Are you suggesting that Harris would have reeled in some of the most outrageous policies on this issue? She said no such thing so the reasonable assumption anyone would make is that it would be business as usual. Not talking about it is the problem.
The Democratic Party refused to grapple with these questions either and their electoral loss is going to do far more harm to trans rights than some reasonable policies (for example some gatekeeping of "self-ID") would have.
She was accused of many things in bad faith, e.g. not being Black, being a Marxist, being a communist, and more. Spending time and effort to address every single one of these would have been tantamount to allowing her opponent to dictate her campaign.
But tbh, this is a daft question. It's like saying you can't have a policy position on gun control unless someone has shot at you.
Harris failed to distance herself from positions that are deeply unpopular with the majority of Americans (e.g. sex changes for illegal immigrants). That's all there is to it.
If you want to step away from this particular issue, she failed to distance herself from the Biden administration's policies. There's a pretty famous clip of her failing to answer a question to that point, definitely on the youtubes.
Did you deserve the woman only award? Would you assume that identity to get that award? Are you saying that people dishonestly assume trans identities because its an easy way to assume power in our society? Are you a serious person?
Does a woman in a t-shirt and jeans also cause you great emotional distress? Does it become more if she wore a dress the day before?
I'm going to agree with the other person who replied. You're not a serious person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them
It was and is an important issue to a lot of voters and by ignoring it she let her opponent explain her position for her.
Prisons should of course have safeguarding policy for further separation of vulnerable inmates within the prison.
Interestingly this is exactly what male prisoners with a transgender identity were requesting, according to https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/chase-strangio...:
> He teamed up with Lorena Borjas, the unofficial den mother to transgender Latinx women in New York City, to start the bail fund for transgender immigrants, and he joined a working group of lawyers who were drafting recommendations for President Obama's Department of Justice on the incarceration of trans people. "We asked people in prison what they needed, and they all said that they wanted a trans unit," Strangio said. But the lawyers in the working group, including Strangio, believed that L.G.B.T. units were stigmatizing, and only served to perpetuate the prison system.
However they were ignored, and instead of this, a policy of transferring males to women's prisons was introduced.
When there's an impact that individual bad actors have, that's why we have individual punishments - we don't punish all men or all women for one bad actor, its nonsensical to treat trans folks as some homogeneous group when they literally embody the opposite :]
You're excluding a key point - the policy often benefits one party at the cost of another. You mentioned immigration and that's a great example of this sort of pathological empathy that has infected the left.
There's a cheap and fleeting sense of virtue attained when you champion illegal immigration and decry deportations. You post photos of mothers and their children crying at the border because the human trafficking organisations are having a hard time getting them across nowadays. But it's important to remember the negative pressure illegal immigrants place on wages and why there's a gross cabal of large corporations, lobbies, and affiliated NGOs, who virtue signal immigration as a means to lower their labor costs. It's important to remember the entire pipeline of illegal immigrants is owned and operated by extremely violent cartels - humans are now their most valuable product. Your desperate craving for that high of in-group acceptance is propping this up.
It's not that you're empathetic - you just don't care about the negatively impacted party. Nothing new under the sun.
I made no assertion about the criminality of the immigrants, but rather the cartels bringing them here.
Regarding "trans rights", which is quite a large umbrella of ideas, negatively impacted parties include:
1. Parents who don't want schools influencing their children's ideas about sexual identity.
2. Women who don't want to compete against biological men in athletics (this is the most bewildering failure of the left's tolerance).
3. Women who feel uncomfortable sharing previously women-only spaces with biological men.
4. Trans people who made life-altering decisions as a minor and now regret it.
These negatively impacted parties are vocal now - they aren't hard to see. You don't care about them, is all.