someone with whom I was not always going to agree, but who at least had some respectable bases to support his arguments.
So you use the fact that you don’t understand what I might find problematic about Rachel Levine as a reason to dismiss me as right wing and a “both sideser”, but then say you don’t assign values based on labels. And in any case you won’t even skim an explanation from someone who, whatever your feelings, cannot reasonably be dismissed as a classic “right winger” (indeed he vocally supports Harris). Or even explore the facts yourself while ignoring the messenger.
The fact that the Rachel Levine scandal is about transgender issues is ultimately orthogonal to why I’d list it as a reason someone might be concerned by potential Harris appointees. Basically, you’ve got an appointee in a supposedly scientific/objective position who was almost certainly selected for the position in part due to identity politics. That appointee is meddling in the internal business of an international organization and telling them to modify their best practice guidelines (that are ostensibly developed from scientific and practical expertise) in order to play better in US politics. That the appointee has a clear personal bias and conflict of interest in exactly that area is the cherry on top.
So the administration is clearly willing to subvert science and medical best practice in service of a radical and unpopular activist ideology, or at least to appoint people who will do so without consequence. That’s a genuine problem, regardless of the ideology in question - it’s fair to say “but Trump’s worse”, but not to dismiss offhand someone who is bothered by it.
I don't assess the value of someone's thoughts on a particular issue based on what sort of label one might be attached to them.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read that piece closely enough to discuss it. I don't know why so many on the right are so obsessed with the transgender issue; I suspect for some it's just the new, fashionable bigotry that hasn't yet been completely dismissed as such; I suspect for others (like Sullivan) it's just the hot-button issue of the day -- due to rightwing hysteria -- and so of course as pundits, they are compelled to weigh in.
FWIW, I used to read Sullivan regularly, many years ago. Then he started announcing that he was ending his blogging career, and then starting it up elsewhere, and then ending it again, and eventually, it didn't seem worth trying to keep track. But back then, I read him because I considered him one of the "reasonable conservatives" -- someone with whom I was not always going to agree, but who at least had some respectable bases to support his arguments.
So you use the fact that you don’t understand what I might find problematic about Rachel Levine as a reason to dismiss me as right wing and a “both sideser”, but then say you don’t assign values based on labels. And in any case you won’t even skim an explanation from someone who, whatever your feelings, cannot reasonably be dismissed as a classic “right winger” (indeed he vocally supports Harris). Or even explore the facts yourself while ignoring the messenger.
The fact that the Rachel Levine scandal is about transgender issues is ultimately orthogonal to why I’d list it as a reason someone might be concerned by potential Harris appointees. Basically, you’ve got an appointee in a supposedly scientific/objective position who was almost certainly selected for the position in part due to identity politics. That appointee is meddling in the internal business of an international organization and telling them to modify their best practice guidelines (that are ostensibly developed from scientific and practical expertise) in order to play better in US politics. That the appointee has a clear personal bias and conflict of interest in exactly that area is the cherry on top.
So the administration is clearly willing to subvert science and medical best practice in service of a radical and unpopular activist ideology, or at least to appoint people who will do so without consequence. That’s a genuine problem, regardless of the ideology in question - it’s fair to say “but Trump’s worse”, but not to dismiss offhand someone who is bothered by it.
You have identified yourself as a bothsiderist, several times.
That I see you as a rightwinger won't be surprising to anyone who has read this thread.
As to your pet issue of Rachel Levine, I'm sorry, but I just don't care about it enough to want to get into it with you.