One can only note the irony of you so spending so long in these forums complaining about mainstream media, and then assuming something is high reliability because it's mainstream media.
Strange cause I generally take more shots at US media and the selective covering of stories.
Hell the BBC Horizon Science stuff tends to be pretty good and was hosted by two actual scientists, this wasn't just some thrown together documentary with people who are just reading a script. Hell they do some of the experiments showing the differences on the show. The argument is if it's nature or nurture and so far most of the evidence is nature
I can tell from the title that it is referring to a neuroscientific theory that is at best contentious and at worst trash.
Oh you mean the theory which is basically confirmed by Dr Verma's research which has formed some of the basis of the understanding of being trans. If there is no such differences then unfortunately it brings up the argument of if transitioning is really required which, I don't think will go down well.
It's funny it shouldn't be contentious nearly 7 years on but it is because some people are very strongly fixed in the "There's no differences between men and women beyond genitals" which is kind of what Anita was pushing too and pushing so there are no gender boundaries or classes in sport, which would be a pretty poor idea to do.
Weird then that when I stated the same thing many times in the past that I got most of this community telling me how I'm wrong.
It's funnier still that people are yelling that Dr Verma's research somehow doesn't count but people are fighting tooth and nail to defend Anita's work or other work which is considered very highly flawed that claims to prove video games cause aggression or other such stuff. Meanwhile ignoring or dismissing the mounds of research disproving the links.
