Talk:Assistant Secretary for Health

Facts

It appears as wiki no longer is factual and based on science. Instead, it has become a platform for left extremists and woke activism. The information is one-sided and a near-mythical glorification. All information about when this person lived as a male is erased. There are no pictures and descriptions of him as married and the whole article states that he was a woman 100% all from birth. No problems and criticism are allowed here such as the controversy about nominating him to the woman of the year and the critics against nominating a person to a senior post solely based on being transgender rather than on merit. To equate him with four-star generals is like equating a clerk to a senior vice president of Microsoft. To name her as the first woman or transgender as the first four-star general or admiral is an astronomical demotion of the status of being a four-star general. Her efforts and skill in reaching there are not more than what it takes to become a major or lt colonel. The article is not providing an accurate description of who he really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.69.205.115 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You are literally the most persecuted person in human history.

"No problems and criticism are allowed here such as the controversy about nominating him to the woman of the year and the critics against nominating a person to a senior post solely based on being transgender rather than on merit."

Appointments for the purpose of representation are within the purview of the Presidency. Ben Garrison was appointed largely because Trump needed a black guy in the cabinet. Idk, why don't you go complain about this on the page for Clarence Thomas or Amy Comet Barrett, or are you specifically just mad when it's a trans person. Also, we're literally talking about an assistant cabinet secretary. It's extremely unlikely that you've ever even remembered the name of an assistant cabinet secretary before this.

"There are no pictures and descriptions of him as married and the whole article states that he was a woman 100% all from birth."

What do you apparently want a compromise on misgendering? Per currently accepted medical doctrine trans identity manifests at birth, it does not begin at the point of medical or social transition. Just because someone's in the closet doesn't mean there something different than what they are.

"To equate him with four-star generals is like equating a clerk to a senior vice president of Microsoft. To name her as the first woman or transgender as the first four-star general or admiral is an astronomical demotion of the status of being a four-star general. Her efforts and skill in reaching there are not more than what it takes to become a major or lt colonel."

She is a political appointee, like all political appointees they are obviously appointed for political reasons and no comparison with the abilities of skilled underlings is meant. Political appointees with influence on some section of the military are given honorary military rank for the purpose of demonstrating the subservience of the military to the civilian and political leadership. Biden out ranks every single general and admir by virtue of his office. A skilled political leader will trust the skilled advice of those reporting to him, but power must ultimately lie in the civilian leadership in government. Otherwise you reduce to a military dictatorship. Anyway, once again, this is something you apparently have no problem with regarding literally every secretary and assistant secretary of health literally ever in history. Just this single time apparently it's a problem for some reason, and you want to just have a military dictatorship.2601:140:9500:7F00:E90D:D038:C706:8650 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo

@Neovu79: If this were an official portrait, I would agree with that reasoning. It doesn't appear to be, though. She's not even facing the camera. What makes you think it's her official portrait as ASH? When they publish an official portrait (which usually takes several months), it will appear on her official bio. The one currently there is a placeholder from Penn State. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

She appears to be facing the camera to me. The flags behind her are the U.S. flag and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services flag. This would conform with any portrait taken of any U.S. government official while in office. I have no doubt that this would be outside of that context. Neovu79 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Neovu79, Wouldn't they have updated her official bio with it, then? Official portraits tend to be decent resolution, as well, which this photo isn't. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that officials usually have good resolution portraits, but I've been following the https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/ site for years now. I have never seen them link a high-res photo for their bios. Neovu79 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Neovu79, fair enough. I don't think they would still be using a placeholder portrait from before she was ASH if they had a new official one, though. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I can definitely see your logic, however due to the recent events from the past administration, I feel that many official government sites have been neglected, due to terrible transition from one administration to another. Even the surgeon general's official page is a reused, low-quality portrait of him while he was the 19th surgeon general and not the 21st. Many times, I have to scouring through other official government sites and official government social media accounts to find better portraits for the HHS over the past 5-6 years. Neovu79 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Neovu79, alright, that makes sense to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357. I just found the same portrait on the ASH official Twitter account here and it is of slightly higher-res. I have updated the photo and link. Neovu79 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Neovu79, I cropped the photo for this page and self-reverted on Levine's BLP. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Capitalized or not?

It seems obvious that the position should be capitalized equally in the title and the lead. Which should it be? — HTGS (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)