Immediately within the first full paragraph, the diction of this post clearly belies the author's bias. Promoting vaccination is "putting American children in a

Immediately within the first full paragraph, the diction of this post clearly belies the author's bias. Promoting vaccination is "putting American children in a bubble out of fear", but promoting vaccine rejection is just "being skeptical about vaccines". My dear Richard, skepticism is different from contrarianism, and when the evidence shows vaccines to be safe and effective at preventing people dying a painful, suffering death, being against them is contrarianism, not skepticism. Then there's the ending of that paragraph: "It’s not 'anti-science,' as we can see by thinking about which side accepts the reality of sex differences." Once again, Richard, the actual science is not on your side here. The science shows sex and gender -- which are two different things, by the way -- are both spectra and not a neat little two-bucket distinction. Basically, Richard, as many others like him often do, is convinced that his beliefs are correct despite the evidence against them, and anyone who disagrees is a "sheep". All the while, instead of being content to post his views to his family on Facebook, he grows himself a larger pasture of grass to eat by writing an entire article about it. I stopped actively reading after that first paragraph, though I skimmed below it enough to see he thinks that "if enough people believe a thing, they cannot be free thinkers". Which is absolutely ridiculous: there is one objective reality, and therefore free thinking should lead people to the same conclusion. In fact, the more free thinkers there are, the more people would agree with each other, because they'd all converge on the truth. "Free thinking" is not "believing whatever I personally like because Freedom™"; it's "following the evidence and coming to my own conclusions based on it, regardless of people telling me to ignore the evidence". If reality is subjective, then you may as well kill everyone around you as they might not even exist anyway! If it is objective, then there must be an objective way to find the truth; that way is the scientific method, because it has been the most capable of predicting future results than any other method humanity has invented so far. Certainly far more capable than Believing What I Like ever has. Richard clearly as no grasp on the objectivity of reality.