Thank you for your clear and detailed explanation of why the glib "social acceptance" theory of the meteoric rise in trans-identification among teens fits the data for left-handedness so badly -- while "social contagion" via social media explains it so well -- that the transactivist explanation must be regarded as a fallacy.
I've just read a review of Zachariah Elliot's book "Binary", debunking the pseudoscience of sex as as "spectrum", as another all too frequent glib claim on Twitter. There people typically refer airily to "bimodal distribution" -- but clearly with no understanding that bimodal distribution eg of height between the sexes, does NOT mean the overlap between short males and tall females makes them "trans".
It's the same with misuse of so-called "intersex" conditions as a false parallel with trans identification: despite the fact that everyone with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) is still either male or female, depending solely on whether they do or don't have a Y chromosome.
The extensive range of pseudoscience trotted out as trans ideology cult dogma and beliefs seems to rely on a very low educational level in understanding of biology, as well as inability to deal with figures and graphic representations: plus gullibility -- deficits in critical thinking. And for its victims, a degree of distress (for a range of reasons) manifesting or labelled as gender dysphoria, that causes teenage girls especially to clutch at all these straws.
No coincidence either, perhaps, that too many girls are dissuaded from pursuing maths, science and technology by being told they'll be no good at it AS GIRLS. This makes them so much better victims of transgender myths and medical abuse.
Thank you for your clear and detailed explanation of why the glib "social acceptance" theory of the meteoric rise in trans-identification among teens fits the data for left-handedness so badly -- while "social contagion" via social media explains it so well -- that the transactivist explanation must be regarded as a fallacy.
I've just read a review of Zachariah Elliot's book "Binary", debunking the pseudoscience of sex as as "spectrum", as another all too frequent glib claim on Twitter. There people typically refer airily to "bimodal distribution" -- but clearly with no understanding that bimodal distribution eg of height between the sexes, does NOT mean the overlap between short males and tall females makes them "trans".
It's the same with misuse of so-called "intersex" conditions as a false parallel with trans identification: despite the fact that everyone with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) is still either male or female, depending solely on whether they do or don't have a Y chromosome.
The extensive range of pseudoscience trotted out as trans ideology cult dogma and beliefs seems to rely on a very low educational level in understanding of biology, as well as inability to deal with figures and graphic representations: plus gullibility -- deficits in critical thinking. And for its victims, a degree of distress (for a range of reasons) manifesting or labelled as gender dysphoria, that causes teenage girls especially to clutch at all these straws.
No coincidence either, perhaps, that too many girls are dissuaded from pursuing maths, science and technology by being told they'll be no good at it AS GIRLS. This makes them so much better victims of transgender myths and medical abuse.
This is excellent. I really appreciate your commentary and clear thinking. Please keep going.