More power to you; may your tribe increase! 👍🙂

stellaomalley.substack.com/p/why-genspe…

However ..., while I wish you well -- and have even thrown a few shekels into the pot to help out 🙂 -- I still think, as you and I have discussed elsewhere, that the problematic conflation of sex and gender constitutes a serious stumbling block, and an unnecessarily fractious bone of contention that may well vitiate your best efforts.

Apropos of which and ICYMI, the "Santa Fe Boys" group had a conference in late September that was ostensibly to resolve that problem, and which was touted as:

SantaFeBoys: "The Big Conversation ... among international experts (?) on the origins, mechanisms, and meaning of sex/gender differences".

I had hoped, many people had hoped -- all being somewhat disappointed -- that it might come to a consensus as to what "sex" and "gender" actually referred to and denoted. The closest they came to that was the closing "Roundtable 2 Discussion" -- which is still somewhat illuminating:

santafeboys.org/recordings-of-the-big-c…

youtube.com/watch?v=sRW_II_-iFY

But of particular note in that discussion is an exchange or two -- at about the 15 minute mark -- between Carole Hooven, David Geary, and Daphna Joel, the salient point being made by Geary:

Geary (@ 15:56): "I have no idea what 'gender' means. The definition is too fluid. I mean it's all over the place. .... I have no idea what one author means by [gender] versus another. ...."

A dog's breakfast, a bedlam, everyone riding madly off in all directions -- as a famous Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, once put it. 🙂

Consequently -- and given the vast amount of ink that has been been spilled, rather unproductively, trying to get to the bottom of that dichotomy -- you may have some interest in some "pictures worth several thousands of words" that hopefully illustrate that difference:

humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-…

Of particular note there are some references to and discussions of an article co-authored by Joel and Janet Shibley Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin, which gives some justification for viewing gender as a multidimensional spectrum -- at least a two-dimensional spectrum -- of sexually dimorphic personalities, behaviours, roles, and expressions.

May help to get (most) everyone singing from the same hymn book, if not the same page; to bring some "balance to the forces", so to speak ... 🙂