Zohran Mamdani Wants To Sterilize Kids.’ He plans to spend $65 million on childhood sex changes.
The $65 Million Gender-Affirming Care Bombshell
Let’s cut to the chase: Mamdani’s most jaw-dropping proposal is to drop $65 million of taxpayer money on gender-affirming care, including for kids. We’re talking puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and potentially more, all to make NYC an “LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city.” The plan, detailed in outlets like The New York Sun, aims to ensure no New Yorker is denied these treatments due to cost or provider reluctance. Mamdani’s even ready to sic the city on private hospitals that balk, threatening investigations and penalties to enforce compliance
.For supporters, this is a lifeline for transgender youth, whose mental health can hinge on access to care that aligns their bodies with their identities. Outlets like Them and LGBTQ Nation hail it as a bold stand against potential federal crackdowns, especially under a second Trump administration. But critics? They’re screaming bloody murder. The Manhattan Institute calls it a “strange priority,” arguing that funding sex changes for minors—treatments that can lead to infertility if prolonged—is a reckless use of public funds when NYC’s grappling with crime, homelessness, and crumbling infrastructure. The word “sterilization” gets thrown around, though it’s a charged term that oversimplifies the medical reality. Puberty blockers are reversible, but long-term use can impact fertility, and that’s enough to make some folks uneasy about kids making these choices.
This isn’t just about money; it’s about ethics. Should the city be footing the bill for medical interventions that even some doctors question? And what about the government strong-arming hospitals? It’s a slippery slope to state overreach, and it’s got people wondering if Mamdani’s more interested in ideology than practicality.
A Laundry List of Radical Ideas
But the gender-affirming care plan is just the tip of the iceberg. Mamdani’s platform, as outlined on his campaign site and reported by The 19th News, is a progressive wish list that could either save NYC or sink it. Here’s a rundown:
These ideas sound like a utopia for the working class, but critics like the Manhattan Institute argue they’re a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. Taxing the rich to fund a $10 billion spending spree could send Wall Street packing to Miami, and city-run grocery stores evoke images of Soviet-style bread lines. Free buses might clog the system, and rent freezes could turn NYC’s housing stock into a patchwork of neglected buildings. Mamdani’s supporters, though, see these as bold solutions to a city where working-class families are priced out, and they point to his primary win as proof that New Yorkers are hungry for change.
Mamdani’s campaign enlisted over 45,000 volunteers citywide, with a significant portion organized by NYC-DSA.
A post on X claimed 50,000 volunteers were involved, though this figure is not independently verified by primary sources and may reflect aspirational or exaggerated reporting.
At least 26,425 volunteers signed up specifically for canvassing, with 4,000 of these recruited through door-to-door efforts by other volunteers.
Approximately 400 volunteers became field leads, trained to manage weekly canvassing shifts, indicating a highly organized operation.
Why “Dangerous”?
So, why the “dangerous” label? It’s not just hyperbole from right-wing pundits. Critics argue Mamdani’s policies could destabilize NYC’s economy and social fabric. The $65 million gender-affirming care plan, while a fraction of the city’s budget, symbolizes a broader issue: prioritizing divisive, ideological goals over universal needs like public safety or infrastructure. The Manhattan Institute warns that his tax hikes could drive out the wealthy, shrinking the tax base that funds essential services. His push to investigate hospitals for denying gender-affirming care raises red flags about government overreach, potentially scaring off medical professionals who disagree on ethical grounds.
Then there’s the optics. Mamdani’s focus on issues like gender-affirming care for minors, while noble to some, feels tone-deaf to others when NYC’s streets are plagued by crime and homelessness. His socialist leanings, endorsed by figures like AOC and Bernie Sanders, make moderates nervous about a city veering too far left. Even the New York Times has called his proposals “unrealistic,” and when the Times thinks you’re too progressive, you know you’re skating on thin ice.
But let’s not dismiss the other side. Mamdani’s supporters, including LGBTQ+ advocates and celebrities like Cynthia Nixon and Laverne Cox, argue that his policies address systemic inequities ignored by establishment Democrats. His gender-affirming care plan, detailed in GO Magazine, is seen as a moral imperative, especially with federal threats looming. His focus on affordability—housing, childcare, transit—resonates with working-class New Yorkers who feel crushed by the city’s cost of living. To them, “dangerous” is just a scare tactic from a status quo desperate to cling to power.
The Man Behind the Mission
Mamdani’s personal story adds another layer to the debate. His privileged upbringing—son of a famous academic and filmmaker, educated at elite institutions—makes some question whether he truly gets the struggles of everyday New Yorkers. His degree in Africana studies is impressive, but does it equip him to manage a $100 billion city budget? His work as a housing counselor gives him street cred, but critics argue it’s a far cry from running the nation’s largest city. Yet, his charisma and grassroots appeal, evident in viral campaign stunts like walking the length of Manhattan, have made him a darling of the progressive left
In the churning chaos of New York City, where ideals clash and dreams are forged, Eric Adams emerges as a figure of resolute pragmatism, a mayor who understands the pulse of the city’s families. His policies, rooted in a deep commitment to education and parental support, make him the right choice for New York’s future. Adams champions the rights of parents and the welfare of children. In an age of ideological excess, Adams offers a grounded vision, and we back him for it.
Share this post