For the Big Bang, there’s the observable fact that the universe itself is expanding, as differences between galaxies and other galaxies has been increasing via some unknown force, often considered to be the expansion of the universe aided by dark energy pushing things apart. There’s also the stretching of light between different galaxies when it reaches us. The light, though it’s from different times, doesn’t match to it’s original distance, and stretches in weird ways to sort of give us glimpses of different times in space at the same time, showing that these galaxies are moving in different directions and distances away from a sort of center, though that center has never been found, it’s effect from the center is clear. That center is supposedly where the Big Bang started from an infinitely hot and matter-filled point that exploded outwards (not literally, that’s for effect in my phrasing). There’s also microwave background radiation. Basically speaking, it’s the glow leftover from the extreme heat of the Big Bang, manifested in microwave background radiation, which we have mostly mapped and studied it’s existence, and have proven that Cosmic Background Radiation is true, real, and there, remaining one of the biggest pieces of evidence in the Big Bang theory. There’s also composition of stars by elements, which the Big Bang theory predicts that elements like helium and hydrogen where created in certain amounts towards the beginning of the universe. The amount and composition of these elements doesn’t apply to newer stars like the sun, but it does to far older ones, which we have empirically matched to the composition in the Big Bang theory. Alternate theories to the Big Bang theory, such as the Steady State Theory, hold that the universe has changed very little in the course of its history, but using telescopes such as Hubble or James Webb, we’ve proved that, as the Big Bang theory holds, the universe has experienced near constant change, and in large quantities overtime.

That depends what definition is used for gender, the medical definition, the most commonly accepted one, is different than one predominantly used by conservatives, which does lead to the recognition of more than two genders, as it is neurologically determined and understood in that definition, while sex itself is biological, which, normally, has a binary, but that’s not always true, just as gender is not always binary. If gender outside of the binary was a mental illness, trying to treat it would lead to positive outcomes, but it doesn’t, it makes the issue worse trying to convince people they’re not what they are, and that applies to cis kids and trans kids, that’s their own thing to deal with, no one else’s.

Neurological is an additional described word to the definition of gender I am using, since yours and mine are different, both being socially determined.

Please, define what this curriculum favoring it is. Does it praise the Soviet Union for its works or consider Karl Marx to be a hero, while painting Mises, Smith, and Hayek as villains? Or does it simply acknowledge the validity of that economic theory and address it in a non-negative manner, because that’s not pro-socialism bias, that’s rational discussion. Socialism overall is socioeconomic, so if it doesn’t talk much about government, they’re closer to the target than they normally are. It depends how they define it too, if they just define it as social democracy, then of course it’s good, people tend to love social democracy, because it’s close enough to socialism, but still capitalist in nature, function, and rule. What curriculum even is this? Honestly, I’d be impressed if they were talking about the nuance, because it really is far more than just “when the government does stuff”, and that’s a definition I’d LOVE to break.