Providing good sources requires substantial effort, and doing so seems to have limited, if any, persuasive power. This isn't Wikipedia. If you're genuinely willing to learn you can look things up for yourself.

(note that people demanding sources like this are often selective about what they demand them for...)

Please don't break the site guidelines like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

See also: "Beware Isolated Demands For Rigor" - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...

Why should I have to do this if what OP said was also provided without context? What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The null hypothesis is that no, there is no link between these two phenomena. What I'm providing are just alternative explanations, some of which should literally be common knowledge (spend 2 seconds looking into how Pride parades started and you have all the resources you need).

If you're more inclined to believe technobabble than sociological explanations when you don't understand the facts behind either, that's a bias you might want to investigate further.

Of course you don't have to. As a reader, the chain went -

OP1 - Here is my unpopular opinion.

OP2 - May or may not be right.

OP3 - Here is a big list of reasons why you're wrong.

The first two didn't provide any sources either, admittedly, but they didn't really make any statements of fact.

I didn't ask to pick on you or because I have some political motive(honestly, I have no idea or opinion on whether OP1 was right), only because it was the first post presented as definitive in the chain.

As OP2, my problem with OP3 is that none of that evidence really refutes OP1, which is why I said that the connection is hard to prove, or disprove. There could still be an environmental cause for some of the increase. But because gender is socially constructed, the effects of social change obviously can’t be discounted.

Honestly I think we should take OP1’s thesis seriously, but not as proven. And as usual cut down on pollutants for the wildlife it does affect.