How so? From my point of view it seems like the conflation lies with the critics.
The word he used was transgender, and the studies were all for transgender health in a mouse model.
Critics are the ones bringing transgenic into the conversation, which neither matches what he said, or the majority of the studies.
It is as if Bob called the ocean blue, but Sally claims Bob really meant red, while simultaneously pointing out he is wrong because the ocean actually blue. It is a really weak criticism.
A more coherent response is simply: "Studying transgender health in mouse models is important, and those studies were a good use of money"
The word he used was transgender, and the studies were all for transgender health in a mouse model.
Critics are the ones bringing transgenic into the conversation, which neither matches what he said, or the majority of the studies.
It is as if Bob called the ocean blue, but Sally claims Bob really meant red, while simultaneously pointing out he is wrong because the ocean actually blue. It is a really weak criticism.
A more coherent response is simply: "Studying transgender health in mouse models is important, and those studies were a good use of money"