This paper examines adults, and does not resolve the nature vs nurture argument. The conclusions you have drawn from it are premature, and, I suspect, indicate what you want to believe. The "inane" social movements you attack are based on a desire to achieve equality and fairness between genders. A desire for a better, fairer, more liberal world. Even if misguided, they have good intentions. Your attachment to gender essentialism is equally "emotional" and "inane" and a tad more suspicious.
All of which is unimportant. Even if there are innate biological differences between the sexes, they are at most trends, not hard barriers. There is almost complete overlap. I've personally seen every kind of behaviour from every possible gender identity. So it doesn't make any sense to prejudge people by their gender, or force gender roles on children.
The issue of whether or not ADHD/ADD are real diseases, and whether children are being over-medicated is completely different to the issue of gender essentialism. I suspect you're lumping them in together because they are two things that are new that you don't like.
All of which is unimportant. Even if there are innate biological differences between the sexes, they are at most trends, not hard barriers. There is almost complete overlap. I've personally seen every kind of behaviour from every possible gender identity. So it doesn't make any sense to prejudge people by their gender, or force gender roles on children.
The issue of whether or not ADHD/ADD are real diseases, and whether children are being over-medicated is completely different to the issue of gender essentialism. I suspect you're lumping them in together because they are two things that are new that you don't like.