Economist March 6-100million Girls gone and numbers rising

I'm not going to read an article that lumps killing and abortion together, as if they are the same thing.
Can't expect much from the Economist anyways. Why don't you try the New Internationalist instead?

I was impressed that it was the Economist would even do the article, let alone a cover article

They were focusing on gender-selection abortion, specifically as a result of China's one child law. Not the same as free, safe, legal choice.  And I was also impressed that the Economist did a cover article on this multi-faceted issue.

This is, of course, the inverse of what Mary Daly advocated, keeping men down to a 'manageable percentage' of the population. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

I look forward to the article The economist will do next on the number of trans women who have been attacked, shuned, and generally denied access to treatment that would cost them less than a dollar a day, and the economic costs of the suicides it has produced. Given an incidence of transsexuality as high as 1 in 100 and current rates of adults that are able to even seek treatment being estimated by American insurers as 1 in 867, I'm given to wonder if there'd be proportionally comparable concern given to what would amount to roughly a million trans women, in North America alone, who have been just as plainly erased.