In this world we live in there exists an objective truth to things. "things" in this context can be fuzzy, like if something is "good" or "bad", or they could be physical, like if something is getting "hotter" or "colder".
Wrapping those "things" in "politics" doesn't detract from the objective truth of the "thing", whatever that may be. It's merely a lazy distraction that reframes the debate in a way that favours the person or entity positioning themselves against the "thing" (for whatever reason). Here are some examples:
> The planet isn't getting hotter. These "scientists" are just begging for grant money and so have to say the planet is warming else they won't have a job!
> The planet is getting warmer. These "politicians" are just begging for oil-industry money and so have to say the planet is not getting warmer else they won't have a job!
> men cannot be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a politically motivated idiot trying to tear down good honest family values and those who indoctrinate our students with this nonsense should be purged
> men can be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a hard-headed idiot who must vote republican/conservative/other-bad-party, is probably racist and is trying to bring us drag us back into the stone age where women didn't have the vote. anyone who indoctrinates their kids with this nonsense should be purged
None of these unfortunately common arguments are actually saying anything, or are really about the actual "thing" in question. Just like the original comment I was replying to. The "thing" is a segway to attack the person.
The original commenter doesn't understand the nuances of systematic racism or sex vs gender any more than the layman. But that's not what they are attacking. They are attacking a perceived, fictitious persona that they don't personally like, or have been indoctrinated to not like by others. And that's lazy as hell.