Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

It's the topic to people who aren't living in a reactionary fantasy land.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

And I thought the intrusive thoughts I have to shake off sometimes were delusional...