Dr. Stacey Ritz is an associate professor in the department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine at McMaster University. She is focused how can we best incorporate sex and gender-related considerations into health research and especially into health research that is based in the laboratory.
Interview Transcript:
Stacey Ritz: So I’m Stacey Ritz. I’m an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine. I’m also the Assistant Dean for the Honours Health Sciences program.
And so in my scholarly work, I actually started my career as a laboratory researcher doing allergy and immunology research, and focused on experimental models of asthma and allergic disease and other immunologic diseases.
But over the years, my scholarship has really shifted and changed and at this point, I no longer run a lab and my scholarship is focused on how can we best incorporate sex and gender-related considerations into health research and especially into health research that is based in the laboratory, because there are certain kinds of particular considerations in that realm that don’t apply or that apply differently than if you’re working with human subjects or clinical trials or that sort of. So that’s an overview.
Riley Wilson: Great, yeah. Thank you so much so yeah, it’s perfect because I reached out to you because what we’re going to talk about today a little bit is kind of this discourse that’s arisen, especially very contentiously online about gender identity and the inclusion of diverse and varied identities that are maybe outside the binary.
And so, you know, as a young person online, I have come across people who are political commentators who kind of will set traps and and kind of try to confuse people online and I’ve kind of been grappling with how to, you know, maybe in some small way, be prepared or not to, like, maybe necessarily respond to someone, but to kind of like in my own mind, kind of fortify my own knowledge.
And so often these arguments are, you know, things related to, uh, like biology, so kind of like a biologizing argument of like “define a woman,” or like what is a woman. And it’s like about, you know, chromosomes or it’s about women’s ability to give birth and that then carries over into like more psychological things. So women are, you know, made to give birth and therefore there’s all these other things about women that are also true. And so if you came across that kind of rhetoric, um, you know, maybe it could come from two different lenses. So there’s kind of maybe the online or someone in person who is kind of has these beliefs. What do you think that you would say, or what are your thoughts on that?
Stacey Ritz: I mean, it’s so funny that you, we were talking about this this afternoon because literally earlier, earlier this afternoon, I was in a conversation with a colleague about a paper that we’re writing together. And we were trying to decide exactly what we wanted the paper to be about. And this is basically what we decided we wanted the paper to be about. This is very fresh in my mind.
Yeah, so I mean, I think the question about like how do we define sex and gender? um is not a new question in scholarship, not a new question in society, not a new question in science, but the significance of it and the concepts people bring to it and particularly the political landscape, the dimensions around it shifted and changed a lot over time. And this is a particularly acute, challenging moment around those questions because of the ways that debates around how do we define sex and gender? How do we define who is a woman and who gets to use what bathroom and who gets to compete in what sports and um, you know, who gets to have what mark on their passport is is concrete and very threatening for many marginalized folks.
And the ways that scientific knowledge about sex and gender is often being deployed and weaponized by people who are not actually scientists and who don’t actually care about science and who don’t actually understand the science that they think they’re talking about. They’re but they’re using the authority of science as sort of a rhetorical weapon. Even though they don’t, they don’t actually understand. And they’re deploying it very insincerely, as well. It’s not that it’s not that they’re just like, you know, misunderstanding the science and, you know, genuinely trying to make an argument. No, they’re using it insincerely and in malignant ways to achieve particular political ends.
So I think the questions and the problems around, what is sex? What is gender? What is a woman? What is a man? How do we define these things? Are real, important, philosophical questions, social questions, scientific questions, and deserve our attention and deserve our very thoughtful approach and we have been doing, engaging in that for many years. But this is a particularly challenging moment for that.
So that’s all preamble. Your question was, how do I handle that when someone’s, you know, brings that up like, what is a woman? And, you know, one of the examples that you sent me to contemplate ahead of time was exactly that. You’re a feminist, you should be able to define what a woman is.
And I actually think that the way that I would respond to that right now is different from what I would have two years ago or what I might five years from now. But I think right now I would say, um I would kind of challenge the premise of the question. For what purposes are we trying to define this question? And actually, from a scientific perspective, a big part of my work in the last few years has been about exactly that. Like for what purposes– why are we asking that question? Because why we’re asking the question will inform what the most appropriate answer to that question is. So what is a woman? I would say there is no singular definition of what is a woman that is appropriate for all contexts and all questions and all purposes. If you’re trying to define what is a woman for the purpose of deciding who gets to compete in women’s sports, what matters is different than if you’re trying to decide what is a woman for the purposes of um social categorization in some other context or who gets access to certain kind of health care or how do we design a scientific experiment to try and understand sex and gender related influences? So there’s no definition of a woman that is universal for all purposes.
I think that’s how I would respond. There is no singular universal definition that works for every purpose. So what is the purpose that you’re trying to achieve here? And then we can talk about what it might appropriately mean in that context.
Riley Wilson: I think that that’s a great starting point to kind of, yeah, like open up that conversation and interrogate, because as you said, think oftentimes when people are asking these questions, it’s not in good faith, they actually don’t have a good handle on the science. And so kind of challenging that and because I think oftentimes they’re they’re speaking to, university students, like these these media trained people are speaking to university students who are, yeah, just they like they don’t maybe like we, as, you know, not people who study sex and gender and biology, um, maybe don’t have that grasp either. And so it’s kind of like exploiting their own vulnerabilities and others in that question.
Stacey Ritz: I mean, so I teach a course on sex gender and health, for undergrads, and it’s open to students across the whole university, so there’s science students and there’s arts and science students and there’s, you know, economic students I’ve got in this, people from lots of different scientific backgrounds. And one of the things that I convey frequently in that course is that um what I know as a scientist and as a scholar whose focus is on these kinds of questions about sex and gender and what does it mean, Is that if anybody claims that they have the definitive definition of what is a woman or what sex is or what is gender and and and they claim that it’s simple and straightforward, they are wrong and they are not actually experts, because if they were experts, they would know that it’s not simple and it’s not straightforward. So that by itself, somebody claiming to have a simple answer to that question is a signal that they lack expertise. They’re claiming expertise. That doesn’t mean they have it.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, yeah, um So like a one other dimension of this question that we can just touch on briefly if you have any thoughts about it is like, as I said, I think that digital, like algorithms and stuff like that have played a big part in spreading this rhetoric around, because they kind of deal in contention and anger and that kind of thing and for people to to be riled up on from either side. um and so I was wondering if your approach would change at all, if you’re looking at something online and you see this kind of rhetoric there versus if you’re talking to someone in person.
Stacey Ritz: Absolutely
Riley Wilson: What are your thoughts and the differences between those two?
Stacey Ritz: I mean, and again, it’s not even just about the difference between online and in person. I think it is also a decision about like, is this person coming to the conversation in good faith? Are they actually trying to understand and and or or are they trying to just score a political point?
I think, you know, if you’re I mean, regardless of if you’re online or in person, like if I’m thinking if I’m on social media and I’m deep into comments section and sort of like and I’ve decided it’s worth the effort which is itself the first question– “is it worth it?” I think I’ve often found especially it’s probably more effective in person, but could be effective in online environments too, is to respond to those kinds of claims with questions.
Rather than trying to counter their arguments is to respond with questions. about their premises. What is it that you’re actually trying to achieve here? What aspect of this is important to you? Why is this important in this context? And that way it can more organically lead to entertaining some of that complexity, as opposed to just trying to argue back with them.
Generally, I mean, one of the things that we have started talking about in a part of our curriculum in the health sciences program is a session that we call discomfort curiosity and perspective taking. And the idea there is that when you are in a situation where you’re finding yourself sort of emotionally triggered, you find that discomfort for some reason. You’re feeling defensive. You’re feeling angry, you know, uh it’s very natural to respond defensively and try and convince the other person that they’re wrong. And that almost never works for any reason, whether it’s trolls online, a comment section, or with your mom, like it almost never works to try and convince the other person that they’re wrong.
But it can often be a much more fruitful strategy to respond with curiosity. What’s going on? ask questions. What, why is it that we think differently about this? And think about it, not necessarily trying to win the argument or convince the other person that you’re right, but thinking about how can we better understand why we don’t agree? And that’s often more useful.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Stacey Ritz: We don’t have to agree, but if we understand why we don’t agree, we actually have a better framework. So I think that that idea of trying to be curious and trying to ask more questions about trying to understand the nature of the disagreement is probably going to be more fruitful online or in person than trying to convince the other person. But again, it also depends on whether that person is actually acting in good faith. And if they’re not, it’s probably more– you probably just want to walk away.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, no, for sure. Because when I was doing research for this project, it was kind of like the differences between online and in-person interaction were kind of coming up and in in-person interaction when someone says something, it’s kind of like in a conversation like there’s a common ground of the conversational already and that speech has been uttered into, you know, like the arena of the conversation, I guess, and it’s given legitimacy by that. But online, like someone can kind of say something into the void. And if you never interact with it, no one else might never ever see it. So it definitely, yeah, that kind of changes your decisions around that. And also, maybe sometimes responding to speech can give it legitimacy. So there’s times when, as you said, we don’t want to engage in that.
Stacey Ritz: I mean, it’s sometimes, you know, in an online environment, for example, the response, it might most usefully be to, um, you know, engage and say, like, this issue is actually a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be, but it doesn’t sound like you’re actually interested in engaging that complexity. So I’ll just leave it at that. You know, like sort of so you’re marking it. You’re naming it. You’re saying like you’re trying to oversimplify something that is not simple, but not necessarily trying to,
Riley Wilson: Go the whole mile
Stacey Ritz: Especially if you don’t sense that there is actually a true genuine interest in trying to to understand the complexity.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, absolutely. Okay, great. Just to kind of maybe um, pull it back and finish it off. I just wanted to touch briefly on this other trend that I’ve been seeing that I also shared with you. Of kind of just like more minute trends that have to do a little bit with gender essentialism and especially, I think defining girlhood in specific ways, like, uh there’s phrases like girl math, or “I’m just a girl,” and they kind of attach certain things to being a woman. So like that’s kind of less about the biology and a little bit maybe more about the psychological, but also related to the yeah, like kind of maybe in some ways indicating or implying that girlhood or womanhood has certain traits attached to it. And I think oftentimes it’s not really in bad faith. It’s more about just people trying to relate to each other and share their experiences.
Stacey Ritz: And poking fun at sort of some norms and in this case, gender norms and gender roles and gender expectations.
Riley Wilson: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And I just wanted to know your thoughts on that. And if you think that that plays a part in our gender discourse or if it’s just kind of fun, yeah.
Stacey Ritz: I mean, sometimes it’s good fun.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Stacey Ritz: Sometimes it’s totally just in good fun, and is really um about playing with and poking and prodding at at these stereotypes, because a lot of these things, you know, the girl math phenomena, like that that’s just poking fun at stereotypes or it’s either it’s either poking fun at stereotypes or it’s endorsing and re-entrenching those stereotypes. I, you know, that’s but either way, it is speaking to stereotypes about gender. Stereotypes about what it is, what constitutes girlhood, what constitutes womanhood, what constitutes masculinity. And you know, it’s one of the ways that we discursively evolve and keep the, you know, engage with the discourses of gender, in informal ways.
You know, we’re not talking about the scholarly literature or anything like that. But, you know, this is the landscape of gender that we all operate in. And I think one of the things that I think is important to note, and it’s, you know, the distinction between gender identity and the larger concept of gender. And I’ve seen that become kind of muddied in the last ten years because I think there has been a lot of attention paid, a lot of important and valuable attention and advocacy and solidarity work and so on to, you know enhance trans visibility and open our our collective eyes to a more diverse way of understanding gender identity. And that’s very valuable. But I think it has also led to some confusion about the gender identity equating to gender the larger concept.
So for me, like gender identity is an aspect of gender, but it is not it is not itself gender. You know, gender is a much larger construct of it, lots of interacting things around gender identity, gender performance, gender norms, gender expectations, gendered relations, institutional gender, gender and power, you know, all of these kinds of things interacting with each other.
So I think when we’re talking about, you know, a trend like talking about girl math, we’re engaging with these questions about the discourses of gender and gender performance and gender norms and expectations of femininity.
And, you know, what highlights, you know, this idea of girl math, all, you know, those examples are sort of like about shopping, you know, like, and it was tapping into this stereotype of women as shopping and interested in, you know, makeup and, you know, all these kinds of um hyper feminized norms about femininity and capitalism, for example, you know, I mean, I think they can be subversive.
You know, they can be transgressive and sort of push back against patriarchal norms and sexist, stereotypes about men or about women or they can essentialize and further entrench it, because I think part of the reason that they appeal to people is that there are a lot of social social norms and tendencies that want to perpetuate an idea that these these differences, these gendered differences are natural and are unassailable and are not changeable. That solidifies and perpetuates a status quo around the distributions of power and, you know, so yeah if our narratives of gender entrench our belief that there are intractable natural differences between men and women that explain why, you know, there’s inequality and these kinds of things. You know, that supports the status quo.
And so a lot of those narratives around gender essentialist stereotypes perpetuate that further. But they can be used and played with in ways that kind of poke holes in it and highlight the absurdity of it. Like this idea that there’s anything natural and biological and, you know, genetic about, you know, about lying to yourself about how much money you spend on a purse. Like it’s just so ridiculous.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Stacey Ritz: We cannot take it seriously. I hope we cannot take seriously the idea that that is somehow about our chromosomes or our gonads or anything like that, right? But um but there are people who would, you know, would argue that it is. So I think I’m intrigued by these things.
I mean, the other another related phenomenon that I see a lot, and I actually use in my course a lot is the gendering of products, you know, the way that you’ll see, you know, tweezers for sale, and here’s a pair of tweezers for women and a pair of tweezers for men. And they are literally the, can I swear?
Riley Wilson: Yeah
Stacey Ritz: They are literally the exact fucking same tweezers. But one of them is or the packaging is pink, the one example I have in mind, they are literally exactly the same tweezers, but the packaging here is pink, but the packaging here is black and the packaging here emphasizes, you know, that they are finally, you know, refined to get even the tiniest, most delicate hairs and the text on this one talks about how engineered for toughness and durability. um and this one costs $14.99 and this one costs $10.99 and they’re literally the fucking same thing, right? The same, so it’s kind of perpetuating the same idea that somehow we need different tools for taking hair out of our face. And yet it bursts its own bubble by being literally the same item. But again, I think a lot of this is fed by capitalism or at least capitalism can capitalize off of these kinds of social mythologies and norms around gender, and exploit them for capitalist purposes. So I think a lot of those kinds of essentialist things we see exploited for capitalist purposes and other other forms of the function of power that, you know, perpetuates concentration of power in the hands of the privileged.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Yeah. So, yeah, maybe the way to look at that a little bit, because I think that something that is also implicated in that a little bit is that often like in the aestheticization of girlhood, it’s often like a specific type of girl who’s, like shown. It’s like a white middle, upper middle class girl, someone maybe a bit like me as well.
But I think that definitely that’s a great start that you put out there of just bursting the bubble of a little bit like, okay, like this is evolutionarily over like, what hundreds of thousands of years, we grew an innate desire for like Stanley cups and to justify our bad purchases. And that’s like what, you know, thousands of years of evolution gave us, that’s a little bit ridiculous.
Stacey Ritz: Scientifically speaking. It is much more plausible that that is socially created than it is somehow genetic or biological. Like, I mean, even from a scientific perspective, it does not make sense. To think that somehow we have a gene that does that.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, it’s crazy.
Stacey Ritz: As opposed to, it’s cultural. clearly it’s cultural.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, no, starting that process kind of within yourself of kind of like laughing at those things just so that– I think that it’s important sometimes because I think that when you’re sold this idea of girlhood, sometimes maybe it’s easy to become protective of it. And when you become protective of it becomes exclusionary. And so just reminding yourself that, like, hey, this is kind of ridiculous. This is not necessarily what being a girl is or what my identity is. Sometimes it’s fun, but yeah, just making sure they interrogate those things for their ridiculousness.
Stacey Ritz: Yeah. I mean, I think one of the things about gender that makes it so challenging for people to challenge and interrogate is that it feels so central to who we are. And that is also cultural, right? Like that’s [sorry. I probably just, I didn’t realize I was touching the microphone.]
That this centrality of the idea of gender to our identity is a cultural phenomenon, it is. You can imagine a scenario where, you know, a creature does not particularly think of itself as being male or female, as being particularly germain to their day-to-day. I mean, I just think about my cats. My cats do not give a shit about whether they’re male or female. It has zero bearing on how they understand themselves.
It’s not, it’s not necessarily biological for it to be such a, you know, a hugely important way of shaping your world. I mean, are there biological aspects of reproduction that shape our experiences in certain ways? Sure, of course. The experience of being pregnant and, you know, or the experience of sexual relationships with somebody else. Does that, you know, does it have a material impact on our life? Sure.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Stacey Ritz: But the idea that that has to become such a defining aspect of how we understand who we are in the world and how everyone else treats us about everything that doesn’t even have anything to do with pregnancy or sexual intercourse or anything like that. The idea that that function should shape every kind of clothes you wear. Why on earth? There’s no scientific biological reason why the ability to gestate a baby should mean that I have long hair, or that I should, you know, wear pink or it’s okay for me to wear pink but it’s not sort of it’s less okay for someone else. Like there’s no biological plausibility to that. I don’t argue that there is no um material basis around thinking about how sex related by, you know, reproductive related differences in our bodies that are the reality of sexual reproduction. I don’t deny that they can’t have any social impact, but the idea that it has any impact doesn’t require us to think that it should shape our lives so profoundly and completely. But it does. It does for most people most of the time in most cultures, and that doesn’t follow.
So I think for me it’s kind of it’s that that’s an important distinction, to acknowledge that, yes, there are biological things happening related to sexual reproduction that shape certain parts of our lives and certain ways and shape, you know, have an influence on the ways that are are physical bodies exist, you know, are manifested in the world. I don’t deny that those are real material elements. But the idea that that means society exists in a certain way where that is such a primary definer of how we are in this world. That is a leap. That is completely social, completely cultural.
Riley Wilson: Especially the question of sex and gender, like you said, because it informs so much of who we are and who are friends with and how we create relationships. It is, I think it’s hard for people, even if they want to fight back against those arguments. It’s hard to grapple with sometimes. So that’s why I think it’s so great to, yeah, talk about it.
Stacey Ritz: Maybe what I will add because you just kind of reminded me of something that I thought of before that didn’t end up saying, is this idea about gender as being who we are versus thinking about gender as what we do. um because when we think about gender as what we do, but not necessarily like core to how we understand our identity, I think it shifts our relationship to it in a way, as opposed to when we think of who we are.
Like if I take it away from the gender question for a minute and say, okay, if I think, okay, I’m a vegetarian. If I understand that as who I am and it’s central to my identity. That is a different relationship to vegetarianism than if I say, I choose to eat vegetarian food. It’s not who I am. It’s a choice that I make and it’s a behavior that I engage in and it’s something I do. It’s not something I am. And I have actually, I use that example because I think about it for myself that I remember a moment being like, am I a vegetarian? Is that my identity or is it just a thing that I do? And I’ve actually concluded it’s a thing that I do, it is related to values I hold that I think of as closer to who I am, but it’s a behavior. it’s things I do rather than who I am as a person. And then I started to translate that into thinking about gender. Like how much of what I think of is what it is to uh enact and embody being a woman. How much of that is really about who I understand myself to be and how much of that is just about what I do. What I choose to wear and how I align myself to these cultural norms. So I think that sense for most of us, I think most of us have a sense of our gender. something about our identity, about who we are, which is partly what makes it so threatening when people start asking questions about poking holes and like maybe gender isn’t what you think it is, and maybe being a woman is different than you think it is and so on. And I think if we can at least play with the idea that maybe gender– what changes for us if we think about gender as something we do rather than who we are, does that make it less threatening to talk about these things? So does that open up certain kinds of possibilities that maybe it’s harder to think about when we think of it as central to who we are.
Riley Wilson: Yeah, absolutely, because I think that that’s what gets people maybe who wouldn’t normally be or like who would come to a conversation in good faith but who think that there’s kind of some kind of female experience that other people can’t be let into because like it’s specific only to those who are, you know, born a certain way as biological women, right? Where it’s like, okay, like let’s let’s shift that. There’s also not really a hegemonic female experience. Like where you’re thinking about that. It’s like, yeah, your own, right?
Stacey Ritz: A lot of these people who want to make this about “what is a woman” and, you know, they’re setting a trap.
For people who are trying to set that trap in a, you know, insincere way, um, you know, often they’ll talk about like, you know, like the ability to become pregnant and gestate a child. That’s what defines a woman biologically. But it’s like that all of those fall apart very quickly. Scientifically fall apart very quickly. Because if that’s what defines being a woman well, there are lots of people who can’t become pregnant, or can’t just have a child for lots of reasons, who that person who’s laying that trap would absolutely say, well, yes, that person is a woman. uh and so what they actually are you could start to tear apart and they’re saying, well, if a woman is someone who has a uterus, well, what happens about someone who’s had hysterectomy, are they? Well, yes, they are a woman. So most of those dudes would say, well, yes, they’re still a woman because they had a uterus. Well, what if they never had a uterus, but everything, you know, they were just born without one. Like, what if they, you know, what if it’s X chromosomes? Like, they all fall apart because none of those singular markers are actually sufficient to fulfill the argument they’re trying to make. So they all fall apart.
And I guess that what it comes back to is like what is the purpose for which you’re trying to answer that question? If the purpose for which you’re trying to answer that question is like, okay, it’s important to know who’s a woman because we are trying to know who we should vaccinate against, you know, HPV. You know, I mean, everyone should be vaccinated for HPV. But like, um it’s important to know who needs a pap smear. That’s a better example. It’s important to know who needs a pap smear. And so we need to know who’s a woman. Well, then it’s like, okay, for that purpose, what you actually need to know is if someone has a cervix. It doesn’t actually matter whether you call that person a woman or a man. You actually just need to know that they have a cervix.
In another case, it might be like, we need to know who’s a woman so we can know about protecting someone from exposure to potential teratogens that could cause birth defects and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. OK, so what you’d actually need to know is who is somebody who might be vulnerable to exposure to teratogens. Again, whether you call them a woman or not doesn’t actually matter. You just need to identify people who could potentially become pregnant. And there are lots of people who can’t become pregnant because they don’t have the uterus because they never had a uterus because they were born, you know, but there are also other people who can’t become pregnant for other reasons. You know, they have used some form of contraceptive that means that it’s impossible for them to become pregnant or they have some other kind of difference of sexual development that means they’ll never become pregnant or or they’re, you know, they’re gender identity is male, but um, uh, but they, or sorry, their gender identity is female, but they, but they don’t have ovaries or whatever. Like there are lots of reasons. So you don’t actually, it doesn’t actually matter whether. You’re not actually talking about women. You’re talking about people with a prudent kind of capacity, which the label doesn’t matter.
Yeah, and so it you can actually make it all fall apart if you kind of push back on what’s the purpose? for you asking this question? And if it’s a question about like, we need to know who’s a woman for social reasons? Well, for social reasons, then the answer is simply, whoever says they’re a woman is a woman, whoever feels they’re a woman is a woman.
Riley Wilson: Yeah.
Stacey Ritz: If it’s like, if you don’t feel that’s legitimate, then why is that not legitimate for your purpose? What is it that you’re afraid of? What’s the bad thing that could happen?
Riley Wilson: And I think often, like they do use women’s protection and things like that for that purpose.
Stacey Ritz: And so insincere. It’s so bad faith. It’s so disingenuous because people who make that argument that they’re asking that question to protect women, you know, this question about who uses what bathroom and he uses who’s in what sport and who’s allowed in what change. like be as a question of safety for women. It’s so disingenuous because the science, the data, the evidence is very clear that the danger to women in those kinds of situations that they’re talking about is not coming from transfolks. The danger is always, yeah, cis men.
Riley Wilson: Yeah
Stacey Ritz: and so there’s no evidence to support a claim that trans women are a risk to cis women.
Riley Wilson: Not at all.
Stacey Ritz: Not at all.
Riley Wilson: No, I saw this comedian who made a joke about it and he was like, yeah, like there’s all these men up there who just, you know, they want to go into the women’s bathrooms and terrorize women. But they can’t because they’re just not allowed in there. But, you know, like it’s just ridiculous.
Stacey Ritz: Actually, there are men who do that.
Riley Wilson: Yeah. And they are and they’re not necessarily stopped by any like it’s not about signage or anything like that.
Stacey Ritz: I am not aware of any instance ever where someone has taken on the identity of, you know, a trans woman who has done that has taken on that identity and then harmed women in a bathroom. Yeah.
I’m not aware of any time that that has ever happened.
Riley Wilson: It’s another section where you kind of have to like to pull up the ridiculousness. Yeah, in the same way. It’s what we talked about before. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Great. I think we might stop there.
