Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[fhtagn]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

As a doctor you should know that saving lives isn't all about curing diseases or illnesses or life saving surgery. Gender affirming care is life saving for many transgender individuals, period. That's not something that you can speak on because that's not your experience and you refuse to be understanding of other's experiences. I'm not transgender, but I have read about how transgender people are affected.

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

No, and by definition, they aren't.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

No, and by definition, they aren't.

This is needless pedantry.

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

You are playing semantics and it's indeed childish. If you are actually a doctor you aren't showing the intelligence of once.

As I've already said:

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

You are playing semantics and it's indeed childish. If you are actually a doctor you aren't showing the intelligence of once.

As I've already said:

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

And as I've said, you are playing semantics. You have no facts, no truth and no point other than being a right-wing troll. End of debate.

Says the person who is basing what is and isn't life saving care on feelings, rather than what it actually means.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

You are playing semantics and it's indeed childish. If you are actually a doctor you aren't showing the intelligence of once.

As I've already said:

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

And as I've said, you are playing semantics. You have no facts, no truth and no point other than being a right-wing troll. End of debate.

Says the person who is basing what is and isn't life saving care on feelings, rather than what it actually means.

Man, do you not know what end of debate means? Be quiet, because you've made an idiot of yourself and I'm not the only one who has dragged you.

Funny, your posts so far have suggested you have absolutely no room to call anyone an idiot. But whatever makes you feel like you've accomplished something, I guess  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

get back to us on the topic after you've educated yourself.