The literal quote is about the “x-ism” of the statement, not its veracity. He goes on to extrapolate about truth later.

Yes, but it's in the context of someone already having said that an "x-ist" statement can't be true.

The quote in question is immediately after this paragraph:

> If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth. That's obvious enough that I'd guess most would answer no. But if they answer no, it's easy to show that they're mistaken, and that in practice such labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity.

Which the quote about the variation of a statement is given as an obvious counter argument once someone has already said that x-ist statements cannot be true.

"I am black?"

Fair, those are the same words, but it's not the same meaning. The "I" in this term refers to two different people depending on who says it.

Are they really the same statement if they have two different meanings?

That's kind of the point, no? Context matters - and part of who is saying it is context.

Yes, but it's also very much not the kind of statement PG is talking about. It's not generally something someone would be concerned about the truth value of.