Trans journalist Erin Reed called Douthat’s interview “hostile” and noted that El-Sayed previously stood up for trans rights when asked in August by Fox News’ Jesse Watters whether he supports “sex changes for minors.” El- Sayed replied, “The government shouldn’t tell you what kind of health care you should have, and if you’re a minor, that’s between you and your doctor and your parents.”
In September, a state university student asked about his position on gender-affirming care. El-Sayed answered, “I don’t think the government gets to have a say about what health care is provided in what circumstances and why.”
Reed also praised El-Sayed for remaining steadfastly committed to trans rights at a time when other Democratic politicians have adopted right-wing framing, saying they oppose government-funded surgeries for trans kids (something that almost never occurs) and “biological men in women’s sports” (an inaccurate and insulting reference to trans girls and women athletes who want to play on sports teams matching their gender identity).
“El-Sayed’s race will be one of the most important to watch on election night,” Reed wrote. “If he can win a highly contested seat despite the anti-transgender Republican money spent against him and the attacks from the right-leaning wing of his own party, it will be a clear case that embracing anti-trans views is not required to win swing states and swing districts across the United States.”
On his campaign website, under the heading “Healthcare Freedom for Women and LGBTQ+ Americans,” El-Sayed wrote, “Healthcare decisions should be made by a patient (and their parents if they are a minor) and their doctor–no one else. That includes reproductive and gender-affirming care…. I oppose any effort to criminalize certain medications and the use of lawfare or funding cuts to stop healthcare providers from providing full-spectrum healthcare that meet all the needs of their diverse communities.”
Not arguing with that, there’s definitely a clear consent issue there. But calling out the hypocrisy is still highly effective.
Because here’s the thing; it’s the “mutilation” that gets a visceral response from voters. Most Americans are not actually going to respond all that well to discussions of consent around children’s bodies because they still fundamentally do not see children as having bodily autonomy.
This deranged fantasy story about evil Democrats transing your kids is effective because it’s about transing your kids. Only you get to do that. The child is not actually important, they’re just property that’s being vandalized.
By pointing out the obvious disconnect, Sayed takes the entire conversation to a very uncomfortable place. What was an easy rhetorical ground to occupy - mutilating children would be objectively bad - suddenly becomes much more difficult when you have to explain why some mutilation is OK. That’s exactly why the transing kids attack is normally so effective; because dems fall into the trap of either saying “It’s not happening” (people believe it is, and that’s enough for them), or saying, basically, that this mutilation is acceptable. That’s not the position we’re taking, obviously, but it sounds like the position we’re taking to them.
Shutting down the line of attack entirely is often more effective. You don’t have to play fair with people who aren’t arguing in good faith.