Thank you! :) (Or maybe that oughtta be more like, "thanks, I hate it", huh?)

Do you (or anyone else here) happen to know what rule XXIII is? That's what the striking of these familial terms (mother/father, daughter/son, etc.) and insertion of "gender-inclusive" ones applies to. Specifically clause 8(c)(3). Is it the same as the Senate's Standing Rule 23, SR Rule XXIII: Privilege of the Floor? And if so... what is that? (And why is it a Senate rule, rather than a House one?)

Also, I notice that all of the terms being replaced ARE familial ones-- not man/woman, or boy/girl. (At least not yet...) Which, the way things are going on the trans/genderist front these days, is a major relief: thank heaven for small favors... So I don't wanna tempt fate by asking this, but: does anyone know why? How come Pelosi isn't making all sex-based terms "gender-inclusive"? Is that just an oversight? Is this simply testing the waters, or working her way up to the most radical changes? Or an attempt to placate the genderists without going the whole hog?

And, come to think of it, if this is meant as appeasement... seems like a miscalculation, doesn't it? And not only because you're dealing with people who are the very definition of give-them-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile. There's also the fact that "transwomen" and "transmen" don't WANT gender-neutral language! Refer to them as a "parent" and they'll REEEEE up a storm! No-- THEIR goal is that everyone be forced to call them "mother" and "father" (or "daughter"/"son", "aunt"/"uncle", etc.), respectively. The LAST thing they're interested in is de-gendering society! Indeed, what they're seeking is the opposite: making "gender identity" so central as to be inescapable.

Does this mean that I'm right about why Democrats (and liberals/progressives generally) are supporting the "trans" cause-- that they're misreading it as a rebellion AGAINST "gender roles"? So that, once they realize they got it backwards... they'll withdraw that support?