Lofgren read aloud part of the testimony from Gail Heriot, a member of the United States Commission on Human Rights … “If I believe that I am a Russian princess, that doesn’t make me a Russian princess, even if my friends and acquaintances are willing to indulge my fantasy. Nor am I a Great Horned Owl just because — as I have been told — I happen to share some personality traits with those feathered creatures,” Heriot wrote in her testimony. “I’ve got to say, I found this rather offensive,” Lofgren said, reacting to Heriot’s testimony. “And it says to me that the witness really doesn’t know anything and probably has never met a transgender child who is going through, in almost every case, a very difficult experience finding themselves.” … Heriot tried to jump in and defend her testimony, arguing that the administration’s guidance was “offensive.” But Lofgren quickly cut Heriot off. “I think you’re a bigot, lady. I think you are an ignorant bigot,” the congresswoman said.
So Lofgren sure put Heriot in her place! Well, not exactly. After Rep. Steve King informed Lofgren she was out of order, she continued talking:
“Mr. Chairman, it is my time, and I would just like to say that we allow witnesses to say offensive things, but I cannot allow that kind of bigotry to go into the record unchallenged,” she said. Heriot jumped in once more to ask, “Does that mean you think I am a Russian princess?” “I have no idea,” Lofgren replied.
Let’s get this straight. Heriot is explicitly making a rhetorical point, and yet Lofgren regards statements about how one personally identifies as so sacrosanct she can’t bring herself to say that Heriot is not, in fact, a Russian princess?
I know the left seems to think that crying “bigotry!” in public forums amounts to a persuasive argument, but if you if you show a reasonable deference to logic, Heriot won this exchange—big time.
