It is a nice example of the extremes our politics drive us to. I for example am neither a climate science denier nor a "New Green Deal Extremist". What you just did is an example of the game populists prefer to play to always keep us in the "us against them" position they thrive in. And that does go for the other side on this - some of the extreme Greens will say anyone not on board with a New Green Deal is a climate science denier.

I personally believe that the warming of the globe in an unprecedented way is now undeniable for those who accept the scientific method as the best way to learn about our world, as is man's role in it. I think science is not a crystal ball and can't see the future, so all the projections will almost certainly be wrong (which doesn't mean they'll be less severe - they could also be more severe). Somehow, this has become a political issue, but it should just be a scientific one. Nonetheless, given the uncertainties around this, in any other context imaginable, it would be insane to leave these future uncertainties in place without addressing them with current policy (the repubs preferred approach). Only because climate science has become so intertwined with political identity do you have one party who's platform is about keeping uncertainty in place, if not increasing it. Only one party insists on that. The other wants to address it, and is by no means on board with a New Green Deal. Pelosi just rejected the AOC protests on that. So you're not even accurate about the dem's current position (although we'll see if that moves left in the primaries).

There's no comparison with the gender question. It's not scientific. Its philosophical. Is there a concept of "gender" which is separate from "sex"? I admit that I struggle with it. But it's more like abortion rights. Science can tell us about viability of a fetus, but can't impose that as a legal determination of "when life begins". That is an inherently spiritual question, just like the question about whether the word "gender" can be different from the word "sex".

Evolution on the other hand? The fact that the world is warming and the overwhelming body of evidence that man's activities are the key factor causing it? These things are only denied by one side of the political spectrum. And thus they cede "party of science" to the other. Which we should be very clear about, because in the post-nationalist world, most of us want science to be what it is, and not something held out to be just another form of religion.