I wonder how this is going to go for these Democrats

Post Reply New Topic

They say they support funding, both public and private, of transgender health care, which might come back and bite them in the general election:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/03/in-ra ... x-changes/

Elizabeth Warren had it right in the 2012 Senate race when she spoke out against Kosilek, a murderer serving a life sentence, receiving sex reassignment surgery from taxpayers. Had she said otherwise, I think she would have lost in 2012, because of the massive opposition in Massachusetts to funding those procedures, especially for murderers.

Because two Democrats in one state show support for this funding while they are in front of a pro-LGBT group is hardly a referendum that it is a generalized Democratic opinion. All politicians say what is necessary to say in front of the group it is necessary to say it in front of.

If a person has severe depression, schizophrenia, or let's say, autism, it isn't a political issue, so why is gender reassignment surgery so controversial when the person truly believes that they were born the wrong sex? If it is neurological, then Obamacare's increased attention to psychological issues would allow for it. I guess the folks against spending tax money on anything would be dead set against it, but the Affordable Care Act requires people to have health insurance, so over time I'm sure most of these procedures would pay for themselves, and even if they didn't, what percentage of a percentage of a percent would that cost? Everyone isn't going to run out and change sex.

It is unfortunate that it is seen as a, "race to the left," because when not framed in the context of, "THEY WANNA HAVE WEIRD SEX ON YOUR DIME!" it doesn't seem to me like all that radical an idea. I'm certain that there are a lot of otherwise conservative people who are transgendered, and because the American Right is so reactionary, they are left without a country, so to speak.

I doubt the Democrat whoever the nominee is will win this race in November

It is controversial because of the whole "American values" thing as narrowly defined by the far right string pullers. The same reason more attention is paid to immigration than poverty, to "voter fraud" than education, to the already passed ACA than to starvation and malnutrition in the US (and those numbers are quite disturbing for a so called first world nation), to business and finance de-regulation than to economic development, and more to the imaginary war on christians than to science and research.

Don't get me wrong, the far left is just as guilty of ignoring things that impact the majority in favor of things that impact the minority. It is a matter of what each side has built their emotion-based manipulation machine out of, not what is best for the majority of the people. Both groups are primarily interested in making their donors happy, and any small benefit that comes your way is likely to be much less than it is for the biggest political donors. You just have to decide which group has the more appealing (or less nauseating) table scraps.

At the risk of seeming dense, I always thought one's gender was determined by X and Y chromosomes in the genome.

XX = female. XY = male.

I can understand how some deformation of these chromosomes can cause unusual effects such as being a hermaphodite.

Even so, what does being the "wrong sex" mean? Is there any objective truth to the notion or is it a neurotic denial of the biological fact of one's gender?

ruveyn

Actually, with the current advances of knowledge in physiology, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, and biochemistry the old definitions are getting a little murkier. It is quite possible to have typical male genitalia and still have typical female biochemistry and neurophysiology. Other than the physical genitalia, it turns out that there is actually something of a spectrum when it comes to gender.