My "[Citation Needed]" was for the original claim you seem to agree with, neither you nor the paper's author provide evidence for this claim or substantiate it.

My "[Citation Needed]" was for the original claim you seem to agree with, neither you nor the paper's author provide evidence for this claim or substantiate it. Hence I'm asking for a source. The author doesn't have one, do you? Not just clickbait articles either, but proper research that establishes not only that curriculum regarding sex differences has been altered on a large scale to exclude any mention of established sex differences, but that it was not caused by evolution of our understanding of the concept and the on-going debate surrounding it, but by a defined political force that could be constituted as a "movement." As it stands, the paper doesn't do that, so it's conclusions are just ramblings of no substance. Of course, as I said, I'm not getting said source, because no such thing exists and with your comment dodging the question as well, I was proven right. QED? Furthermore, neither you nor the author even elaborate on what this movement is, or what exactly is it doing. Hence my comment regarding persecution complexes. Imagining some vaguely defined "movement" that is allegedly doing a vaguely-defined something that is framed as disagreeable is exactly what a persecution complex is. Oh and nice try with the accusation of "hostility". I see you've learned a great deal from this paper when it comes to deflecting criticism.