While I very much agree with this – particularly regarding the damage that can be done by failing to provide important health and safety information in the name of religious beliefs (which can be addressed in religion class, separately) – I find it somewhat ridiculous that the author essentially boils sexual and romantic orientation, gender identity, and gender expression down to testosterone exposure in the womb. Certainly they are interrelated, and obviously there isn’t room in a short article to get into the weeds, but this seems to me to be both a gross oversimplification and far more definitive than it should be. There is a great deal of credible scientific study surrounding sex and gender, but calling left-wing progressives “cult-like” for giving attention to socialization, social constructionism, and gender performativity is outrageous.

And I take serious issue with women’s inclusion in this discussion being left at “the same can be said in women.”