63

25 comments

[–] Constantine 46 points (+46|-0)

Imagine being proud that you’re contributing to the already dismal understanding and communication of women’s healthcare needs.

I just don’t understand how the desire to pander for social validation could overcome that, especially for a scientist who supposedly cares about improving women’s lives. I’ll never get it.

[–] pennygadget 18 points (+18|-0)

Agreed. Females are already under-studied and underrepresented in health care. Now dingbats like this want to strip the word "woman" from things that only happen to women!!

And don't even get me started on how this language alienates women with low medical literacy & women who speak little to no English and prevents them from accessing care..

[–] Lilith_Won 39 points (+39|-0)

Why does she think this is a flex? The study was done on rats. Female rats are not women 😂

[–] serfnterf 12 points (+12|-0)

Excuse you, some of these female rats identify as men.

You can tell by how they groom their hair into an unfeminine mohawk.

👏 Transman rats are man rats! 👏

[–] BlackMoonLilith 4 points (+4|-0) Edited

One of the rats was accidentally stained purple with beet juice so obviously it was non-binary

[–] SulphuricMirror 32 points (+32|-0)

Inclusivity matters, as long as it doesn't include women, of course.

[–] GrimeldaS 23 points (+23|-0)

Every time I check Ovarit I get another wave of depression at how eager some women are to erase ourselves. This is fucked up.

[–] SylviaWrath 8 points (+8|-0)

It’s really bleak. I don’t see how women can contribute to this erasure and feel good about themselves at the end of the day. Upsetting lack of critical thinking skills in that group.

Men seek violation thrills, but women seek erasure/sacrifice thrills, it seems.

[–] roundabout 13 points (+13|-0)

Inclusivity started off as the idea that people* qualified to be part of something* shouldn't be excluded on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Now it's turned into a nonsense claim that it's wrong to exclude those who are totally unqualified.

Categories mean something; applying them is not inherently bigoted.

[–] BogHag 7 points (+7|-0)

There are some great replies:

"Why is excluding women from something only women experience something to be proud of?"

"Congrats on erasing women"

"You think we're going to applaud you for erasing women from the female exclusive experience of menopause? Uh, no. What are you smoking?"

"I wonder how many of those rats identify out of their sex category. Any rats non-binary, yet?"

"Is this a joke? I don't get why you would avoid naming the only people that go through menopause. "

[–] Rag3 1 points (+1|-0)

It seems that the comments are restricted to people who follow her. 🙄

[–] bumpyjerboa 6 points (+6|-0)

From the methodology of the study:

Sixty sexually inexperienced female Fischer-344-CDF rats

Hmmmm how did she know the rats were female? Did she ask them what their gender identity was? Not all females have ovaries; not everyone with ovaries is female, right?

One more quote from the introduction:

Depriving the female system of ovarian-derived hormones leads to cognitive changes in both humans and animal models

Very, very interesting. Almost like we need a word to describe animals that produce large gametes. Perhaps there might be a word specific to the human animals of this variety. Wimpund?

[–] sarahsmile 5 points (+5|-0)

Realizing that many handmaidens will peak come menopause, when many of us reach full no-fucks-given status.

Load more (4 comments)