#Like they're not As Rampant in my experience at least (yet)

[moongothic]

You know I've hated porn bots on Tumblr since forever but there's something about the recent surgence of Twitter porn bots that just

Makes my blood boil with disgust and fury in a whole different way

[cy-cyborg]

It will never not be frustrating to me that amputees appear in fiction ALL. THE. TIME. and yet they're almost never acknowledged as such. The Cyberpunk genre is especially guilty of this: amputees and prosthetics becoming a normalised part of life are a defining part of the genre/aesthetic and yet no one even consults with any amputees about how we get represented there. Most writers in those genres don't even consider that giving your characters cybernetic arms and legs means they're an amputee.

CW: Ableism, dehumanisation

This makes it REALLY uncomfortable to engage with stories in the genre because another common aspect of cyberpunk is the idea of losing yourself and becoming something distinctly not-human anymore because you have too many cybernetic augmentations/implants. Shadowrun even has mechanics for this, which state if you get too many prosthetics, which is what cybernetics are 9 times out of 10, your character becomes a monster. These mechanics and discussions surrounding "how many robot bits make you not human anymore" are really, really uncomfortable when you remember this isn't something that's unique to a far-off future setting. Those people you're discussing the humanity of already exist. They're called amputees. If you reframe the question as "how many amputations can you have before you stop being a person" I hope you can see why an amputee like myself is not going to feel safe around you or in your fandoms.

And it's a shame, because I REALLY want to like Cyberpunk. I really, honestly do. I love the aesthetics, I love the idea of big corporations being the villains and the anti-capitalism at the heart of the genre, and I love the idea of prosthetics being not only destigmatised, but desirable. When written from a disability-inclusive lense, it honestly has the potential to be an incredibly uplifting and empowering genre. but as the genre stands right now, it's actively hostile to the very folks who are usually the stars of its stories: amputees, all because people just refuse to acknowledge us.

Cyberpunk isn't the only genre guilty of this, it's common all throughout sci-fi as a whole, but Cyberpunk is the only one where it starts becoming a serious issue due to its rampant dehumanisation of a real group of people. In other sci-fi settings, it's just kind of annoying and while it can be a form of erasure, it's not usually harmful, just...frustrating. Fantasy does it on occasion too, think pirates with a hook and a peg leg, but nowhere near as much.

If you, as an author or creator, use any of these words to describe a character or their tech in a sci-fi setting:

cybernetics/cybernetic enhancements

bionics

robot limbs

cyborgs

augmentations

You are probably writing an amputee. Please, at the very least, acknowledge it, and be mindful that those are real people who actually exist, not just a fantasy group you can speculate about.

edit:

I originally posted this article on my old Tumblr account and lot of people commented/reblogged to tell me that originally in cyberpunk, the "less human the more robot bits you have" only applied to people who opted for their limbs to be replaced by cybernetics, because it was seen as "renting out your body to corporations for money" but people who had to get cybernetics out of necessity weren't impacted. The thing is though, I really don't think that makes it better, for a few reasons. For one, where do you draw the line at "opting" to get a cybernetic prosthetic? This isn't a black and white thing, even in real life. Most amputations are done out of necessity, but there are situations where it's not the only option, just the best one. Talking from personal experience, I lost both my legs below the knee as a baby, that was a pretty clear cut case, I had a blood infection and gangrene and they had to act fast. But the infection caused lasting side effects and impacted my physical body's development and growth. By the time I got to my early 20's it was causing a lot of pain in my right leg, in my knee specifically, and when I got a bone infection in the end of that stump, I chose to have the whole thing amputated up to the knee. They only needed to take a few inches off the end of my stump, but I asked them to go higher, because of the ongoing issues in that knee, issues that would have been made worse by the shortening of the leg. I choose to remove the whole thing, knowing the joint was degrading and I probably would have lost it later in life anyway. Even if it was salvageable, it would mean much more surgery, and I've had enough of those. A boy I played wheelchair basketball with was born with a partially formed leg, it was half the size of his other leg and he wasn't able to use it al all, it was just dead weight, so he opted to get it amputated too for convenience and so he could use a prosthetic on that side. I worked with a girl who's hand didn't form properly in the womb, resulting in a normal palm, but tiny "finger nubs" (her words) with no bones inside. They weren't actively harming her usually, but she opted to get them and the top of her palm amputated after an incident at work where we were tying balloons and one of her nubs got stuck in the knot. She decided to get them amputated because it meant accidents like that would be less likely, and she could use a prosthetic more comfortably. All 3 of these are considered "optional" amputations, so would people like us be penalised in your setting? does it make sense that the technology in your setting can tell the difference, or that corporations would care about the how and why? Even stepping away from medical grey areas, if your character opts for a cybernetic arm because the corporations will financially reward her, and she's struggling to put food on the table without that help, is that really optional?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that idea could work but it would take a lot of work to do well, and most works I've seen don't do the work. Even if they did though, it doesn't change the fact that most modern uses of this trope don't mention that bit or actively ignore it. It doesn't matter in most cyberpunk works I've seen if the amputation was optional or out of necessity, they still are more prone to being seen as "less human" and in most of the sci-fi writing communities I've been part of, the authors are genuinely shocked when I ask them to remember "people with cybernetics are real people already, they're not some far-off-distant future fantasy group, they're just called amputees". Like it didn't even cross their minds. These are the people creating the works in this genre. Even if it wasn't the original intention of the genre, it's still an issue in the modern version of it. Edit 2: Elaborated a little more on why I don't think the "only people who choose it" argument works in the edit. Also, please stop telling me that old cyberpunk doesn't have this issue, I literally address that in the post lol.

[kaija-rayne-author]

I guess the discourse today is about Astarion being the favourite poster boy of the devs to the detriment of the other characters.

Yes. That's unequivocally true. Wyll having so little compared to Astarion is also an example of racism.

It's also capitalism. Larian can't make more games unless BG3 does well. So far it has, so in their choice of poster boy they chose correctly.

Every business, especially entertainment ones, follows a similar model. Develop stories or games that the previous game helped fund. It's common in book publishing too.

(Which, tbf, is my realm of knowledge, but the business facts are the same.)

What you, if you're indie, or the publisher, if not, chooses to spend time on is the thing/character/aspect/story that will sell the most copies so they can stay in business.

They bet on Astarion being popular because:

1. Vampire, vampire stories don't seem to get old. People want more.

2. White hair, if you're at all into gaming or anime, you should recognize the white-haired anime boy coding Astarion has.

3. He's pretty. In games & books like these, people want to get turned on or be sucked into emotions, that's rather the point. So, of course, they made him pretty and gave him an angsty backstory about it. Have you noticed that his vampire fangs are the more traditional style and the rest have funky (and likely more efficient) chompers with the fangs on the front teeth?

4. Twink, you'd have to be really not paying attention to not notice that one. They tend to be attractive to the largest section of players.

6. Slow burn, a lot of people prefer slow burn romance.

7. Classically handsome. You could turn him into a statue (and can!) and he wouldn't look out of place.

I don't experience this type of point form character building, my characters tend to march fully formed into my head and demand I write them.

But Astarion was built as a fictional character that would (hopefully) capture a broad cross-section of players and give the game some more sex appeal.

Sex sells.

I'd lay money I don't have on every aspect of Astarion's character having been a deliberate choice to encourage sales.

And that's fine. That's what capitalism does. Don't like it? Start voting for social support programs and things like ubi so that people can create without worrying about the bills.

Is it fair to the other characters and to the gamers who love other characters more than Astarion? Absolutely not. I do hope Larian gets the message and produces more content to make them all equivocal.

Especially for Wyll, they did him so dirty.

Is Wyll having the least lines and scenes racist? Yup.

Larian, despite their faults, produced something that so few games companies have done recently. A single purchase, single player RPG without micro-transactions that was an excellent game straight from release.

Other games companies are bitching about that because it's like sand in the oyster of their business models.

Which, for a while now, has been to roll out a game that wasn't ready yet and use the players as unpaid, uncompensated labour to find bugs etc. As a gamer, I've really hated that.

Did Larian fuck up? Uh, yeah. On several issues. But they also made an amazing game that was awesome from release.

It would be a shame to lose sight of that.

It's important to call out the shite when we see it, but the current 'it has to be perfect for me, or I won't play' attitude rampant on the 'net these days is disturbing to say the least.

I've read Larian has a feedback thing on fridays. If this really bothers you, hustle on over and participate in the feedback session.

They're still actively working on the game. They can still make changes and they seem reasonably responsive to fan feedback.

But just remember... the reason Astarion is the poster boy with the most content is because of capitalism. It was likely a cold, business focused decision vs anything else.

Which doesn't make it better. I just figured inserting a bit of entertainment business knowledge might be helpful to the discussion.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Re: queer shit in Agatha: how is it really (in your opinion, if it’s not too soon to say)? I saw Aubrey Plaza say it was going to be the queerest mcu project, and well. I don’t think anything has even come close to runaways, which still managed to fumble incredibly when it came to xavin. I think the mainline stuff is pretty pointedly un-queer. I still can’t wrap my head around making Phyla (and America) children, NTM both times someone said a thor movie would be knock your socks off gay only to be incredibly overwhelming at absolute best

Not that it would in anyway negate the hideous racism and antisemitism, but it would be just a little vindicating if it also ended up being homophobic and/or queerbait-y after listening to certain people insist they have to support it bc there’s no other media in the history of the world centering on queer witches (/s)

By definition, it's not queer baiting. There are definitely gay people and gay relationships in the show. Locke's character is gay and has a boyfriend, who will appear in an upcoming episode, and although it's not explicitly confirmed yet, it genuinely does seem that Agatha has romantic history with Plaza's character, Rio.

And not for nothing, but there are at least three gay/bi actors on the cast, and out of the six main characters, four of them are gay or bisexual in the source material. The whole bit about this being the "gayest Marvel project"* does feel kinda cringey and I know it's hard not to be cynical, but from a purely numbers perspective, I don't think it's untrue. I can't speak to the quality or context of that representation yet, but I think that's more of a writing problem than anything else--we're already halfway through the series, and I feel like I barely know anything about the characters or their backstories besides, randomly, Alice, who has the least amount of material in comics.

To be honest, I don't think that the show is going to go out of its way to explore, like, queer narratives or experiences. I think the intention was to simply have a lot of characters who happen to be gay, and I do think that's something Shaeffer, et al have been pretty clear about. However, it's obvious that they're trying to capitalize off of the buzz that this generates, and it is really hard to not feel cynical about that when Disney/Marvel have done this so many times in such a tokenizing fashion.

For the record, I know people like to draw parallels between the history and persecution of "witches" and LGBT people, but I find it disingenuous, or at least, not historically truthful. People get too caught up in the modern fantasies and feminist narratives about witchcraft-- which are rewarding in their own right-- to engage with the actual history of that word. In the process, I think they do a disservice to the real women and people of marginalized genders/orientations who may or may not have stewarded those practices, or been affected by that persecution-- which I'll remind you, typically had more to do with colonialism and abuse of power than actual faith or magic.

Those narratives are absolutely reflected in Marvel comics, and in fact, Agatha herself typifies this convention. But I think what's happening on the show is so flattened and reductive, that there's little room for nuance and interpolation. And it's a real shame, because when you have a cast of characters with preternaturally long lives, there is an opportunity to look at other time periods, and really breathe life into what it was like to be a marginalized woman at various points in history. But based on what we saw in Wanda/Vision-- the reductive display of colonial New England + rampant anti-Blackness, antisemitism, and anti-Romani racism-- I just don't have high hopes.

To me, that's what really chafes about the cast and crew's attempt to spin this "witches are queer" narrative. But I don't feel that I'm being baited on the literal presence of gay people, and there's no reason for anybody to have any illusions about that.

*in the quote you cited, Plaza and the interviewer do not use the word 'queer,' they use the word 'gay.' In this context, I don't really think it's that deep, but I wanted to take a moment to say that those words and identities are not interchangeable, and I think it's best practice to quote people accurately, especially when they're expressing gender or sexual identity.

[qqueenofhades]

hilary, I really love talking about history with my friends but sometimes I talk about a historical person that I'm interested in and my friends act like just because I know things about a famous historical person I support everything they did. even when I know they know I don't support slavery, racism, sexism, etc. how do I keep from losing my cool when they do this?

Look, I have no idea where the "if you talk about anything complex/consume this material/think about it in any way, YOU TOO MUST SUPPORT IT AND BE PROBLEMATIC AND BAD!!!" mindset came from, but I honestly and deeply wish it a very killed with fire. It's the same anti mindset where if you read Morally Impure Fan Fiction, you are Morally Impure, but apparently now extends to... learning about the literal entirety of human experience? Why does this not surprise me, while also making me want to put my head through a plate glass door?

Once again, I don't know what people think historians DO, but I can assure y'all, it's not sitting around talking about how Totally Great [fill in the historical person, place, or thing] absolutely was, and how there were no problems with it ever and everyone should just be like, totally down with it, man. (Tubular.) In fact, the practice of academic history is often directly focused, especially nowadays, on identifying these problems and previous interpretations, putting them into context, and discussing how they happened in the first place. Considering that we're suffering from such a profound crisis of historical ignorance, both deliberate and inadvertent, and have seen how that manifests in current events (which are just the history happening right now), I am... boggled that "we shouldn't talk about anything because it was Morally Problematic!!!" is, indeed, getting serious play. Once again, it's the anti-intellectualism that is just as rampant on the left as it is on the right, while dressing itself up in different language and pretending to support different goals. But either way, any critical philosophy based on "we can never talk about things that went wrong/people who did Wrong Things in the past" is absolutely dead on arrival as any use to anyone. Ever.

Obviously, there are complexities in how to approach this material, and I personally don't think that historical figures, especially complex ones, should be "fandomized" or treated just as Cute OTP Blorbos or sanded down to fit a sanitized fictional box (unless they are explicitly fictionalized/being used in a fictional context, and even then, yeah, it's good to keep the background in mind). It's not that this is wrong -- after all, historians get into this line of work because they have Big Thoughts and Many Feelings about historical people/places/things and want to work on those in a variety of contexts -- but it's a little uncomfortable, at least for me. That said, it's still not inherently wrong, in any way, to be interested in/want to talk about people from the past. They're human, for god sakes! You are also human! They are your ancestors! Of course you, a primate with higher reasoning and anxiety, are curious about them! You want to know their stories and consider their circumstances and ponder why they did things, including bad things! If you can't do that, shun other people from doing it, and therefore you are completely cut off from your species' entire backstory and have no frame of reference for anything at all, you're going to end up an idiot. Guaranteed.

Anyway: yet again, people talking about history (or fiction, or anything at all) in a complex way that takes into account the fact that uh, people have never been perfect in their entire existence does not mean that the person is Bad or Supports All The Evils of Human History or whatever. I'm not sure what this attempted-gotcha "don't you know they were a bad person!!!" is going to accomplish, other than giving someone the same kind of fleeting self-righteousness high that comes from Being More Correct On The Internet (or wherever), but like... if you like studying history, and they know you like studying history, I don't know why they would think you don't know that, unless you tragically failed to post a 50-page disclaimer first. And it's stupid, and it's juvenile, and it's not useful, and I think you're entitled to say much of what I've said above, in whatever amount you please, because yeah. Sheesh.

[rain13121]

After the Final Drop

Aka Separation Anxiety

Excerpt from what the water gave me (gave us) below:

"Her bed is still too small for them, but they've been making it work regardless.

They had made an honest effort at first, after the incident on the mountain, to go back to their own beds. 

But time had proven it was a pointless endeavor. There was always an excuse; nightmares ran rampant, or one of them couldn't sleep or was cold, or there was fear of the mountain calling one of them back and finishing what it started. Those ones were all quite reasonable, but as time went on, their excuses started turning a bit ridiculous. 

"I forgot to take my sheets out of the wash, they're still drying…"

"Well, you're here anyway so you might as well stay…"

"The light from the neighbor's house is keeping me up…" 

"You have a fever, Hisoka, I'm not leaving you alone like this." "No, go away Yuri, I'm going to get you sick too!" "I'll be fine, just scoot over and let me help." 

(And Yuri had in fact gotten sick as well, but they remained sharing a bed all through both illnesses.)

Eventually they gave up trying to justify it.

Hisoka's bed was the smallest bed in the house, yet they almost always wound up in hers. 

Ren had noted, when they were discussing their experiences from that week, that her room seemed to have been the least affected by the spirits that had followed them down to the cafe from the mountain. There had apparently been some odd things that had happened with her mirror– she promptly moved it to the main storage room after hearing about them– but aside from those instances, her room had remained relatively untouched.

She reasons that must be why they end up in her tiny bed more often than not. The fact that they had to be completely intertwined to sleep in it comfortably had nothing to do with it."

[gubbles-owo]

How's Arknights going? Tried out any of the funky side-modes yet? Did you already get 4 of the same clue dropped on your desk by someone? (the essential AK experience)

YOU

WHY CAN'T I HOLD ONTO ALL THESE BLACKSTEEL CLUES YOU DUMPED ON ME For real tho, big thanks for all the clues!! Pretty sure I've at least once managed to fill the board entirely with cards from you LMFAO paragraphs of unnecessarily detailed answers under the cut

Arknights is going alright! Still on chapter 5 of the main story, progress has been slow cause I've been focused on upgrading the hell out of a few specific ops-- first e2'ed Manticore, then Matoimaru the other day (i love both of 'em sm). Definitely ain't maxed out, dunno if anyone would actually use em as support units rn, but regardless I love my arknights children just look at them they're so fcukfign cool

I adore the extra stories and insights that come with building trust and unlocking modules, and at the end of the day I'm ultimately here for the characters! Still figuring out who to promote next... Exu would be useful as heck but oughhh the materials required for her look like hell XmX I haven't really done all that much of the side stuff, tbh? Not out of lack of interest, but because shit just feels too difficult? I've been discouraged from doing all that much in events or novel modes because I inevitably get roadblocked by raw numbers-- my ops are too low level, enemies throw waay too much damage, mechanics and enemy types I've never seen or had explained are suddenly thrown at me and I'm expected to know how the heck to deal with 'em, etc etc. In all honesty it's a lil frustrating as new player to try and keep up, to curb the rampant FOMO from things I can't quite fully participate in yet. I'm sure I'll get there eventually, it's just a bit of a struggle >w>` Strategy games 'n tower defense usually ain't my thing, so admittedly there's a looot I still gotta learn, through both practice and example. Simply put: I'm babey xD I have been learning and discovering cool lil strategies tho! Random fun fact, while figuring out a better strategy to grind out 4-8 than the guide I originally followed, I discovered that you can get two sarkaz casters to bind the same target if you time your deployment just right

punished gravel jumpscare

(and yes, i am still working on texturing the low poly manticore model, progress has just been extremely slow sdhfjsdgh)

[perpetual-fool]

-

Maybe it's not generalities I'm sorry about. Maybe it's the specific interactions that are still haunting me.

So, I'm looking at statistics for certain firearm cartridges. I'm following through on the idea that New Vegas is just irredeemable nonsense, and working out my own system. (I'm gonna skip details on that 'cause it might trigger someone who might read this.) But it's just starting with a couple of assumptions from anecdotes, then processing some data. Like, 'if this gun does X damage, then that gun should do Y damage' kind of stuff.

Nothing should be triggering about that.

But there was this one incident with the woman. She was telling me that she was planning to swap out her little .25 ACP gun for something bigger. And that was basically all that happened, that was the whole exchange. But I didn't know what to say to that. I froze up. I'm supposed to already know, of course. Not knowing is not allowed. But also asking questions is not allowed, and being wrong is not allowed either. I didn't know what I was supposed to say or think or feel. And even now having done research as extensive as can even be possible (far as I know), I still don't know what to say or think or feel. I regret not asking. I wish I would've asked why at least, asked what made her change her mind about it. But there were things I did ask about, and they did not go well. I mean, I behaved that way because that's what they programmed into me. If I had just guessed as to what I was supposed to say that would've been wrong too. Anything I shared or expressed would have been wrong too.

So nothing really happened I guess. I was just presented with a near-meaningless interaction and was crushed by it.

But I was still wrong, ya' know? And I am still wrong, since I still can't figure it out. I'm still a stupid, worthless, pathetic piece of shit.

Recent experiences should be convincing me otherwise. I'm not to the bottom of it yet, but someone's been admitting things. casual lying, gaslighting on instinct, rampant self-deception, and I suspect most importantly, being wrong to an extent that is unfathomable to me. Like, it started with them explicitly confirming something I was asking about, but objecting to the fact that I was referring to it as 'lying'. What it's looking like, is that there are a lot of situations where people casually gaslight each other, but they're supposed to know that the other person is lying. But on me, it works. Because I have no foundation from which to doubt you. Because people's baseline genuine, thought out ideas are already completely implausible to me. Their straightforward genuine behavior is already insane.

It's looking like, fundamentally, they're too stupid for me to understand. (Not that that makes me feel any better. And also the response I'd expect, "you just want to think you're better than me!" would itself be a good example of the gaslighting.)

Maybe the reasons don't matter either. I'm sure I could've logic-ed my way out of this ten times over if that were possible. Maybe it hurt just because I loved her and it wasn't working.

Tangent; I really don't know what others mean by 'love'. See above. But personally, I've had a very strong feeling of fondness for anyone I thought I could trust. Strong enough that it feels like nothing else matters. Though my empty, meaningless life could also be a factor in that. I guess I don't really have the means to define it further. They meant the world to me, I would have done nearly anything for them, and I wanted more than anything to be with them. Is that love?

And her demeanor was extremely disarming. Her facade of endless compassion is deeply intoxicating. So very trustable. And it's still very, very hard to accept that others' expressions of concern or sympathy have absolutely no correlation with genuine kindness. She appeared to be everything I needed, everything I wanted, and she ground me down just like everyone else. The point would be better made with someone else. So just for example, last time I had surgery there was this nurse who had exactly the same demeanor. And I was high on anesthetic, so I was more forthcoming than I would normally be. But, I mentioned to this nurse that I very much doubted the people I live with were competent enough to help me if my incision opened up when I was at home. And she told me this story about that kind of thing, as if she was trying to be comforting. The story was about an episode of a tv show where a guy fucking died watching the people attempting to help kill him with their incompetence. I mean, you ever hear an upbeat song, start listening to the lyrics, and realized this is not the kind of song you thought it was? It's like that. It's almost as if they did it on purpose. They saw an opportunity to twist the knife and just couldn't resist. Except that's not congruent with the rest of their behavior.

So yeah. That feels about right.

It still hurts because I still believe in that stupid, cruel girl. And I still have to foundation from which to say it's not my fault.

- (https://youtu.be/SDTZ7iX4vTQ?si=hmg3dzQUPekBshW9)

[justawholedumpster]

Ah yes, so once again we’re gaslighting, shaming, and flat out ignoring women and their health issues because it’s inconvenient for pharmaceutical companies and governments to address issues. 

For one, as said above, this was not just anecdotal. For two, we have known for years that vaccines interact with women’s cycles, I would know because I had to work very closely with my endometriosis-specialist and we often had to discuss vaccines and watch out for adverse side effects. I spent hours searching forums about the this vaccine’s effect on those with endo, and NOT ONE person out of the thousands of pages said they had no effect, it was only ever a question of if the effects were permanent. It’s in the very fundamentals of the science that we can track how vaccines work with the body, what makes you think we wouldn’t at least be somewhat aware of how that might involve the female body?

Additionally, everything starts out “anecdotal”. Everything starts out with women saying something feels wrong. The reason it never gets better is because people like this keep weaponizing their incompetence and parroting this “What do you want us to do??? You could be making it up and trying to ruin our dug or vaccine or medical practice!” response. This is no better than the doctors who turned women away telling them it’s all in their head or that they’re drug seeking--which is a rampant issue in the women’s health field. Responses like the ones above absolutely exacerbate the problem because they excuse and outright defend blatant dismissal of women simply because they came from women themselves rather than men who they actually respect, like Fauci. The way these people continue to promote the idea that doctors and scientist somehow know more about what women experiences then women do, simply because they're doctors and scientists, is astounding and also rampant in our healthcare system.

How hard is it just to say, “oh, some women are claiming this, be sure to talk with your doctor and communicate any changes in your cycle,” instead of directly silencing and deplatforming women and their supporters who speak up about affects to their menstruation? How hard is it to tell a journalist to acknowledge studies are being done and we just don’t know yet rather than outright giving this “there is no war in ba-sing-say” garbage? Your unwillingness to hold people accountable for LYING TO WOMEN ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES is astounding!

Trying to excuse the media lying women about possible negative effects a vaccine could have on their health is so dangerous, SO detrimental, and yet you stand here and try and excuse that behavior because “well, they’re just talking about their experience and we don’t have any proof”. Why the hell is women telling you they're having health issues right after taking the vaccine not proof enough to at least treat them with human decency and stop calling them liars, drug seekers, anti-vaxxers? It literally takes minimal effort to acknowledge people may be experiencing something, but we don’t have any studies completed to know for certain. But some people would rather continue to vilify and abuse women who speak up about their health, lie to the rest of the female population, and then gaslight women about it when they are understandably upset, all because it’s more convenient to what they want to promote and they literally could not care less about making sure female health is ethical.

It just keeps happening.