Maybe gender role abolitionists, but not gender altogether

Virtual keyboard support

Seems like 1950. Here’s a excerpt from the Wikipedia article

Critics of the commission have pointed out it’s many failings. In a 1989 article for the Ottawa Citizen, writer Sol Littman explained, the All-Party Parliamentary War Crimes Group of the British House of Commons found that screening was virtually “non-existent” for Ukrainian SS veterans who entered Canada in 1950. The SS veterans had been allowed into Canada from the U.K. based on false assurances that they were not war criminals. The Foreign Office lied to British parliament in 1947, that the SS volunteers had undergone “a very exhaustive screening process.” In a 1997 interview with 60 Minutes, Irving Abella stated that getting into Canada for SS members, was as easy as just showing their SS blood type tattoo which indicated that they were reliably anti-communist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)

This wasn’t recent that they came to Canada

Or anything to do with trans people at all

My friend sent me a peaceful nature video he took yesterday and I turned my volume WAY down in fear of a screamer

You got me clicking countries on the map now. I really can’t find a consistent reason why sometimes it shows the outline and sometimes it doesn’t…

• Canada: yes
• Russia: no
• South Korea: no
• China: no
• Spain: no
• France: yes
• Iraq: yes
• Kyrgyzstan: no
• Mongolia: yes
• Japan: no
• USA: yes
• Malaysia: yes

What pattern is there here???

Yeah, that’s totally fair to question. I mentioned above, but it depends on sample selection and study design moreso than the actual number 👍

Yes, I’m aware. Sample sizes to get a 95% confidence interval are significantly smaller in most cases than the average person thinks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination and the section on required sample size for hypotheses tests. There’s even sample size calculators online you can find that’ll spit this number for a 95% CI out for you. Personally I think given that information, it’s pretty unlikely the author made that error in a peer reviewed paper where reviewers are certainly aware as well

1000 is not small at all and with a properly designed study it’s more than enough for statistical significance

I’d try it