It is not wrong.
It is a true statement that some find uncomfortable.
With snark added- as it was put up in response to snark.

No, it's false statement that wouldn't be true even if she had said "sex" instead of "gender".

Can you cite the science that says there are only two genders? Since gender is about opinion how could there even be science saying there are only two?

What is the point of repeating this lie?

It IS wrong. Demonstrably so. It is only cultural dogma to restrict the concept of gender to male/female only.

Where to start...

Start by visiting the thread dedicated to the topic.

There is a thread for that.
Tangentially, if gender is about opinion (as you state), how does one get to a place where expressing what is probably the most commonly held opinion on the topic as "hateful"?

Oh, good, you're back. It's a shame you haven't taken the time to research MTG's actions prior to the "snark" you falsely claim started this off.

And the whole "Distracted1 gets to make his false and bigoted statement here but any response is off topic and should be taken to another thread" is nonsense. Don't want to discuss it here, then stop trying to get the last word in.

It took you this long?

Then confine your lies about the subject there.

Look the damn word up. Gender is about roles and behaviors and only typically associated with sex. Then look sex up in a few dictionaries, some will get in to the details of intersex.

I don't care how common the ignorance or hatred is. And I don't know that most people would deny that intersex exists even if they don't commonly talk that way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sex

IIRC there is a massive thread with people arguing about this. I haven't ventured there much, but based on the volume of disagreement I would say that it is at the very least not settled.

We don't typically have huge debates among long term members here about simple scientific topics that are well settled.

There can be semantic debates but the science is well settled that not all humans fall neatly in to male/female sexes. And that's all the science we need for this thread. And that's even addressing the stricter question of how many sexes there are, where what is at issue here is how many genders there are.

Thank you.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just pointing out that if the science were settled in the direction the D1 and MTG seemed to agree, then there would be no need for a thread on the topic. I understand it to be a complex topic and the thread seems to bear out that understanding.

Indeed, and I agree.
Does that make the %50 or so of the regular participants in that thread "hateful bigots"?

If the science is unsettled, making a declarative claim WRT the veracity of the statement (which I was definitely not the first to do in this thread) is of roughly equal value.

Holding an opinion that falls on one side or another of the issue is neither hateful, nor bigoted. Responding to the statement "trans women are women" with "trans women are not women" does not land in the territory of "bigoted" unless one has chosen to abandon all pretense of rational discussion and gone straight to spittle-spewing tribalism.

Yes, sorry I didn't make it clear I was attempting to amplify your point.

The legislation that sparked the debate between the two Reps. Is intended to create a separate gender called "intersex"?

Or is it attempting to legislate what constitutes a "man/boy" or "woman/girl"?

I don't find many people arguing that there do not exist people with their genders mixed up.
Even fewer that would penalize someone for having that condition (although, of course, there are undoubtedly some who do). The pushback is against those who would change the definition of "Woman" in order to satisfy the agenda of some advocates for those so afflicted.
The opinion of the Conservative linked to above by NYG is more typical of the attitude of those of us who would keep the existing understandings of the words where they are. There is no "hatred" or "irrational fear" of persons who choose (or are compelled) to emulate another gender, only an unwillingness to adopt the "solution" proposed which denies reality.

No, it's none of those things. Look it up for yourself.

This thread has been totally derailed.

dubalb is as patient as he is long-suffering.

It has been sealioned.

Neither, and if you had been paying attention, you would have known that!

Try learning to swim before you jump in at the deep end!

They don't have "their genders mixed up". You are still proceeding from a total and complete misunderstanding of the subject material.

Denying them the right to be who they are without being discriminated against IS penalizing, and in exactly the same may that denying black people the right to be citizens of the country of their birth was penalizing, or denying gays and lesbians the right to serve their country in the military is penalizing, or allowing people to be denied employment on the basis of their ethnicity is penalizing.

Your use of the term "reality" shows us your true colours.... no different from those of Marjorie Taylor-Bigot.

Try telling a transgender person that their gender is mixed up, tell them what you think "reality" is when it comes to gender. Let us know what their reaction was.

Don't you just love it when someone tells another person how they feel and what they think? Talk about arrogant.

Truly, if you wish to demonstrate your scientific expertise in the area in order to justify the total irrefutable correctness of your viewpoint I would welcome seeing it in the thread devoted to the topic.

Outside of that, you are making a bald assertion of nothing other than belief with all the justification of a new religion or cult- then calling others (who constitute the majority), who reject your new faith "bigots"

It's the worst.

A lot of reasonable people have left that thread to the people who are so certain they are reasonable they couldn't figure out that purposefully misgendering a cis gay man in order to mock was, you know, a bad thing to do. Being so insufferable people leave doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't make one 'in the majority'. Which you aren't on this one. That you feel safe and victorious in that thread in absolutely no way makes you correct.

So stop.

Something about thinking, and feeling, and telling someone else how they do those things..... It's around here somewhere.

I've already stated that I am not involved in that thread. If, as you claim, 50% of the regular participants in that thread would agree with MTG's actions, then yeah, they are at least supportive of hateful bigotry.

I was merely pointing out that her oversimplification was clearly wrong. If it were that simple it would not be worth discussing.

Holding the opinion that trans people do not deserve the same consideration that non-trans people deserve is just as bigoted as holding the position that gay people do not deserve the same consideration as straight people. That you frame it as your opinion does not make it less bigoted than if you tried to frame it as a fact. Especially for someone who has the power to pass laws that can actually impact the legal rights of their citizens.

:bigclap

In matters of national concern, these politicians have a responsibility to ensure that they act in the interests of ALL of the citizens of their country. It isn't their job to turn their own vile, bigoted opinions into legislation.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene is a horrible person - racist, homophobic, transphobic and a lying conspiracy theorist; a thoroughly nasty individual in every way. She does not deserve the privilege of serving in government.

Yep.

Only they we can do now is laugh at, mock and make fun of her and her supporters. Ridicule is the only effective tool against these types.

I prefer to wait for a smoking gun....and the guy we are talking about produced it in this thread.

Do not pretend that you are not aware that legislation is not as cut and dry as that. It is a trick used by politicians, and should be beneath anyone here.

A bill can state that "trans people may not be discriminated against in housing" while also stating that "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one".

When someone rejects the legislation for the latter reason- it is transparently disingenuous to accuse them of being "against" the former. We think of politicians in disparaging terms precisely because of tactics like that.

Do not pretend that you haven't been repeatedly told that MTG has a long history of anti-LGBTQ activism, which pre-dates her entry into politics.

Given that knowledge, one doesn't have to pretend legislation said anything like your claim. We know it didn't, and we know why she is against it. Your apologetics for her fail.

Well once you find it, do let me know. Till then, your assertions about how right you are remain unfounded.

You do realise that the text of HR5 is freely available to the public, which means everyone here can read it, and can immediately see that both you and your vile friend Marjorie are lying about what it says, right?

Please show me anywhere in HR5 where it says "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one" (and keep in mind that you put that bit in quotes, so now you have to find that exact sentence in the body of HR5, or your claim fails)

For the runner up prize, show me anywhere in HR5 where it even implies this.

ETA: Here, I'll even help you out

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...se-bill/5/text

Is that what you think happened here? Do you think MTG actually really does support transgender rights, but she wants to nail down the definition so that others aren't simply pretending to be transgender to get the benefits?

That is not my impression, but I'm open to evidence of this.

Hey, Distracted1, here's a wee reminder about some still outstanding homework....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n050avecqu...ient.gif?raw=1

Looks like you have run away from the hard questions!

Not fair doing research and expecting facts from MTG supporters who only deal in opinions and obfuscation.

Oh, yes, your demand for an explanation.
You got me, nowhere does the bill specifically use the exact words "trans people may not be discriminated against in housing", therefore you are correct- it does not prohibit that kind of discrimination.
Well argued, kudos.

You support housing discrimination?

Non sequitur. Your reply is not related to the question - no one is making that claim. You, however, made the claim that the legislation being discussed said "for legal purposes, anyone who declares himself to be a Woman is one".

You're not getting off that easy. Since your claim was made as a statement of fact, and in quote marks, the only way to support that claim is to find that exact statement in the text of HR5. I will accept wording that means or implies the same thing.

If you can't find it, you need to withdraw your claim and admit you were wrong.

To be fair, i don't think he was saying it as a statement of fact, i think that was his transparently BS excuse as to how MTG could be against a bill for trans rights (she is) and not against trans rights (which requires ignoring her years long public history of being against trans rights).

Distracted1 is wrong, anyway, of course. Then again, a self proclaimed lifelong Democrat who spends so much time attacking Dems while defending MTG and Trump is almost always not going to be telling the truth about something.

Then maybe he ought to be more careful about what he claims is in a bill before the house/senate, because using quote marks when referring to the content of a document definitely implies it to b a direc,t word-for-word excerpt from that document.

For being so hung up on the literal meaning of things, your reading comprehension is low.

There has been discussion of Trump in this thread?
Or is it simply tribal knee-jerk reaction that anyone pointing out faulty reasoning on one side of an issue automatically becomes the caricature of the person on the "other side" one prefers to argue against?

Oh, how we love to criticize the right for not policing its own bad logic- yet look at your reaction to a Democrat attempting to do just that.

No, the discussion where you defended Trump was in the CPAC thread. I hope that helps you.

'He' could, of course, explain what the quotation marks were meant to convey. Explain something like, 'No, I'm sorry if they were taken as direct quotes from the bill; they weren't. I was just being sarcastic.' But that would require a willingness to get down and discuss this with other posters, explain and defend his reasoning. Not just vent, which is all I see. Example:

Ah, the internet. Don't you just love it? ;)

And you seem to be the Distracted1. Focus. Simple questions, easy answers. It is all in your hands.

*dudalb. :)

Had the poster who demanded a specific response chosen to read the post thoroughly, the first thing he might have noticed was that it was referring to "a" piece of legislation.

They might then have taken the simple step of asking what the quotes were meant to convey in that context. Instead a demand for a response to their misinterpretation of the post was made, along with instructions for the exact form that that response needed to take.

I have no obligation to respond to such a demand, nor to educate the poster making the demands as to the various uses of quotation marks in casual written discourse.

ETA, and no, I feel no regret for using the terms "knee-jerk" and "tribal" in a thread where "Hateful", "Bigoted", and "disgusting" are being thrown around.

You are welcome to link to, or name the number of, the post wherein that occurred, Or you could withdraw the "lie" (as we have taken to calling opinions that we disagree with of late).