Interesting theory, not sure I entirely buy it, but it bears paying attention too. However, the name Aiden has been a fairly common one for both males and females in Ireland and Scotland since the middle ages. I assume you relegated it to "new and quirky" because it isn't prominent in American History or the Bible/Church history. However given the number of individuals of Irish and Scotish ancestory in this country it should come as no suprise that Celtic names are become more prominant as diversity in such things is encouraged instead of discouraged.

This is such a red herring. In China and India sex-selective abortion is a problem, a very big problem, but here in the US it's only a problem in those same subcultures which represent a tiny number of Americans. In fact, to the degree that it happens at all, Americans are more likely to sex select for girls than against them. I suggest reading a book called Unnatural Selection by Mira Hvistendahl.

We are all human beings, in the end we are far more alike than we are different. I'm not claiming that there are no essential differences between males and females beyond genitalia, clearly there are. But by focusing on the differences insead of the similarities we make them appear far greater than they are and that is what builds stereotypes and discriminatory behaviors. And, for the record, I have no problem with single gender classrooms or schools.

In other parts of the world sex selection abortion is a problem and the sex ratios are being dangerously skewed toward males. However, in the US not only is any form of sex selection extremely rare but what little sex selection goes on is either in enclaves of traditional cultures from the same places that select for boys or it is sex selection IN FAVOR OF GIRLS. There is an excellent book on this subject called Unnatural Selection by Mira Hvistendahl.

Personally I don't believe that Jennifer is mentally ill, she certaintly shouldn't be institutionalized against her will, and I wouldn't care if she was using the same restroom as I was. However, since the university was already providing gender neutral bathrooms and offered expand them to all buildings, I don't believe that she should have been allowed to sue, let alone win.

Yeah, 'cause it's such a great idea to encourage children to ignore school rules about having your cell phone out during class. That's not going to backfire at all when these same children are deciding whether to follow traffic laws or the rules of a job.

Agreed.

Especially because science is coming closer to proving that today's hyper-palatable food is just as addictive as smoking.

What about people who have ongoing since birth medical conditions? I have hip dysplasia, I was born with it, I didn't do anything to cause it, should I not be able to get insurance coverage for the inevitable hip joint resurfacing or replacement I'm going to need? What about Type 1 diabetics? Or people who were injured in accidents that wern't their fault?

I think these results could be a little misleading. For example, I consider myself pro-life, as do many of my friends, but none of us would ever vote to make abortion illegal again. For us being pro-life means the you really don't understand why anyone would choose abortion over giving a child up for adoption, but we do understand that abortions happened before Roe v. Wade and there is no reason to expect that abortions would stop if they were made illegal again -- especially because people today seem much more likely to ignore laws than the past (examples being drug, traffic, and tax laws).