By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has altered Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait by replacing her legal name with her deadname. This change was made during a recent federal shutdown, raising procedural concerns as such actions are not deemed essential duties. HHS defended the alteration, claiming a focus on “biological reality” and reversing Levine’s policies, while critics, like Adrian Shanker, view the move as an act of pettiness and bigotry reflecting a broader pattern of erasing transgender people from public life. Admiral Levine responded through Shanker, emphasizing her commitment to advancing health equity and public health.
Read the original article here
The issue at hand centers on the deliberate replacement of the name on transgender Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with her deadname, a name she no longer uses. This act has been widely condemned as an instance of “pettiness and bigotry,” reflecting a deliberate attempt to inflict harm and invalidate her identity. It’s a clear example of how political agendas, fueled by prejudice, can manifest in seemingly small actions with significant personal impact.
The actions taken are hard to understand when considering the cost of the actions. The administration chose to spend taxpayer money to do this. There’s no reason to engage in such behavior other than a purposeful desire to cause emotional distress. The implication is that this administration is full of people who were middle school bullies. It’s the kind of move that is inherently mean-spirited, and it underscores a fundamental lack of respect.
The situation is amplified by the fact that Admiral Levine has dedicated years of service to her country. This move shows a blatant disregard for her contributions, and sends a clear message that her identity is not valued. It also touches on how quickly people change their names. Some people would be deeply upset to have their deadname placed somewhere as permanent as a portrait. The act of deadnaming itself is a way to invalidate someone’s identity and causes emotional distress.
The motivation behind this act isn’t subtle. The “cruelty is the point,” and this administration seems comfortable causing pain. The argument is that this wouldn’t happen under a different administration, pointing to a stark contrast in values and priorities. Some feel this is just the beginning. The argument is that the administration isn’t held to account for their actions.
The absurdity of the situation is further highlighted by the lack of any apparent justification, particularly as Admiral Levine’s legal name is what she prefers to be called. It’s a calculated move designed to antagonize her, and a blatant display of disrespect. The reaction from many is one of frustration and disbelief, especially considering the broader issues facing the country.
One of the common critiques centers on the hypocrisy of the administration, which often claims to support the military and veterans but then engages in actions that are directly harmful to a decorated officer. The general attitude among commenters is that this administration does not follow rules or guidelines, and there are never any consequences.
The impact of this behavior goes beyond the individual. It’s about a broader pattern of disrespect and animosity directed towards the trans community. It’s not about pronouns or misunderstandings. It’s about a conscious effort to make trans people feel unwelcome and to deny their right to be recognized for who they are.
The argument is that this act reflects the mentality of “shithead snowflakes,” people who are uncomfortable with those who are different. The action is seen as an attempt to erase the identity of a person who has dedicated her life to her country, and it does not align with the narrative of supporting the troops.
The timing of this action adds to the outrage. The replacement of the name on the portrait is not an essential task, especially during a government shutdown. This further emphasizes the malicious intent behind the act. The general sentiment is that this action should be illegal and is a shameful display of hatred.
The reaction from many is that this behavior isn’t just petty, it’s a form of harassment. It raises questions about who ordered this, and why. It’s a moment of reflection and a reminder of the power of names and the importance of respecting others.