Slayer of Keraptis
It looks like I erred in giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what part of this is hard to understand. You're missing the point. When I say check your sources, I mean to do that to see how credible the sources in, in regards to accuracy. And if there is bias, it means you should look deeper.Easy this game you play.
I know the HRC has bias, so that's why a look at what that article says and if it needs additional scrutiny. Here's the difference, and the point I'm trying to make:
You linked to a person who has no expertise in gender identity, to an article that has not actual facts or science in it, and instead is just an opinion piece. McHugh even later admitted he has no scientific evidence, just his opinion. Contrast that to HRC that I linked to. While they have bias, what in that link is not factually true? Everything there is something that has objective data we can point to to prove it factual or not. McHugh having no expertise on the subject? We can validate that. The fact hundreds of his peers soundly debunked him? We can validate that too. Along with everything else in that link I provided to.
You seem to be struggling with understanding how measurable and objective facts are more important than someone's opinion.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." --Isaac Asimov