Sorry you got downvoted, you highlight a real and critical discussion and your voice should be heard but I think framing it a little different may actually elic

Sorry you got downvoted, you highlight a real and critical discussion and your voice should be heard but I think framing it a little different may actually elicit discussion rather than downvotes. The reality is, there are soft sciences out there that we should really have the debate as to whether or not they truly qualify as a science. That does not mean that they are not worth pursuing and trying to find truth in, alchemy lead to chemistry, astrology led to astronomy. But along the way, we have had a lot of "science" that in their day where believed to be truths based on a less than scientific rigor. Phenology comes to mind as a shining example, and genetics bore out eugenics. There is a critical issue with mascaraing soft sciences, that have thin veils of rigor as scientific fact when the reality is that they are better relegated to philosophy. Many great philosophies have changed society so it's not like they are not valuable, but what is not valuable is mascaraing what amounts to a philosophy as scientific truth, because what happens is those that do not understand science and rigor throw the baby out with the bath water and assume that there are untruths in all sciences by seeing the examples of these soft sciences claim truths. For note, I am not implying that gender identification is not an important subject to understand in our current society. Rather lets not pretend that it's research has the rigor of physics as it does damage to the hard sciences to do so. I personally am fine if we redefine gender to a contemporary term that was not traditionally used in the past and I am fine with deciding how we deal with it as a society based on it's identifying it more in the lineage of philosophy. My sole issue, is that calling these items science is leading to the effect we are now seeing.