Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Gen Z hates conservative policies and are slowly voting more. Millennials aren’t getting more conservative with age. For every angry white kid who watches too much Fox News and/or falls into online alt-right cesspools and becomes radicalized, three boomers die.

It’s slowly fade away or dismantle democracy piece by piece for the current Republican Party. So while this of course is despicable and should worry anyone whose paying attention to the common themes perferating throughout the GOP and state level parties in particular... I'm also confident that these are the death rattles of a once culturally powerful demographic force that's in inevitable decline.

This isn't true. Voters aged 18-29 (births 1979-1990) voted 66-29 for Obama in 2008 per NYT. Roughly that same age category (voters aged 30-44, or in other words births 1976-1990) voted 52-46 for Biden in 2020, again per NYT, a 31 point swing right.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

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.

Dude this isn’t like she stole their lunch in an office. If you work in an office and a co-worker calls you a slur HR shouldn’t reprimand you for calling them a racist. Zephyr is working with people who want her to go away or die. You’re literally victim blaming.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

Dude this isn’t like she stole their lunch in an office. If you work in an office and a co-worker calls you a slur HR shouldn’t reprimand you for calling them a racist. Zephyr is working with people who want her to go away or die. You’re literally victim blaming.

I'm saying she's not helping the community too much if this is how she conducts herself. If the situation is as bad as you claim it is, then it's actually dangerous to have someone this bad at their job to be your main advocate. If it isn't as bad as you claim it is, then this is histrionics that is needlessly divisive and still hurts the cause. Either way she doesn't look good. Passion can be very good, but it amounts to little to nothing if it doesn't actually get you what you need in the end.

I care about results, and getting results requires pragmatism. Reality is messy, you can't assume perfection. Frankly, you have to work with the rules as they are if you can't change them. And if the rules ends up meaning that a remark like this leaves the community without a voice, then that's partially on her, because she is a member of the body and she is bound to its rules, regardless of her personal identity - and she knew this, still choosing to do what she did, and the consequences, warts and all. Of course the Republicans referring to her as "he" were not conducting themselves correctly either, but if you waste away your potential to advocate for your community by headstrong actions like this, you deserve to be judged accordingly. Rs did give her a chance to apologize, and she refused.

I understand you stand with her. But what would you rather have someone who is passionate, or someone actually able to do the job?

BTW, as a Muslim American, I would have felt the same if the climate was like the earlier 2000s, and a Muslim congressman wasted away the potential for them to stand up for me and fellow members of the community through these sorts of actions.

[DrScholl]

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.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Snip

The legislature was never going to listen to her. They will *never* let her do her job in any meaningful capacity. I agree with you that pragmatism is better than just showboating, but you’re assuming that republicans are working in good faith. Occasionally they do, but usually they don’t. Lawmakers were misgendering her, and have been spearheading laws to destroy her community. You can’t reason or be pragmatic with those kinds of folks. When your opponent spits in your eye you don’t ask them to chat about it over coffee.

I have seen republicans shoot down 10¢ pay increase for social workers when there was a budget surplus when I worked in the State House. By the time a bill reaches the floor it’s almost always going to pass. Speakers don’t pick fights they know they can’t win. Zephyr knows this, if you work any time with a legislature you know this. All she had left were her words and they took that from her.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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. I don't even think you're a doctor. Like most right-wingers you make up lies to support your mania.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Oh ffs, Tim. Just once drop the whole both sides are equally as bad shtick. She didn't insult her colleagues personally or as a group. She argued with the outcome of their vote would be. It was absolutely an attack on a policy position. The speaker is just being a bigot and lined up with the other assholes who are deliberately misgendering her.

[Badger]

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.

When people are trying to erase your very existence from the law, as Republicans are trying to do with the trans community right now, all expectations of decorum from the group under attack should be cast aside.

Whatever good she'll be able to do for the trans community if her complete refusal to accept decorum standards, as defined by the majority of the legislative body she is in, will leave Rs forever keeping her from speaking on the floor, leaving her unable to provide her unique perspective. I guess at least she's a vote against anti-trans bills still.

Half a loaf is better than none. She should have apologized, then slammed MT Rs for their handling of this on Twitter.

I officially change my response from oh ffs, to just stfu.

[Badger]

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.

Your ugly vicious bigotry is not missed. Kindly go back to conservachord and stay there.

[Badger]

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.

Give it a rest at vain attempts to sound expert on the subject. Your views of what does and doesn't constitute life affirming care doesn't come from the American Medical association, but Opus Dei. But go ahead and find a reliable citation if I'm wrong.

[Dan the Roman]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

[GoTfan]

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.

I wish I was able to swear on here, because the amount of stuff I would let fly at that statement . . .

[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...

[SWE]

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.

Dude this isn’t like she stole their lunch in an office. If you work in an office and a co-worker calls you a slur HR shouldn’t reprimand you for calling them a racist. Zephyr is working with people who want her to go away or die. You’re literally victim blaming.

I'm saying she's not helping the community too much if this is how she conducts herself. If the situation is as bad as you claim it is, then it's actually dangerous to have someone this bad at their job to be your main advocate. If it isn't as bad as you claim it is, then this is histrionics that is needlessly divisive and still hurts the cause. Either way she doesn't look good. Passion can be very good, but it amounts to little to nothing if it doesn't actually get you what you need in the end.

I care about results, and getting results requires pragmatism. Reality is messy, you can't assume perfection. Frankly, you have to work with the rules as they are if you can't change them. And if the rules ends up meaning that a remark like this leaves the community without a voice, then that's partially on her, because she is a member of the body and she is bound to its rules, regardless of her personal identity - and she knew this, still choosing to do what she did, and the consequences, warts and all. Of course the Republicans referring to her as "he" were not conducting themselves correctly either, but if you waste away your potential to advocate for your community by headstrong actions like this, you deserve to be judged accordingly. Rs did give her a chance to apologize, and she refused.

I understand you stand with her. But what would you rather have someone who is passionate, or someone actually able to do the job?

BTW, as a Muslim American, I would have felt the same if the climate was like the earlier 2000s, and a Muslim congressman wasted away the potential for them to stand up for me and fellow members of the community through these sorts of actions.

If you're a clueless and feckless enough moral coward that you can both sides a moral issue as simple as this one, your advice on how she can better help her community isn't worth anything at all

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

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

Intrusive thoughts? (I don't mean to pry, I just want to see if our intrusive thoughts, both previously thought delusional, match up)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If you're a clueless and feckless enough moral coward that you can both sides a moral issue as simple as this one, your advice on how she can better help her community isn't worth anything at all

Well, if the community wants a representative that willingly goes against the rules wholesale (I do regard the GOP's offer to let her apologize to be in good faith even if far from every lawmaker was acting that way), then in a sense she's doing an excellent job representing said community.

But I would note that this sort of combativeness burns bridges and does nothing to stop what the community bemoans.

Your willingness to call me a coward for, in my hypothetical example, not wanting a Muslim representative to act that way is duly noted.

Believe it or not, working with institutional rules and coalition-building are an important part of how you achieve what you want or at least trying to stop what you don't want and going to war with institutions and relying too much on outrage and insulting people (however justified or unjustified it is) makes things harder for you!

[Horus]

Antidepressants, despite their issues, have probably prevented countless suicides. They've certainly helped me. Saying they aren't lifesaving drugs strikes me as hairsplitting.

[Badger]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

Thank you for this additional information. Could you provide links to any source for it? I'm not questioning your assertions here, but would like to delve deeper.

Based on what you're saying, I guess I'd want to know more about the allegations of Reed supposedly doxing zephyr's colleagues. I mean, if it's outing them for having mistresses while standing Foursquare for so-called family values, like the house speaker and other legislators in tennessee, then good on her for doing so. Otherwise that's concerning. But even if she did do so, that really doesn't give the house Speaker the right to silence Zephyr from saying passing a bill which could drive trans people and kids to Suicide will leave blood on their hands. Is that any different than if someone made the same claim in a debate about significantly loosening gun control restrictions? One might disagree with the proposition, but it's zero basis to silence debate or demand an apology for such a statement before permitting the legislator to speak on the house floor again.

And then just other legislators misgendering Zephyr because they can I submit isn't just icing on the cake or a background footnote, but frankly gets the heart of what's really going on here.

[Dan the Roman]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

Thank you for this additional information. Could you provide links to any source for it? I'm not questioning your assertions here, but would like to delve deeper.

Based on what you're saying, I guess I'd want to know more about the allegations of Reed supposedly doxing zephyr's colleagues. I mean, if it's outing them for having mistresses while standing Foursquare for so-called family values, like the house speaker and other legislators in tennessee, then good on her for doing so. Otherwise that's concerning. But even if she did do so, that really doesn't give the house Speaker the right to silence Zephyr from saying passing a bill which could drive trans people and kids to Suicide will leave blood on their hands. Is that any different than if someone made the same claim in a debate about significantly loosening gun control restrictions? One might disagree with the proposition, but it's zero basis to silence debate or demand an apology for such a statement before permitting the legislator to speak on the house floor again.

And then just other legislators misgendering Zephyr because they can I submit isn't just icing on the cake or a background footnote, but frankly gets the heart of what's really going on here.

I should clarify, "doxing" is shorthand for posting videos of them to followers, and providing their emails, numbers, offices. Which if you are in a small state are often direct lines. Whether you feel this is harassment or just very aggressive lobbying I think there is a feeling that Reed simultaneously wanting to be invited to state house events and treated as a spouse, to testify as an expert witness, and then to run a national lobbying/activist campaign, is a contradiction, and taking advantage of people's hospitality.

This in no way is meant to engage on moral equivalency re policy. Merely to explain why if your priors are not to buy these policies as beyond debate or particularly outrageous, then Zephyr's refusal to separate out her official and personal roles or even accept why others are upset about it, is causing what would otherwise be an inexplicable reaction.

I don't agree but I understand why they are doing this. I do not even begin to grasp what set off the Tennessee Republicans.

[GoTfan]

If you're a clueless and feckless enough moral coward that you can both sides a moral issue as simple as this one, your advice on how she can better help her community isn't worth anything at all

Well, if the community wants a representative that willingly goes against the rules wholesale (I do regard the GOP's offer to let her apologize to be in good faith even if far from every lawmaker was acting that way), then in a sense she's doing an excellent job representing said community.

But I would note that this sort of combativeness burns bridges and does nothing to stop what the community bemoans.

Your willingness to call me a coward for, in my hypothetical example, not wanting a Muslim representative to act that way is duly noted.

Believe it or not, working with institutional rules and coalition-building are an important part of how you achieve what you want or at least trying to stop what you don't want and going to war with institutions and relying too much on outrage and insulting people (however justified or unjustified it is) makes things harder for you!

This sounds exactly like the sort of stuff a lot of people told MLK in the 50s and 60s.