Gender feminist theory predicts we’d see nearly equal employment of males and females in all occupations if we could erase the ‘patriarchy.’

In STEM and managerial positions there would be more women; in health care and K-12 teaching there would be more men (a side effect of no real interest). That this is not the case is indisputable evidence of pervasive discrimination based on sex.  (Except, of course, for dangerous, physical jobs like lumberjack, oil rigger, lineman…)

The intersectionalists leading those feminists (i.e., almost all of them) are quite certain this misogyny results from the evils of capitalism, insufficient government dictation of female-friendly employment rules, and paucity of financial incentives favoring females. In short, any difference in male vs. female outcome results from deep systemic suppression of female choice.  Don’t doubt this.  James Damore did, and look what happened to him.

The root cause is white male privilege – of which capitalism and too little government coercion are but symptoms. I’m sure I’ve left out much else of the intersectionalist potpourri, but life is short.

Drawing lines from every situation ever encountered by humans to meet at a grand conspiracy theory nexus (so long as such drawing elevates your identity group’s oppression quotient) can be lots of fun, I guess. It keeps you occupied, and gives you all the perks of victimhood. Still, blaming everyone else, over all of history, for everything that isn’t perfect in your present society seems like more work than any supposed insight might be worth.

This is the theory upon which the current feminist societal prescription rests. Let’s examine some outcomes where it has been tested.  Emphasis mine.

Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
-Plos One, 2016

“We propose that while economic considerations may play a more prominent role in STEM-related interest for individuals living in less developed countries, intrinsic subject-specific interest will play a more important role in educational and occupational attitudes and choices for individuals living in countries with higher levels of economic well-being. When the relative role of interests become more important than the financial drivers, and when men and women have more freedom to pursue their intrinsic interests, the well established sex difference in occupational interests will become more strongly expressed [74–77]. Altogether, these patterns might explain why girls benefit less than boys in terms of reduced mathematics anxiety. For example, in more developed countries in which people engage more in activities that intrinsically interest them, girls might not engage in STEM activities as much as boys, giving them less opportunity to reduce their negative feelings about mathematics…”

In sum, wealthy societies provide more opportunity for choice. This should not be surprising. But, put another way: Free market capitalism is most likely to indulge individual “intrinsic interests.” It is a superior economic system in terms of choice – regardless of sex. And, “the well established sex difference in occupational interests will become more strongly expressed,” suggests men and women pick activities and occupations most appealing to them. Differences in outcome would not, then, appear to be the result of a conspiracy to oppress women.

There is more evidence for this conclusion:

The Gender Scandal: Part One (Scandinavia) and Part Two (Canada)
-Jordan Peterson, 2018

“Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that difference in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, it follows that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome.”

When barriers to choice are lowered more choices will be made according to individual preference. Outcomes will then vary according to “temperament and interest.” This is also what the feminists claim. What they don’t like is that the result confounds their prediction. More choice does not appear to make females more nearly identical to males.

In fact, the opposite happens:

Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding
-International Journal of Psychology, 2018

Sex differences in personality have been shown to be larger in more gender equal countries. We advance this research by using an extensive personality measure, the IPIP‐NEO‐120, with large country samples (N > 1000), from 22 countries. Furthermore, to capture the multidimensionality of personality we measure sex differences with a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis distance D). Results indicate that past research, using univariate measures of effect size, have underestimated the size of between‐country sex differences in personality. Confirming past research, there was a strong correlation (r = .69) between a country’s sex differences in personality and their Gender Equality Index. Additional analyses showed that women typically score higher than men on all five trait factors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness), and that these relative differences are larger in more gender equal countries. We speculate that as gender equality increases both men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender roles.”

This next is related (though men and women compete in separate chess tournaments, and for reasons similar to the idea that it is unfair for male and female athletes to compete head to head):

Which countries are best for creating and encouraging women chess players?
-Marginal Revolution, 2019

“To oversimplify only a wee bit, it is the countries with less gender equality which have more female chess players, relative to male chess players. Here is some description:

Denmark is the worst country in our list of participation, with only one female player to roughly 50 males, while the rest of Scandinavia as well as most of western Europe also languish at the bottom.

On the other hand, some of the best countries show evidence of the effect of female role models, and would be no surprise to players familiar with women’s chess history. Georgia (ranked 5th) and China (ranked 4th) both featured multiple women’s World Champions. There are also some high rates from a few unexpected sources: Vietnam (1st), the United Arab Emirates (2nd), Indonesia (8th), and even Kenya (12th) really buck the trend. Interestingly, a lot of the best countries for female chess players are in Asia. Besides Vietnam, there are five other countries in the best ten, and if I am a little more lenient with the chess population cut-offs, Mongolia and Tajikistan would also be in there.

Here is one cited hypothesis:

Could it be that, deep down, women just don’t like chess as much as men?

I consider that to be possible, but unconfirmed. In any case, the lesson is that gender imbalance in a particular field can be correlated with greater equality of opportunity overall.”

Let’s look at the number of women in senior business positions in the most gender equal countries:

Nordic Welfare States Worsen the Gender Gap
-National Review, 2018

“Saadia Zahidi, senior director and head of gender parity and human capital at the World Economic Forum, has stated that “while patterns vary across the Nordic countries, on the whole, these economies have made it possible for parents to combine work and family, resulting in more women in the workplace, more shared participation in childcare, more equitable distribution of labour at home, better work-life balance for both women and men and, in some cases, a boost to waning fertility rates…”

So how are women faring in the modern Nordic welfare states? They’re doing quite well in many ways. Nordic societies have a large share of women active in the workplace, perhaps the most gender-equal attitudes in the world, and a tradition of women’s empowerment in the political sphere.

One might expect this to translate into many women reaching the top of the business world. But this clearly is not the case. In a new policy study for the Cato Institute, I show that the share of women among managers, as recorded by the International Labour Organization, is 43 percent in the United States, compared with 36 percent in Sweden and 28 percent in Denmark.

Comparing the Nordic countries with each other, a pattern emerges: Those with more extensive welfare-state policies have fewer women on top. Iceland, which has a moderately sized welfare state, has the most women managers. Second is Sweden, which has opened up welfare services such as education, health care, and elder care for private-sector competition. Denmark, which has the highest taxes and the biggest welfare state in the modern world, has the lowest share of women in managerial positions.”

So, managerial employment is inversely proportional to gender equity and statism. This is a correlation, not a cause.  But it is not a single example, and requires an explanation.  It does prove that the policy structure demanded by feminists is not producing the results they expect and desire.

Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality
-Science, 2018

“What contributes to gender-associated differences in preferences such as the willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust? Falk and Hermle studied 80,000 individuals in 76 countries who participated in a Global Preference Survey and compared the data with country-level variables such as gross domestic product and indices of gender inequality. They observed that the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences…”

[H]igher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences.”

More simply, free market capitalism enables a luxury good – a focus on gender equality of opportunity – and when gender equality is maximized the differences in chosen employment increase.

I’m not sure if the intersectional feminists would argue that the reason fewer women choose to play chess, to pursue a career in STEM, or to aspire to managerial positions when its made easier for them to do so, is that they are subjugated by culture from the womb. It seems like one of the few arguments that would explain why their theory has been not just ineffective, but counterproductive.

With that claim, though, they would be hinting that many women in advanced countries are too dumb to see ‘the way’ when it’s shown to them.

Human personality is complex, more so because not every decision is rational, and there may be other explanations than individual interest/temperament/choice. Still, feminism is left to explain why less support, less equity, less freedom for women… results in more parity (as defined by equal outcomes) for women.

Encouraging women to be more like men has backfired if the goal is equal outcomes.

Maybe the definition of “gender gap” isn’t what we’ve been told it is. The science tends to show it’s a choice gap.  That’s very hard to ‘correct.’  You’d need government to enforce it.

So, if we want numerical equality of, say employment outcome, what we’re left with is making men more like women. This is the impetus for the toxic masculinity campaign.

Skills gap 2

Quillette is a gem.

I find this, A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere, a compelling, thoughtful (fairly long) article from a person highly qualified to comment (emphasis mine):

“As an academic, I appreciate the value of intellectual inquiry that challenges our socially constructed defaults. As someone born into a mixed-race family steeped in the civil rights movement—my father was black and my mother was white—I was nurtured to recognize the harm that social constructions about race and sex can do to subordinated individuals, groups and societies. As the wife of a black man and the mother of two black sons, my radar for both explicit and implied racism is finely tuned. As a woman, a feminist and a lawyer, I have an abiding commitment to anti-discrimination norms, and to race and sex discrimination laws in particular. As a humanist, I believe that each one of us has the right to self-identify.”

She doesn’t even mention her pioneering, elite athletic background. She is highly likely to vote Progressive (‘socially constructed’, ‘implied racism’, ‘subordinated individuals’), so the usual SJW ad hominem counter arguments are blunted – and she deals with them, IAC.

I am struck by the implications for the core political debate about what the word “equality” implies. There’s a faction insisting it means equality of opportunity and a faction insisting it means equality of outcome. Gender feminists have been in the latter group, claiming different outcomes ipso facto prove discrimination based on sex. However, there is some tension (you might say cognitive dissonance) for that subset of those gender feminists (the so-called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) who want to preserve a traditional definition of the word “female” in the face of trans-sexual attack. And attack is the right word… If anyone can decide, moment to moment, that they are female without reference to biology – what’s the point of “Women’s Studies.”

It turns out, in the case of female athletics (a proxy for the ‘real world’), that you can’t even approach equality of outcome without equality of opportunity. No XX has the opportunity if XY is allowed to directly compete, so the outcome is no females on the podium for one definition of “female.”

It’s delicious watching them hoist by their own petard. If they stumble upon a bit of introspection, maybe they’ll apply the lesson to their prattle about the “wage gap.”

James Damore is laughing.

They is wrong

It could have come from almost any campus, but this is from the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University:

“No science is needed to support transgender and non-binary identities,” the email stated. “It is simply a matter of affirming their experiences.”

No science is possible “to support transgender and non-binary identities” as a replacement for biological, binary sex classifications.  Assuming the conclusion that science-based sex classifications are secondary to each person’s internal mind-state at any given moment is baked into the MSU memo.

As to “affirming their experiences,” isn’t that their job? How can another person do that? Doesn’t that require identity appropriation? How else can one know the experiences are worthy of affirmation?

Clicking on the pronoun link brings up a colorful and interactive web page titled “I [love] the singular they,” which maps out benefits and tools to using the pronoun to refer to a person. The page argues that the singular “they” is “neutral,” “easy,” “inclusive,” and “classy.”

And wrong.

“Writing with non-gender-neutral pronouns is a serious pain,” the site linked by MSU says. “Some prefer the Frankenword ‘s/he,’ while others rack their brain. Some stick with a particular pronoun for one paragraph or chapter, then swap out the one they’re using; others alternate ‘he’ and ‘she’ by sentence, or use a plural adapter, but that all sounds confusing.”

Alternating he/she wouldn’t satisfy ze, in any case. And using “they” as singular isn’t confusing? Why do we even have a plural? So that we can understand a sentence like “Chris thought they were late to the party.” Unless we want to make people say, “Chris thought they was late to the party,” “they” is a non-starter.

The suggestion of the singular “they” is an effort to overcome objections to the plethora of neologisms like “ze, ne, xe,” etc.. Those who want a neo-pronoun need to vote on the one they’ll all use and stick to it. That is, if they actually want it eventually generally adopted, rather than just using the issue to harass others who don’t want to start every conversation with a negotiation about pronouns.

I have a suggestion. If avoiding “misgendering” is so important – use the person’s name.  Now, “Chris thought Chris was late to the party,” is still confusing and certainly stilted.  It still requires you to know Chris’s mind, and whether there’s another Chris, to sort it out.  Maybe “thou” and “thee?”  can be appropriated.

Any of this still requires you to deploy two modes of speech based on another person’s current perception of themselves.  But it’s a “good cause:”

MSU physiology student Shad Soldano … admitted the email “did take me by surprise,” he told Campus Reform, “I feel that the email (in my understanding) portrays a good cause in bringing awareness and hopefully eliminating remaining prejudices towards the transgender community.”

He feels elevating a tiny minorities’ attempted appropriation of culture by a set of prejudices against anyone who objects to compelled speech “portrays a good cause.”

When did feeling replace thinking? When something portrays sensitivity, compassion, and diversity – even if the result is 180 degrees out of phase with the stated intention. The real intention, the one you have to think about, is not benign.

If I must “affirm your experiences,” what’s to stop that at your “identity?”

Not the ‘fairest’ sex

Transgender sprinters finish 1st, 2nd at Connecticut girls indoor track championships

In a February 20th post, Emoticon debate, I wrote about the differences between rational and emotional arguments, defining the latter as “appeal[ing] to deeply held moral intuitions.

I went on to take “a … look at … the benefits of individual responsibility and a peek at the biological basis for moral intuitions of fairness.

Intuitions about fairness are among our most fundamental.

“This deeply held moral intuition starts with biology and spreads to culturally enforced norms. It is not, as postmodernists would have it, solely about dominance and submission carving us into identity groups. The idea that power is everything informs much of the Left’s claims that they’re compassionate…”

Compassion for transgender males trumps compassion for feminism.  That’s about the relative power of identity groups, and explains the TERF war.

These boys set state records in a girls competition. That’s about the inherent biological power advantage of their legs.

Where’s a big, fat asterisk when you need one?

Where’s Title IX when you need it?

One of their competitors, Selina Soule, says the issue is about fairness on the track with wider implications. The Glastonbury High School junior finished eighth in the 55, missing out on qualifying for the New England regionals by two spots.

Soule believes that had Miller and Yearwood not run, she would be on her way to race in Boston in front of more college coaches.

If there was ever a winning combination of rational, science-based argument and primal emotional appeal, it would be that transgender males should be excluded from physical competition with females.

Yet that powerful combination has apparently lost the debate to irrationality combined with a Newspeak perception of fairness that is opposite to our basic instincts.

Could he have imagined this, Kurt Vonnegut would surely have written a section in Harrison Bergeron, where these males competing as females had 50 pound weights chained to their ankles to make it “fair.”  But the idea was too absurd even for the author of Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons.

Faire disparaître la différence

The Cheshire Cat meets George Orwell.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
– George Orwell, 1984

“Diversity” has become a catch phrase used to whip anyone having the temerity to suggest fundamental differences exist between/among human beings. The contention is, “All individuals are the same, except when subverted by socio-cultural-political oppression. Any difference in outcome is ipso facto evidence of racism, sexism, xenophobia, or some other pervasive bias – conscious or unconscious.” Diversity is taken to mean, “If we’re not all living the same life, it’s because of a conspiracy.”

Call it “Damore Derangement Syndrome,” after the engineer fired by Google for suggesting the possibility that different people might make diverse choices. He isn’t alone. Psychology Today explains the science. Highly recommended:

The Truth About Sex Differences

Fact: As a percentage of enrollment, there are more female science majors in Burma, Oman, and Morocco than in the countries of Scandinavia.

Fact: American women are 15 percent less likely to reach a managerial position in the workplace than are men—but in Sweden women are 48 percent less likely, in Norway 52 percent, in Finland 56 percent, and in Denmark 63 percent.

Whatever the differences in men’s and women’s psyches—empathy, jealousy, cognitive abilities, mate preferences—many theories in psychology assume that they result primarily from direct gender socialization by parents, media, and societal institutions. As a result, it is often expected that sex differences will be smaller in cultures with higher levels of gender-related egalitarianism, as in Scandinavia, where socialization and roles are more balanced between men and women and sociopolitical gender equity prevails.

Surprisingly, several large cross-cultural studies have found this is not at all the case. Whether scientists measure Big Five personality traits, such as neuroticism; Dark Triad traits, such as psychopathy; or self-esteem, subjective well-being, or depression, empirical evidence shows that most sex differences are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles—as in Scandinavia…

Culture matters in explaining psychological sex differences, but not in the way most people think. It’s not harsher gender socialization by parents and media, stringent societal gender roles, or institutional sociopolitical forces that widen the differences between men and women in the most progressive nations in the world. When you treat everyone the same, as in the Nordic countries, it’s only genetic predispositions that produce the most observable individual differences. Extremes of sexual freedom beget larger psychological sex differences. Or as explained by Israeli psychologists Shalom Schwartz and Tammy Rubel-Lifshitz, it may be that having fewer gendered restrictions in a culture allows “both sexes to pursue more freely the values they inherently care about more.”

People pushing homogeneous “Diversity,” while complaining about “cultural appropriation,” don’t grasp the definition of “oxymoron.” Shouldn’t total cross-cultural appropriation be their goal? Shouldn’t we all aspire to be NPCs?

Not if more choice means more actual diversity.

Dystopia and Dsyphoria

Gender Dysphoria in Children
American College of Pediatricians – June 2017
Primary author: Michelle Cretella, MD

This is a long, clearly written, scientific paper examing the evidence for letting children as young as 11 decide whether to undergo sex-transition hormone therapy and radical sex-change surgery. It is interesting, and does not require highly specialized knowledge to understand. I recommend it if you have any interest in this topic, or want to understand the relationship of legally forcing* the use of invented pronouns to post-modernism’s rejection of objective reality

“Advocates of the medical interventionist paradigm… are also post-modernists but hold a subjective view of “First do no harm.” Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and leader in pediatric gender transitioning, has stated that “[First do no harm] is really subjective. [H]istorically we come from a very paternalistic perspective… [in which] doctors are really given the purview of deciding what is going to be harmful and what isn’t. And that, in the world of gender, is really problematic.”7 Not only does she claim that “First do no harm” is subjective, but she later also states that it should be left to the child decide what constitutes harm based upon their own subjective thoughts and feelings.7”

…In 2007 Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist and founder of the nation’s first gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital, launched the pubertal suppression paradigm in the United States.41 It consists of first affirming the child’s false self-concept by instituting name and pronoun changes, and facilitating the impersonation of the opposite sex within and outside of the home.”

The paper speaks to the (deliberate) confusion of “gender” with “sex,” and provides evidence that supporters of childhood gender reassignment protocols are pursuing an anti-scientific political agenda when they deny biological sex and subject children to medical experimentation.

If this were about the experience of sexual activity rather than the idea that children are trapped in bodies of a biological sex different from their perceived biological sex, we would call it statutory rape, against which we have laws for the very good reason that pre-pubescent children are not capable of consent.

Gender reassignment therapy for 11 year olds is rape in a far deeper sense, violating both psychological and physical boundaries of those who clearly lack the relevant life-experience to make such decisions. I’d call it mind-rape, but it also permanently alters the body.

Nonetheless, there are advocates, in and out of some 40 American sex change clinics, for applying potentially dangerous (psychopathology, sterility, death) and irreversible therapies to children based on the whimsical nature of the child’s current opinion.

Future generations will look on this and wonder if we were insane.

*As has happened in Canada, California and New York City.

Why he was called Mr. Whizzard

Standing Up to Pee Gives Boys an Unfair Advantage in Physics

The authors note that “there is no simple way to provide girls with the same opportunities for exploring projectile motion that boys have in playing with pee.” Nonetheless, they make a feeble attempt: “However, we can make a change: it’s not necessary for physics curricula to begin with projectile motion. Other topics, such as energy conservation, which is more central to physics, could be taught first instead.

This abjectly weak proposal shows a decided lack of imagination, especially given the novelty of their “discovery.” It fails to address the issue; females must eventually confront a topic in which they are hopelessly deficient. You know this to be true if you’ve ever tried to mansplain to a female how the gearing works on a 10-speed bicycle. Women have difficulty visualizing 3D schematics and, particularly, parts in motion. This problem goes beyond physics to engineering, chemistry and the programming of computer games.

Now we know why: Sitzpinkling is biologically determinative. Females lack the early ballistics and fluid dynamics training natural to males, and cannot, therefore, be successful in STEM disciplines. From this, we can conclude that Marie Curie had the advantage of countless hours playing with hoses when she was little. Judith Curry‘s success is explained by the near rhyme of her surname, but we cannot expect thousands of parents to change the family name in order to get female offspring an MIT scholarship.

All is not lost. As a public service I suggest five ways in which the cosmic unfairness of this patriarchal oppression may be mitigated by the State.

1- Population-wide forced gender reassignment surgery (male to female)


  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
  2. Would cost far less for surgery (than female to male surgery), since there are more females than males, and since female to male surgery is more expensive per individual


  1. Would slow advances in physics
  2. Would vastly increase bathroom lines at Tupperware parties
  3. Extinction of the species

2- Population-wide forced gender reassignment surgery (female to male)


  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
  2. Would decrease bathroom lines at football games
  3. Would speed advances in physics


  1. Would cost much more for surgery than Option 1, since there are more females than males and since female to male surgery is more expensive per individual
  2. Extinction of the species

As noted, the surgery could swing both ways, so to speak, and absent the cost and effectiveness issues, I’d pick advancing physics and shorter lines to pee for everyone.

But the clear choice is male to female:
As a solution to being able to aim your urine the female to male surgery is problematic: “Extending the urethra to allow standing urination has proved to be perhaps the most difficult part of the process…”

Also, “converting part of the colon into a vagina” is easier than building a penis.

But I can’t choose either option. On the merits, human extinction makes me reject both Option 1 and Option 2.

3- Forced catheterization of females


  1. Would speed advances in physics
  2. Would vastly decrease bathroom lines at Tupperware parties
  3. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate


  1. Would require significant remodeling of existing female facilities to add urinals
  2. Would be uncomfortable for females

4- Require males to sit down


  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate


  1. Would require significant remodeling of male facilities to remove urinals
  2. Would increase bathroom lines at football games
  3. Would slow advances in physics

5- Mandate a certain amount of time and frequency (five times a day) for girls to play with hoses (increasing time spent and reducing flow and accuracy as they age, in order to match the effects of enlarging prostates)


  1. Would speed advances in physics
  2. Would increase business for hose manufacturers
  3. Would add to the time females spend on government mandated activities (to some this is a drawback)


  1. Would require building indoor hose practice facilities in cold climates
  2. Would add to the time females spend on government mandated activities (to some this is a benefit)

I invite comments regarding advantages and disadvantages, and suggestions for any options I may have missed. I’ll be happy to pass them on to our elected representatives for urgent action.

Update, 4:57PM It occurs to me upon re-reading this, that we need not force catheterization upon women. It can be a choice, which I’m told they like. In fact, choice of catheterization could become a female admissions requirement at elite STEM educational institutions. From the State’s POV, this would be more efficient.

Update, 5:13PM Oops. Maybe the entire question of sex bias in STEM is a tempest in a teapot. The Gender Gap in STEM is NOT What You Think

Adults in the room

Not in University of Toronto bathrooms, though.

One of the things that most distinguishes adults from children is the ability to anticipate the results of an action; to think ahead. Children can be reckless because they can’t imagine an obvious bad outcome. Adults who suffer from this lack of imagination are known as “university administrators.”

University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms After Peeping Incidents

But, don’t worry, gender-warriors,

The University concluded that while the changes were made in the specific residence hall of the voyeurism incidents, “there has been no change to the designation of gender-neutral washrooms in the other University College Residences or elsewhere on campus as a result of these incidents.”

Children further frequently fail to acknowledge causality, and repeat the action that created a bad outcome. Much like administrators at the University of Toronto.

Under the “yes means yes” definitions U.S. University administrators are pursuing, these UoT incidents would all be counted as rapes.

And these are the smart people?

Sex and drugs

Let me see if I have this right: Sexual orientation is societally imposed by the Patriarchy, except when an 8-year old “decides” he is a girl. Then we give him hormone blocking drugs.

The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl

We have a society that says 8-year olds can’t consent to having sex, but they can decide to change sex?