Ah yes, classic gish gallop. You make 10 claims with no support and everyone else needs to do the legwork.

Yet I present you with a single term, gish gallop, and you ask me for the definition. Curious this double standard. Further demonstration that you are an unserious person making an unserious argument.

You're picking fights, more or less.

Now, let me pick one of your points to counter and at the same time demonstrate why the gish gallop makes you unserious.

A serious person would, for example, not just ask why men have a 3x higher suicide rate, but would at least cover the gender paradox and therefore recognize that young women have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempt suicide more often than men of the same age. Women overall attempt suicide 2 to 4x more often but have a lower completion rate. Gender discrepancies in suicide completion come down to myriad factors including the tool used and strength differences, not typically found to be due to men getting a bad deal from society though, or whatever point you wanted to make.

So here's the thing, you get to make that 3x claim devoid of meaningful sources and context (and I will reply in turn ala Hitchens Razer) , and in a single sentence tucked in the middle of a pile of other claims. Me, on the other hand, have to write a whole paragraph to dispute it. Now imagine how long and involved a reply to the full gish gallop is. It will, in fact, be longer to address each and every talking point you make than it was for you to write it. Worse, you push the burden of finding evidence for your claims off onto others. Worse still, as you've already demonstrated, being called out leads you to ad hominem and strawman arguments.

You aren't serious and nobody should feel obligated to reply to you as if you are.