Earlier this month, Abdul El-Sayed’s captain of independent and conservative outreach T.J. Wolfgram defended his candidate’s support for universal health insurance with the line, “Realistically, like, exactly what he says right now is not nearly as important as what he does when he’s in the seat.” Better yet, El-Sayed could simply avoid telling voters what laws he would vote for at all. This was the tactic the candidate adopted in a Thursday interview on the “Breaking Points” podcast, when asked about forcing taxpayers to fund transgender procedures for minors.

“You want universal health care. Could you pass a universal health care plan which would not cover puberty blockers for minors?” asked co-host Saagar Enjeti. “Is that a compromise that you would be willing to accept?” Far from a gotcha question, this question seeks to inform Michigan voters about how El-Sayed would go about achieving one of his core policy objectives.

But El-Sayed had no intention of answering such a question, at least not in those terms. “That’s a hypothetical. But the big question really is, what is government for? Like what is our politics really about?” El-Sayed countered. The whiplash of his non-sequitur was almost severe enough to give journalists like myself comedic grounds for a malpractice suit.

“To me, it’s not even about culture war, or it’s just about rights. It’s about whether or not we stand up against the tyranny of government to tell people how they get to live their lives or not. And to me, that thereis the real question,” El-Sayed continued. “To me, rights are rights are rights are rights. And the question of the kind of healthcare that you can get is a choice between you, your doctor, and, if you’re under 18, your parent. And I think that’s the sort of challenge here.”

The shrewd reframing of the question exchanged one policy question for another. Instead of explaining why the government should force people to fund controversial puberty blockers for minors, El-Sayed instead argued against SAFE Act-style bans. Protecting minors from puberty blockers was “tyranny,” he alleged, as access to such procedures was a human “right.” Thus, El-Sayed refused to provide a soundbite, but he did tip his hand.

El-Sayed chose his ground carefully to enable him to couch his position in terms of freedom and rights — terms that find a warm reception in the ears of every red-blooded American. His answer contained an implied negation of the question asked (would you accept a universal health care plan that did not cover puberty blockers for minors?). But explicitly admitting that he wanted to force unwilling taxpayers to insure puberty blockers for minors would have inverted the logic of “tyranny” and “rights” that El-Sayed invoked.

In other words, answering the question he was asked would have made El-Sayed’s answer sound laughably implausible. One must acknowledge his deftness in debate.

Indeed, El-Sayed next attempted a rhetorical judo move, attempting to equate transgender procedures for minors with “right to try legislation,” which he argued conservatives have long supported.

Unfortunately for his case, this argument overlooks the basic fact that “right to try legislation” is designed for novel treatments that are actually health care. Many opponents of transgender procedures deny that they serve any medical purpose, that their intended purpose of turning a male into a female or vice versa is simply not possible. At root, the issue of transgender procedures for minors does not turn on freedom or rights, but on the basic recognition or denial of biological facts.

In the moment, Enjeti pointed out that opposition to transgender procedures on minors was not limited to conservatives, citing “multiple socialized health care systems” in Europe, to which El-Sayed would have appealed as a model. He later added that “there are many Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan who also rioted against many of the things.” Before he could finish his point, however, El-Sayed interrupted him to derail the topic again.

“Here’s the funny thing about this question: you’re less concerned about whether or not people have healthcare and more concerned about whether or not some people are going to get their healthcare. I mean, that’s what you’re focused on,” El-Sayed declared. Maybe this Kamalesque line sounded better in his head.

Enjeti tried one more point to bring the conversation back on topic, “It just comes down around issues of trust — which is, again, like, are you going to fight, you know, for people who disagree with you? That’s the ultimate question. … Are you going to serve the people? Are you going to serve the activists? … The question to me is just which is more important to you? That’s it.”

Again, El-Sayed evaded the question, while making his intentions clear. “The point to me is this: Government should be about protecting your rights and fighting for your basic needs. That to me is what I’ve always believed. … I just don’t think politics are for culture war. I think politics are for protecting basic rights and providing basic needs. And that’s what I'm going to be fighting for.”

In this context, “basic needs” means puberty blockers for minors. “Culture war” means anything done to protect children from transgender ideology, but nothing done to force the transgender agenda down Americans’ throats. El-Sayed may not answer the questions in a straightforward manner, but “what I’m going to be fighting for” is perfectly evident.