Neither does Greene and her supporters. That really is the issue.

Equal rights regardless of gender, creed or political affiliation. You may have heard about it.

Hans

You know this how?

Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

great. you have answered both of our questions :)

No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

I do not seem to have asked a question related to this.

I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

"I cannot" is not much to type.

More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

You simply aren't getting the point: a response in kind is possible, but I don't think she is capable of it.

I would respond in kind by posting a rainbow flag, because I have LGBTQ loved ones I care about.

I could post a BLM flag because I have been inspired by what their movement has done in a short time.

I could post a vet flag because I have loved ones who are vets who I think do not get treated as well as they should.

Or is your contention that I need to find a response in kind that fits with MTG's message of bigotry and exclusion? Sorry, not happening.

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).

For someone who is putting so much effort into defending Greene's position, you seem remarkably ignorant of that position. She's done more than just put up a sign that gets the science wrong.

LOL. you do you.
There is a whole thread devoted to it, which already has substantial spread, so I will forgo discussing it further here.

Is there a reason you are not being honest about what the sign said?

The only discussion I have partaken in thus far regarding Ms. Greene is the incident linked to regarding the trolling of her by another Rep., and the resultant hyperbole and bias it entailed.

It also said "trust the science". The horror!

I'm afraid you'll need to provide some evidence for this.

It's just odd that you felt the need to lie. Weird.

"Weird" is a grown person (of which I am assuming you are)who doesn't know what a "lie" is.

And yet you are ignorant of Ms. Greene's actions in this incident. Of course you must be ignorant, because there is no way you would be disingenuously pretending her actions prior to the hanging of the trans flag^* were not part of the incident.





^*(remember, this means a flag representing support for transgender people and their rights, not a flag that has a gender. I know this was difficult for you before)

Was one of her actions prior to the incident calling out and trolling her office mate?

Would you mind telling me why you need evidence? Can you take an educated guess as to what I'm talking about please.

Why don't you look it up? There's no shortage of reporting on her anti-trans statements and actions going back at least 2 year's.

Its not limited to that, and it not the first time she has made vile comments about LGBTQ people

When you make a point of publicly attacking transgender people when you KNOW that an opponent is transgender, or that they have transgender family, you ARE trolling that person whether you think you are or not.

What is not the first time?
What "vile comment" about LGBTQ people has she made?

The post I joined this thread responding to claimed that the "there are two genders....respect the science" sign she put up in response to trolling from her office-mate was "the worst thing she has ever done", that doesn't indicate much of a history of "vileness".

ETAmend: the post did not claim it was the "worst" thing she had done. It claimed it was the "most disgusting"

All of this stupidity as one example.

Your refusal to answer my questions is all the answer I need. It is more than a little odd that you are so are so ashamed of your agreement with Greene's bigotry that you cannot admit it.

You have misquoted the sign, But no, I do not find that a supportable position. It is totally and intentionally wrong, and completely ignorant of the facts.

Your question?
What question?
The one where you asked if I found "her positions" supportable without spelling out which position you were asking about?

Which of those qualifies as a "vile" comment about an LGBTQ person?

As one example.

MTG is neither a psychologist nor a gender researcher; she is a cement-headed bigot who is attempting to legislate her bigotry against the LGBTQ community.

Sorry that you have so much difficulty following a simple discussion. As I said, your refusal to answer my questions is all the answer I need. Your support of Greene's bigotry is not in doubt.

Greene tweeted about the Equality Act
Discrimination against LGBT people could be ended "easily?" Okay I'll ask: How? And I hope the answer isn't, discrimination against LGBT people could be ended easily if they'd just stop being LGBT.

As for Marj, she shore is a red-blooded American gal!

Marj gropes trump cutout at rally

My ex-boss was right. You can't make this stuff up! :eek:

What anti trans legislation has she proposed?

Opposition to legislation promoting LBGTQ rights by a bigot amounts to the same thing. Voting no to a bill is still legislating, doancha know.

Especially from this bigoted hypocrite who pisses and moans

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...flags-n1256796

From the link:

"The only flag Greene specifically called out in her statement backing the flag legislation was the Black Lives Matter flag. She slammed “past, rogue members of the State Department” for flying “the flag of the radical Marxist group, Black Lives Matter.”


Seems it actually bans any flag other than the American one at American embassies.

Weak-sauce if it is supposed to be an example of "anti-trans" legislation.

And the other parts of that link??

Greene insisted she isn’t playing politics, adding, “this is about Patriotism, and we need more of it.”

She's wrong - we need less of it.

Seems to be a common trait of American "patriots" to deny rights to people who are not exactly like them.

The second example is a bit better.
Seems she would propose legislation that bars men, and trans women (biological men), from participating in Women's sport. Certainly opposed to the trans agenda, and on that basis could be called anti-trans, yet it is not punitive towards the trans-gendered, nor does it deny them rights.

Nope, I don't! While there are two sexes, sex is not the same as gender.

Sex is a biological construct, a physiological state.

Gender is a social construct, a psychological state.

If her sign had said "There are two sexes, respect the science", I would not have much of an issue with it.

It's Trump's humping of the flag. It's self-serving, pandering theater that plays with a certain segment of U.S. voters.

She is telling trans people they shouldn't exist. In fact she's saying they don't exist - they are mistaken. To me, that's a pretty hateful message.

Meanwhile she claims to know the mind of God.

Well, wouldn't hermaphrodites possibly qualify as a third? They're at least something of a hybrid.