We have simply asked for the document by its official petition name

No, you have not "simply" done that.

The first email doesn't even mention the official petition name. It asks Press Secretary Redfern to confirm that Florida intends to ban "gender affirming care." Naturally he's going to want to ask what you mean by that before answering your question.

Not answering his question and switching to we just want the document is a dirty trick designed to put him in a difficult situation. He knows you can turn around and basically lie and say that he never answered your question.

Remember when surgery wasn't a suitable treatment for "trans children," you were a conspiracy theorist, and that would be gross, weird, and totally inappropriate, even according to the pro trans side...like a year or two ago?

Demons, man. Demons.

Same old tactics. Put out headline, quietly retract. "We never said that. Oh we did but we retracted it."

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

Politics and the English Language - George Orwell

Go further.

State that reducing the number of medical transitions is gender affirming care.

Universally equate sex and gender. Re-impose biological reality.

I was kinda hoping it would be:

LOL. Shut up, faggot.

The press secretary has some grammatical mistakes. "... of gender dysphoria" rather than "with".

Normally this isn't an issue, but this is a press secretary and a journalist for a mainstream publication.

These journalists want to cut his throat. If they ever thought they would get away with it, they'd rape his wife, son, and dog; then publicly behead all 3. He needs to be careful, even if it's a Sunday. They have no regard for human life, and will not hesitate to capitalize on any mistake as a weapon to spread defamation, and possibly incite violence.