> We expect universities to have a pro-truth, pro-reality, pro-knowledge bias, which are things the Republican party overtly rejects.
The people you’re pretending to be harbingers of truth believe that men can get pregnant.
> or they might cease being Republicans upon learning facts and logic.
So why is the bias the strongest in the least rigorous fields (communications, anthropology, music) and weakest is the most rigorous (mathematics, engineering, medicine, physics)?
How very brave of you to create this new account just to post something "obvious". I'm guessing it's "obvious" because of cyclic definitions, and deliberate imperviousness to the idea that chromosonal sex, phenotypical sex and gender aren't strictly equivalent.
I don't subscribe to the sexist belief system that women and men are defined by collections of cultural stereotypes or as mere identities to be opted into.
Quite astounding that people sincerely believe this nonsense and end up so proudly expressing stupidity like "men can get pregnant" because of it.
Well they can. Some transgender men can get pregnant AFAIK.
This bias might be strongest in humanities because of self selection - conservatives think those are useless, but can see the utility in engineering - among other reasons.