The adhominem is separate and there are plenty of sources listed to support my hypothesis listed in the resources section. Look you don't have to agree but I can tell you my hypothesis has literally 0 to do with that freakshow you wrote about. I appreciate a good argument and constructive discussion. So, if my hypothesis has nothing to do with that guy where do you go from there?
RE: Gender is not purely biological
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Gender is not purely biological
So first, simply saying "it's in this book" isn't good enough proof, list quotes, show statistics. Also to say your hypothesis about gender has nothing to do with the person who created the word and basis for your hypothesis is objectively incorrect.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit