Reference for Yevamot 154:23

א"ר יוחנן אי לאו דאמר ר' יהודה הכתוב תלאן בלידה לא מצא ידיו ורגליו בבית המדרש כיון דאמר מר קהל גרים איקרי קהל

and in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, contrary to the view of the Sages, regards such a child as halal (supra 59b and 60a). Thus it has been proved that even where no kareth is involved, both males and females (the halalah like the halal) are included in the prohibition. Similarly in the case of the Egyptians and the Edomites. ');">⁴³</span> Then what is meant by, NOT SO?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objection of the Rabbis is strong enough! ');">⁴⁴</span> — It is this that he said to them: As far as I am concerned, I do not accept the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 523. n. 13. ab. init., R. Simeon being of the opinion that the offspring of a union between those who are thereby guilty of transgressing a positive precept only is not regarded as a halal. ');">⁴⁵</span> but according to you, since your view is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently you might derive the prohibition of the females from the law of the halal. ');">⁴⁶</span> [my reply is that] IT IS AN <i>HALACHAH</i> THAT I AM REPORTING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an objection is of no validity in the face of a definite tradition. ');">⁴⁷</span> It was taught: R. Simeon said to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span> 'I am reporting an <i>halachah</i> and, moreover, a Scriptural text supports my view, [it having been written] sons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> but not daughters'. Our Rabbis taught: Sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXIII, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> but not daughters; so R. Simeon. R. Judah, however, said: Behold it is said in Scripture. The sons of the third generation that are born unto them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. emphasis on are born. ');">⁵⁰</span> Scripture has made them dependent on birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of sex. Had the law applied to males only the clause 'that are born etc,' should have been omitted. ');">⁵¹</span> R. Johanan said: Had not R. Judah declared, 'Scripture made them dependent on birth',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the females also are forbidden. ');">⁵²</span> he would not have found his hands and feet at the house of study.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His position would have been untenable. ');">⁵³</span> For as a Master said that a congregation of proselytes is also called an assembly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assembly of the Lord (cf. Deut. XXIII, 2, 3, 4, 9. and Kid. 73a.). ');">⁵⁴</span>

Jastrow