you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB 30 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 0 fun31 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I read that Scientific American had been invested in, or bought out, by a Trans, Inc. affiliated something, so it would make sense that the gender lobby is now using the well-respected Scientific American brand to push its woo-woo.

Guess what happens next? Penis News or Vice or Vox or even Nature or NBC or National Geographic or the New York Times, or any one of the publications now pushing Trans, Inc. propaganda non-stop will point to this Scientific American article as "proof" that biological sex is not immutable.

If this attack on science doesn't wake every intelligent person up I don't know what will.

I will try to find the Scientific American being bought by Trans, Inc. proof and post here.

[–]Susiesmum 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

They already have National Geographic. If you look at the group shot on the cover, they have every gender listed except female.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/children-explain-how-gender-affects-their-lives/

[–]BEB 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I noticed the change in National Geographic to gendxr bs. I think maybe within the last two or three years.

Everyone -please, please, please discuss these changes with whoever you can! Especially middle-aged to older women, because we are old enough to remember the fight for women's rights and many of us are still young enough to do something about it.

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's a good response to that malarky, but how is it they couldn't find one fucking female to appear on the cover given they seemed to have had a fine time with a male? It just about sums things up perfectly, the only women that matter are men.