> you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished

Your reaction proves the point that this is a purity test.

I’m not taking a stance one way or the other but you aren't able to engage without arguing against points I didn’t make.

What?

Your argument: It is a purity test for politicians to say that transgender inmates should receive care (which Kamala passed, to the detriment of her electability)

My argument: It is actually SCOTUS who decides this (or would require a Constitutional amendment, which is obviously absurd)