👍🙂 Big lies and little lies, as far as the eye can see. But you certainly cover a lot of ground, far more than I have time to delve into as I'm largely focused on, as you put it, "the GenderWang front". Arguably where the rubber meets the road in a great many ways.
Somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, particularly as I see you subscribe to Gender Clinic news:
Gender Clinic News: "Yes, our evidence is weak
A leading gender clinician acknowledges the low-quality evidence base and says he no longer regards puberty blockers as a 'pause' button for children"
Closer to home, a recent bit of Canadiana from Eva Kurilova, although I think she's barking up the wrong tree in many ways, and, to some extent at least, more a part of the problem than of the solution:
"How the Ontario Human Rights Commission Helped Gender Ideology Take Over Canada"
"Ministries of Truth" R Us. Although, sadly, hardly exclusive to provincial "governments". ICYMI, Statistics Canada's foray into the field with their 2021 call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards". A particularly odious bit of bafflegab and bunch of circular definitions:
StatsCan: "
1 Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.
2 Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female."
Though they do helpfully and usefully acknowledge that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish:
StatsCan: "Sex and gender refer to two different concepts, but are interrelated. While sex is understood in terms of biological features, gender is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by several additional factors, including biological characteristics, cultural and behavioural norms, and self-identity."
The problem is generally that their definitions are anything but scientific, being charitable. One might reasonably expect something better from, presumably, a bastion of science, a keeper of the flames, a gatekeeper of credible scientific principles and nomenclature. Relative to which, you might have some interest in a paper I had submitted to them in response to that "call":
"Gobbelsian"
👍🙂 Big lies and little lies, as far as the eye can see. But you certainly cover a lot of ground, far more than I have time to delve into as I'm largely focused on, as you put it, "the GenderWang front". Arguably where the rubber meets the road in a great many ways.
Somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, particularly as I see you subscribe to Gender Clinic news:
Gender Clinic News: "Yes, our evidence is weak
A leading gender clinician acknowledges the low-quality evidence base and says he no longer regards puberty blockers as a 'pause' button for children"
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/yes-our-evidence-is-weak
Closer to home, a recent bit of Canadiana from Eva Kurilova, although I think she's barking up the wrong tree in many ways, and, to some extent at least, more a part of the problem than of the solution:
"How the Ontario Human Rights Commission Helped Gender Ideology Take Over Canada"
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/how-the-ontario-human-rights-commission
"Ministries of Truth" R Us. Although, sadly, hardly exclusive to provincial "governments". ICYMI, Statistics Canada's foray into the field with their 2021 call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards". A particularly odious bit of bafflegab and bunch of circular definitions:
StatsCan: "
1 Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.
2 Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female."
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/concepts/consult-variables/gender#a12
Though they do helpfully and usefully acknowledge that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish:
StatsCan: "Sex and gender refer to two different concepts, but are interrelated. While sex is understood in terms of biological features, gender is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by several additional factors, including biological characteristics, cultural and behavioural norms, and self-identity."
The problem is generally that their definitions are anything but scientific, being charitable. One might reasonably expect something better from, presumably, a bastion of science, a keeper of the flames, a gatekeeper of credible scientific principles and nomenclature. Relative to which, you might have some interest in a paper I had submitted to them in response to that "call":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kRIpfkx0sq8y0nC7HBK6GyMiI_SUv_zv/view
So far, crickets. Kind of expect, or at least hope, that many other people also gave them both barrels.