in short, i love you

Jess (she/her). A haunt for every unclean spirit, every unclean bird, and every detestable beast.

[strangehorse]

goosegoblin -> strangehorse (via thestrangehorse and astrangehorse)

please ignore the weird back pain grifter. i do not know what that is.

[dailymanners]

I find it quite strange that even though Tumblr is known as The Neurodivergence Website, a lot of people on here seem to assume that they're the only neurodivergent person on here, and/or that they're the only person on here who understands The Neurodivergent Experience, so they're quite eager to assume that every post on here was written by someone who's neurotypical and needs to be lectured on The Neurodivergent Experience

[hollowtones]

basically, i think the general rule of thumb is: if someone REALLY wants the blood that’s inside of your body, and they’re like… a vampire, or a dracula, or some sort of mansquito, then that’s probably okay. a dracula and a mansquito are made for removing things like blood and swords from inside your body. that’s basically fine.

if something wants to get at your blood, and they’re, say, some kind of murdersaurus, or maybe a really big frog, that’s where the problems start to arise. a really frog is not made for removing blood, and your blood knows this, which is why it is so vehement about wanting to stay IN your body instead of coming out. 

unfortunately this will not deter a really big frog, because a really big frog is full of things like prizes, and value, and quite a lot of hatred, and it would REALLY rather like to replace any and all of those things with your blood, and basically by any means possible.

[fidefortitude-deactivated202011]

These words scan with a fantastic degree of confidence considering that together they make no sense at all

[a-book-dragon]

You don't have a male or female brain – the more brains scientists study, the weaker the evidence for sex differences

Rather than distinctly male or female, the human brain is much more like the heart, kidneys and lungs – basically the same no matter the sex of the body it's in.

rb to make a biological essentialist mad <3

[liminalweirdo]

“This collapse is a telltale sign of a problem known as publication bias. Small, early studies which found a significant sex difference were likelier to get published than research finding no male-female brain difference.”

[mckitterick]

the notes on this are toxic - to help clear up any misunderstanding, here’s the actual science paper:

Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size

With the explosion of neuroimaging, differences between male and female brains have been exhaustively analyzed. Here we synthesize three dec

in short: brains are brains

[neko-mancy]

just saw a "only one bed" fic with the major character death warning

[dontbreakthechain]

#i guess that's one way to solve that problem

[idabbleincrazy]

“This bed ain’t big enough for the both of us.”

[mumblesplash]

it’s so magical and beautiful that there are sprawling interconnected cave systems carved deep into the earth by various geological forces and you don’t have to go in them. there are miles and miles of stone passageways in total darkness that require you to exhale all the air out of your lungs to squeeze through parts of them and you don’t have to be there. some of these squeezes are underwater and require cave divers to take off their oxygen tanks and push them through ahead of them and me i am above ground looking at the sky as we speak. there are untold subterranean wonders no human has ever seen and i will not be the one to discover them #grateful #blessed

[womanenjoyer]

like at least 50% of internet lgbt discourse would evaporate if people quit using the term "spaces" when they mean "discord servers" or "tumblr blogs" because we would collectively realize how stupid that shit is

[otabekisautistic]

“this is a lesbian-only space” no this is the tiktok comments on a chappell roan video

[medievalsquire]

my knight keeps saying fuck it we ball before charging into battles and it's reallynot inspiring confidence in my heart

[strangehorse]

Is anyone else starting to feel kind of wary about the increasingly common narrative that "women's bodies are so different to men's that modern scientific recommendations do not apply to them"?

Like. There is a significant gap between 'a lot of studies do not take into account variations caused by things like female hormone cycles, which can limit how generalisable they are' and 'medical science does not apply to women', and the latter just seems to create a situation rife for bad faith actors and snake oil salesmen to reassure you that actually, THEY have the answers, because THEY listen to women, and if you simply pay them for their online subscription service-

[bioluminescently-unfolding]

And that's how grifters de-politicise what is a highly political problem (and not an isolated one: medical misogyny relates to medical racism relates to medical ableism relates to medical transphobia). By not acknowledging medicine's status quo as political and capable of being changed through sustained, collective action, they make being (or more truly, looking) healthy seem like just another aestheticised consumer choice. That's why so much wellness bullshit looks aspirational in advertising terms, with visible ageing and disability as sticks, and Eurocentric beauty standards and the easeful performance of apparent health as carrots. At the core of "wellness" as an industry is the idea that we can buy our way out of the health inequalities imposed on us by inequitable systems of medical research, education and practice. Wellness gurus don't want us sitting down and thinking about how our historic exclusion from studies has skewed the data, but we can get better data by pushing for more representative studies - as is already happening, e.g. the growth of scholarship (increasingly led or coproduced by people directly affected) on subjects like perimenopause, autistic health inequalities (and their often gendered nature), and Black maternal health inequalities.

Instead, they profit from naturalising the idea that medical science isn't for us, instead of challenging exclusionary systems. And it's scary to think how much of the groundwork for this "no political lens, only marketing" approach was laid down during the early part of the "wellness" boom. A generation has grown up hearing that kind of messaging normalised from all directions online.

[theicecreamhero]

While I very much agree with your point that the way it's being phrased is creating a huge problem, it also really is a huge problem.

It's not just "female hormone cycles aren't taken into account", it's much, MUCH larger than that. It starts with something as simple as temperature; you know how women are always cold? That's because office buildings and government buildings etc. are set to men's needs. Women are colder, our body temperature is lower due to a myriad of reasons. This might seem trivial, but it also means that when we talk about a "39 degree fever', that's already a much higher increase for women than for men. My body temp is 36 on a good day, but doctors won't let me come in when I've got a 38.7 degree fever, because it's below 39. That's a 2.7 degree increase. Meanwhile, my dad, with a normal temperature of 37.3, only needs a little fever (1.7) to fly right in.

The main symptoms for a heart attack, shooting pains in the arms? Nope that's just for men. Women generally get pains in the jaw. How many heart attacks are missed because we're only taught the male version? A female colleague of mine experienced this - pressure on the chest, and jaw pain - and we called 911. They initially told her to just go to the doctor because she didnt have shooting pains in her arm, and I, a first year student and red cross volunteer, had to inform him, a 911-operator, that that's actually bullshit and demand they sent someone. Yes, she was in fact having a heart attack. Almost all medication is exclusively tested on men, all while it's been shown that there is a significant difference in how the male and female body respond. So with 99% of all medication, we actually don't know what it does to women.

And don't even get me started on the bias that leads to women's complaints not even being taken seriously.

So yes actually, a significant portion of modern scientific recommendations was absolutely not made for women, and is applied to them anyway. But yes this also causes a lot of issues and opportunities for snake oil salesmen.

[strangehorse]

I do think that we're mostly on the same side here! You are absolutely correct that there is real bias that means women's complaints get taken less seriously.

However, I do want to adress some of your points here, because they're unfortunately an example of the exact kind of thing I'm talking about: very well-meaning scaremongering that misrepresents the situation.

Firstly, and most importantly, I am extremely sorry to hear about what happened to your colleague. I am certainly not trying to argue that misogyny is not a problem in medicine. It is a massive, massive provlem, both individual and systemic. I sincerely hope she was okay.

However, the 'main symptom' of heart attacks in women is still chest pain. It is still chest main, just like it is for men. It is misinformation to state otherwise. It can feel different to how it feels for men, but it is still chest pain.

https://www.hriuk.org/health/learn/cardiovascular-disease/heart-attack-symptoms-and-warning-signs-in-women

Heart Attack Symptoms in Women

What are the symptoms of a heart attack in women? The American Heart Association explains how signs of a heart attack in women may be differ

But even more than that-

"Almost all medication is exclusively tested on men"

Respectfully: this is extremely incorrect. I don't know if you made a typo maybe? This article is very critical of male bias in clinical trials, and still states that 90% of trials contain males and females. Drugs also obviously have a lot more than a single clinical trial each, moving through multiple phases over very long periods of time.

Again: that is not to say that there are not issues with gender bias! But 'almost all medication is tested exclusively on men' is unfortunately an example of the exact kind of thing I am talking about: sensationalist statements that are not reflected by data.

I mean this kindly: please assume that I have done like... at least the minimum amount of reading here. Please do not engage with me as if I am completely unaware of the concept of systemic sexism.

It is correct and good and important to acknowledge the effect of misogyny in science and medicine. It is silly to act as if science is unaware of these issues. It is silly to act as if there are not women within the field trying to change this.

[also-also]

[strangehorse]

now that we can sort our likes chronologically, what's the oldest thing you've got in there? mine is a sherlock ficlet named after a good omens line, which. yeah.

[strangehorse]

Is anyone else starting to feel kind of wary about the increasingly common narrative that "women's bodies are so different to men's that modern scientific recommendations do not apply to them"?

Like. There is a significant gap between 'a lot of studies do not take into account variations caused by things like female hormone cycles, which can limit how generalisable they are' and 'medical science does not apply to women', and the latter just seems to create a situation rife for bad faith actors and snake oil salesmen to reassure you that actually, THEY have the answers, because THEY listen to women, and if you simply pay them for their online subscription service-

[bioluminescently-unfolding]

And that's how grifters de-politicise what is a highly political problem (and not an isolated one: medical misogyny relates to medical racism relates to medical ableism relates to medical transphobia). By not acknowledging medicine's status quo as political and capable of being changed through sustained, collective action, they make being (or more truly, looking) healthy seem like just another aestheticised consumer choice. That's why so much wellness bullshit looks aspirational in advertising terms, with visible ageing and disability as sticks, and Eurocentric beauty standards and the easeful performance of apparent health as carrots. At the core of "wellness" as an industry is the idea that we can buy our way out of the health inequalities imposed on us by inequitable systems of medical research, education and practice. Wellness gurus don't want us sitting down and thinking about how our historic exclusion from studies has skewed the data, but we can get better data by pushing for more representative studies - as is already happening, e.g. the growth of scholarship (increasingly led or coproduced by people directly affected) on subjects like perimenopause, autistic health inequalities (and their often gendered nature), and Black maternal health inequalities.

Instead, they profit from naturalising the idea that medical science isn't for us, instead of challenging exclusionary systems. And it's scary to think how much of the groundwork for this "no political lens, only marketing" approach was laid down during the early part of the "wellness" boom. A generation has grown up hearing that kind of messaging normalised from all directions online.

[strangehorse]

Is anyone else starting to feel kind of wary about the increasingly common narrative that "women's bodies are so different to men's that modern scientific recommendations do not apply to them"?

Like. There is a significant gap between 'a lot of studies do not take into account variations caused by things like female hormone cycles, which can limit how generalisable they are' and 'medical science does not apply to women', and the latter just seems to create a situation rife for bad faith actors and snake oil salesmen to reassure you that actually, THEY have the answers, because THEY listen to women, and if you simply pay them for their online subscription service-

[strangehorse]

like. female and male bodies are not different species. the traits you consider inherent and unique to Female or Male can often be changed by hormone therapy and other interventions, and many traits fall on a bimodal distribution, not a binary one. you can apply the findings of 'Invisible Women' without implying that female bodies are like, Startouched Special Moon-Tied Nature Creatures that are immune to all known scientific phenomena

[strangehorse]

Is anyone else starting to feel kind of wary about the increasingly common narrative that "women's bodies are so different to men's that modern scientific recommendations do not apply to them"?

Like. There is a significant gap between 'a lot of studies do not take into account variations caused by things like female hormone cycles, which can limit how generalisable they are' and 'medical science does not apply to women', and the latter just seems to create a situation rife for bad faith actors and snake oil salesmen to reassure you that actually, THEY have the answers, because THEY listen to women, and if you simply pay them for their online subscription service-

[strangehorse]

once you have watched obsession, you will never stop wanting to beat bear to death with hammers

[strangehorse]

scenario: someone has a four finger kitkat. they break off a finger, break it half, and offer you one of the halves.

this is:

fine

extremely strange

Voting ended onMay 21

no nuance we vote like men

[strangehorse]

What if your FRIEND does this?

Bad friend! Bad action!

Normal action, thank you friend :)

Voting ended onMay 22

as some argued this might make a difference

[allthingswhumpyandangsty]

reblog if you love archive of our own and how they firmly refuse to let censorship have any place on their platform