> Such as? You seem sure these exist, but are refusing to elaborate

I don't know what you are asking here.

"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.

> What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?

The point is the when the question is asked, it isn't answered, and treated as being asked in bad faith.

The reason is any answer given is likely to be a problem (i.e. offend someone) so it's simply avoided.

It's maybe reasonable to avoid "gotcha" questions, but some questions (i.e. on the basic premise of your position) shouldn't be so.

Again, what position? You keep saying "this question needs an answer"...in what context? For example, "we're building a bridge", "but sir, can you define 'what is a woman?'".

"I believe we should protect the environment" "But your supported political candidate wants to rollback legislation which would specifically protect the waterways and forests you claim are important from industrial dumping of toxic chemicals" is rather more relevant. Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.

What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"

> ...in what context?

"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.

> For example, "we're building a bridge"

This ("What is a woman?") is a famous question, so I thought the context was well known.

Sen. Blackburn asked it of a Supreme Court nominee, and there is a documentary of the same name and topic.

> Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.

The positions yes, but to quote myself:

"there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue"

> What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"

have you followed the context of why this is brought up?:

> MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".

> EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.

In other words, they support whatever their candidate does, whether their positions actually agree with it or not.

This is assuming that all regulations are the same though. The Richard Nixon administration made the environment a policy priority in 1969-1971 and created two new agencies, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA. The Clean Air Act was a Republican bill, and was dealing with things like carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It is the changing nature of the agency that made Republicans lose faith in it. Like how Republicans can like the idea of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, but after seeing scandal after scandal want the VA scaled back or their responsibilities shifted to other departments who still have their confidence.