#future of reproductive medicine

[balkanradfem]

I experienced the biggest shift in my feminist consciousness when I stopped seeing women as the 'other' and start seeing us as 'we'. I realized it's not about how the world sees us or how my personality is different or whatever I couldn't relate to in other women; it's what's threatening and disadvantaging all of us. It's we, the women, who are fighting a common enemy and this threat surpasses any differences that we might have between us, it surpasses all my personal squabbles and disagreements, because this is bigger than that.

What happened to women historically are not distant and 'unfortunate' events that have nothing to do with me, they have everything to do with why my life is the way it is right now. M*n burned women, and because of this now we, the women, don't have reasonable or effective healthcare anymore. They didn't burn them in a craze or hysteria, they burned them for studying female illnesses and developing medicine, for keeping women healthy and sane, for benefiting us as a group. It's the reason why I suffer from menstrual pain today and the reason why there's not a ready cure, reason why me and others were not educated on our genitals or our sex-specific illnesses, it's why our health problems are not, and won't be taken seriously.

M*n also burned women for owning land, and during the history, did everything they possibly could to stop women from inheriting, owning and managing land. And it's the reason why I will not be considered to inherit my fathers land, why most of women will not gain land just by having family ties, while males absolutely will, they'll be the first choice to inherit both land and property. It's the reason I will have to fight for the most of my life to acquire a piece of land and not only it will be difficult, but most people will believe that I shouldn't own any. Because they've managed to create a standard where women historically rarely had land, and made this into our normal. They did it to give land to themselves.

The fact that women were barred from colleges and high education in the past is not unrelated to me and my situation today. It's the reason my female ancestors were subjected to poverty and servitude, with no way to free themselves – and by extension, the reason I am still in poverty today. If my female ancestors were from the start, well educated, owning both land and freely managing their health issues, I would inherit not only their knowledge, skills and property, but also the financial security that comes with it. My female ancestors would be able to invest in their children's future, to make sure their female descendants don't have to suffer and fight for food, or a piece of land to exist on. Instead, what they were forced to do was serve a m*n and hope that he would be kind to their children and maybe secure them some more financial safety than they had  - and he didn't. Because m*n save those things for their own class.

The fact that women were banned from their own last names and lineage cuts me off from my history and my heritage. I don't get to draw my female-centered family tree or know what my female ancestors lived through and how they got me here, and if they even did it purposely, or were forced into childbirth without ever having a choice. I don't get to be proud of their achievements, inherit their wisdom or read their life stories. Instead I had to hear about male war escapades and be disgusted that the male lineage was filled with violent offenders.

The fact that women were historically enslaved or trapped in various types of servitude, despite how it was being called, has huge impact on my life today. It's the reason why, from the very start of life, I've been taught that I would be better fit for a role of servitude. That my place is in the kitchen, keeping home, feeding others, cleaning and doing menial tasks that would never be rewarded or paid for. It's why even my reproductive rights have been represented to me as my 'duty to the humankind'. None of that would be happening if women throughout history weren't in a servant/slave class. But, this wasn't only ever true for women, was it?

M*n during history were enslaved too, and yet all m*n are not taught from birth that they would be much very well fitted for a servant role, and to act as a resource for others. They're not told that their only value is to keep house, serve in the kitchen and clean house for others. To sacrifice their reproductive rights for someone else's purposes. That's because our age of servitude never ended. They're still at it, teaching every woman what she is before she even knows there's possibly a choice of freedom. Where they can't enforce us legally, they do it by grooming, by tradition, by violence in our home. We have not been freed from servitude until no female child is ever told that she needs to be a resource, to pick up and clean and cook and please everyone around her. We are still being trapped into belief that we have no choice, that our servitude is normal, expected, and nothing to fight against because they made it a tradition. We still have our female children in servitude before they even understand that what is asked of them is a part of a historical oppression.

Whatever was done to women and girls throughout history affects every bit of my life right now, and what my life would be without it is almost unimaginable for a woman who never experienced living outside of an oppressed class. Our history is not only scarred but then cut away from us, we're being convinced that anything from the past is 'long forgotten' and 'no longer relevant since we can now vote', but it's only done to isolate us from the female class consciousness, to convince us that our life right now, is the best we could ever hope for, and there was never any way for it to be better, for us to have any more power than we do. While they give power to themselves.

We had the right to freedom, healthcare, knowledge, education, land and inheritance, for the entire history. All of it has been cut away and taken from all of us, resulting in us never being able to accumulate any security or safety for our own, not even enough to keep us out of life of poverty and servitude, not even enough to ensure that our children will be safe. And on top of that, we've been 'othered' and isolated from each other, so we cannot even work together on acknowledging what's been taken and how to reach safety. We're turned to self blame, and self loathing for our low status in the population, as if it's personally each of our faults that we couldn't overthrow the oppression or thrive in a hostile society.

Women are not the 'other'. M*n are. We the women are robbed of our property, inheritance, resources and right by m*n, systematically and consistently. It's affecting each and every one of our lives. It's why we can't care for our children, why we get turned away from our doctors, why each of us has to heal their own organs, why our mothers and grandmothers can only give us horror stories of survival and tell us we should make peace with a life of servitude, for they've never seen a woman survive any other way. It's why we had and still have to rely on m*n for housing and survival, even though there would be absolutely no need for this had they not robbed us of our half of the land. It's why developing class consciousness is necessary, we cannot recognize or fight this while we're othered from each other.

[gallifreyinstituteforlearning]

I'm curious: how do Gallifreyans perceive relationships/ marriages? Are they in general more loyal or are they more polyamorous? Do they have specific rituals like we humans? Does such things even matter to such a highly advanced species?

Gallifreyan Love

🔗 Cultural Norms and Practices

On Gallifrey, the idea of relationships is intertwined with a deeply rooted sense of duty and a hierarchical societal structure. Relationships, especially among the higher echelons of Time Lord society, serve more purpose as strategic alliances than expressions of personal affection. As you can imagine, the extended lifespans of Gallifreyans, coupled with their capability for regeneration, add a few more layers of complexity - imagine getting a divorce 500 years in, and having to separate that CD collection.

The influence of the Curse of the Pythia, which rendered the majority of Gallifreyans sterile and thus made sex pointless in a practical way, has historically shaped Gallifrey's approaches to relationships. The emergence of "loomed" Time Lords pivoted their species towards asexuality, and many Gallifreyans were celibate as a societal norm. However, Low Town does have a couple of brothels, so make of that what you will.

💍 Dating and Marriage Conventions

Despite the strategic nature of many Gallifreyan relationships, marriages born of love are not unheard of. The rituals surrounding marriage, however, are pretty obscure. We don't know much beyond the tradition of donning white - a colour symbolising death on Gallifrey - suggesting marriage is like death, or something(?)

The act of courtship among Gallifreyans is another big question mark. While traditional "date nights" as understood by humans might not align with Gallifreyan practices, their society does have plenty of date locations, from the dives of Low Town to the posh restaurants of Arcadia.

🔄 Monogamy vs. Polyamory

Due to their extended lifespans and regenerative capabilities, the concept of lifetime commitment can stretch across centuries and several physical forms. This unique condition creates a social fabric where both monogamous and polyamorous relationships can thrive, each serving different purposes and reflecting individual preferences.

Monogamy: For some Gallifreyans, especially those in positions of political or social prominence, a monogamous relationship might symbolise a stable alliance or a deeply personal bond that persists through regenerations.

Polyamory: On the other hand, the very nature of Gallifreyan society lends itself to more fluid relationship structures. Polyamorous relationships, in this context, might be strategic, forming networks of support, influence, and mutual benefit among different Houses or factions.

🏫 Modern Interpretations

In contemporary times, society is still adapting to the shifting political landscape and the return of biological reproduction. The deeply ingrained traditions of the old may be giving way to new forms of personal expression and connection. Yet, for all the advancements and changes, Gallifrey remains a society where duty and tradition wield significant influence and probably will for a long time to come.

Hope that helped! 😃

Further reading:

How does marriage and dating work on Gallifrey?

What is looming and how does it work?

→🫀Gallifreyan Anatomy and Physiology Guide (WIP) →⚕️Gallifreyan Emergency Medicine Guides →📝Source list (WIP)

-------------------------------------------------------

》📫Got a question / submission? 》😆Jokes |🫀Biology |🗨️Language |🕰️Throwbacks |🤓Facts 》📚Complete list of Q+A 》📜Masterpost If you like what GIL does, please consider buying a coffee to help keep our exhausted human conscious for future projects, including complete biology and language guides.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

hi sex witch! hope you're well.

I have a question about unsafe sex toys and what they can do to my body, since when I was in my early teens I started using assorted plastic objects to masturbate and it only recently occurred to me that inserting not-bodysafe plastics into some of the most sensitive parts of my body could be bad for me. I'm now in my twenties and have stopped doing that, but my worries still linger. what are some of the effects of longterm use of not-bodysafe plastic 'sex toys'? and where can I read more about them without unnecessary fear mongering?

hi anon,

the issue with sex toys made of materials like jelly rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is that they're liable to bleed off phthalates and microplastics, which will be absorbed quickly through the sensitive mucus membranes of your various orifices.

per the National Library of Medicine:

Phthalates are a series of widely used chemicals that demonstrate to be endocrine disruptors and are detrimental to human health. Phthalates can be found in most products that have contact with plastics during producing, packaging, or delivering. Despite the short half-lives in tissues, chronic exposure to phthalates will adversely influence the endocrine system and functioning of multiple organs, which has negative long-term impacts on the success of pregnancy, child growth and development, and reproductive systems in both young children and adolescents.

similarly, microplastics can also disrupt endocrine processes and contribute to certain cancers and reproductive problems (x).

which isn't to say that you're doomed and guaranteed to have cancer and a rancid reproductive system, just that it's a good thing you've stopped using things made of suspect materials because that's risk reduction, babey! putting less toxins in your body is always a good idea.

there are of course other, immediately reasons that jelly and PVC aren't recommended for use as sex toys, namely that they're prone to degrading and also porous, which makes them impossible to thoroughly clean to the point that they can grow straight-up mold.

again, I cannot emphasize enough that there is no reason to be immediately afraid of any ill effects befalling your body, especially if you're not currently experiencing any complications that you can trace back to suspect sex toy use. I'd recommend instead reading up on safer sex toy practices with resources like Dangerous Lilly's guide to sex toy toxicity, to help make more informed decisions about future toys:

[toxinellebug]

The World Under The Supreme - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Action packed posts with Claw Noir and Shadybug are coming but some important details of their world need to be addressed first! These will be relevant in posts to come.

So prepare yourself; EmoNette and EmoAdrien live in a dark world… A world that Betterfly hopes to change.

The GOOD:

Religion is not a crime, which is why celebrating holidays like Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, etc. is permitted, even if the true meaning behind those celebrations has been lost over the years.

    After all, for some people, their faith is all they have- Plus, it’s good for capitalism!

HOWEVER, organized religion is nearly a thing of the past…

      In every country, Churches, Temples, Mosques, etc. are HEAVILY TAXED. 

          The Supreme has the ONLY say in law, so religious “leaders” have no authority or power.  So, unable to become filthy rich off of devout believers, and unable to sway people to commit atrocities in the name of “God”, there is no point.

           As such, those who do still have some kind of belief in a deity, choose to practice quietly at home.

As a result, there is peace!

      Women all over the world have autonomy over their own bodies AND reproductive rights!

         Girls are allowed to learn to read without fear of being burned with acid.

             Circumcision of boys and girls (yes, some countries mutilate girl’s genitalia for religious reasons) no longer exists.

                 Only old grannies wear hijab because women actually have a choice (not just wear it or be stoned to death).

                   THERE IS NO CASTE SYSTEM.

                        No child marriages.

                            Pedophilia is rare.

                                 Homosexuality is not illegal.

Anti-vaxers DO NOT EXIST!

So there has been a lot of progress in medicine (good news for Rose!)

    No school teaches creationism or claims that man lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

But churches, even famous ones like Notre Dame, Sistine Chapel, Saint Basil's Cathedral, etc. are seen as old relics… tourist sight seeing destinations at most.

       But with the taxes being so heavy, and so few people who identify with any religion, it is not profitable to maintain up-keep on these decrepit buildings.

            As such, when they fall into enough disrepair as to be considered “unsafe” even for tourists, they too will be condemned and demolished so the land can be purchased by the highest bidder and something more useful will be constructed there.

 The BAD:

Mutual aid is a crime… Socialism is forbidden… Protests are not tolerated and severely punished!

            There is no such thing as Charity.

There are no donations of toys to sick kids in hospitals. 

(Prince Ali, non-existent is he, Ali never-heard-of-ya’… Princes and Kings, no such things, only The Supreeeeeme~)

      *No, I will not write out the whole dang song. I don’t want to get sued by a company with mouse ears, thanks.

Everyone pays their own way in life. Those that can’t pay are forced to work (which is why there are no homeless people asking for spare change on the streets).

There is no cooperation without compensation.

The strange, odd, abnormal ones are those who wish to offer help without expecting anything in return.

(You can’t achieve freedom with one person. Freedom is only achieved by collective cooperation, sacrifice, and compassion for others, no matter how different they may be. So long as everyone only looks out for themselves and keeps their heads down rather than risk getting punished for sticking their neck out for others, Freedom for all is impossible. This is the dark price of Wang Fu’s wish for World Peace.)

The Ugly:

Everyone pays the price for selfishness. Especially the planet.

       In a world that only cares about “me”, the comforts and profits of the current generation, there is little to no concern for what future generations will inherit, including the planet.

Quick and easy money, progress for profit with no consideration for environmental impact has been the norm since the end of WW2.

Pollution is a world wide issue;

      Costs of food are higher everywhere because crops and livestock take a LOT of money to grow.

            Crops (grain, fruit, and vegetables) have always been more expensive of course because they require so much land, water, time, and workers to produce.

                 But with polluted air darkening skies, tainted soil, rapid decline of bees, butterflies, and bats, and such dirty water… Plants are suffering.

Crops require massive greenhouse facilities, heavily filtered hydroponics systems, and hundreds of thousands of human workers to pollinate things by hand (yes, we do that even now for rare plants), or at least until Tsurugi Enterprises can develop robots to replace human workers.

Since grass is not that hardy and expensive to maintain, free range livestock is just not possible.  And since most grain has no nutritional value for humans (we can’t really digest it, it is mainly grown to fatten livestock) it is even more expensive since it is a pain in the butt to produce and is mainly consumed by animals, thus meat, dairy, and egg prices have gone up. 

Flowers are more expensive than jewelry.

Since only the hardiest plants can endure the world’s level of pollution, many animals have gone extinct and forests are suffering.

Only the richest of cities still have “parks” though they are a far cry from what we think of as parks.

Most flowers are delicate, so many varieties that we are familiar with can not be grown in your average backyard garden or found in pots on a balcony.

An orchid flower is worth more than a diamond.

The hardy, invasive, “ugly” flowers that we consider as weeds have replaced the wildflowers we once knew.

Only the rich can afford to go to a florist to afford luxuries like carnations, tulips, lilies, daffodils, snapdragons, lilacs, peonies, or something as flashy as a rose.

But thanks to Bertrand King, even the lower class can enjoy the beauty of a bouquet thanks to plastic flowers!

     Plastic truly is fantastic! 

And unlike, fragile, boring, real flowers… PLASTIC FLOWERS can come in any color you want! And they last forever!

      Even a poor man can feel rich if they decorate their home with plastic potted ferns! 

The best part? You don’t have to waste water!  They are so hygienic too! No dirt, no bugs, no allergies, no rotting, dying leaves to prune and clean up!  No worries about little kids or pets eating poison leaves! 

        Plastic plants never lose their luster! They are durable, washable, colorful!

             Can’t afford a diamond? 

              You buy cubic zirconia!

                    Can’t afford a houseplant?

                     Buy plastic!

Of course, there IS one event where even someone living paycheck to paycheck can get a chance to see a variety of REAL flowers (assuming they can pay the admission fee).

Every year, people all over the globe celebrate “World Peace Day”, where they give thanks to The Supreme for putting an end to WW2 and preventing any other war thereafter!

There is no celebration more massive!

On that day, Major cities show off their wealth (through the taxes of the citizens) to throw not only parades, but have massive displays of real flowers for citizens to admire (for a price).

It is a day many look forward to!

A day that celebrates peace between all people regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion!

A day of life and beauty!

ALL HAIL THE SUPREME!

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

Tennessee’s politicians are passing cruel laws against something they know nothing about − medically essential abortions. I needed one, and it was traumatizing for me and my family that I had to leave Tennessee to get it. Tennesseans must be able to get the care they need at home. A lifelong Tennessean, I became a single mom at age 22, working three jobs to support my daughter while earning my degree. Adalie is 6 now and like me, she’s very social and a little stubborn. About the time she turned 3, I reconnected with a former high school boyfriend and we got married last year. Bryan is such a great stepfather and we both wanted to grow our family. We were ecstatic to learn we were pregnant last November. Each night, at bedtime, Adalie would lie next to me and sing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" while rubbing my belly. Early on, we learned we were having a girl. We named her Miley Rose, after the song “Flowers” by Miley Cyrus. At 19 weeks, I brought Adalie along with me to share in what I thought would be a routine anatomy scan. But after the scan, I saw a high-risk maternal fetal medicine specialist who explained that Miley’s kidneys, bladder and stomach had not formed as expected and were not functioning. Two of the four chambers of her heart were also not working. She had little-to-no amniotic fluid. She had stopped growing. There were no signs of lung development. She also had a rare brain condition. We were told she had no chance at life. It was definitive. The doctor suggested there were two options– either terminating the pregnancy, or continuing, knowing she would not survive. Because of Tennessee’s cruel ban on abortion, an essential medical procedure, I could not legally get an abortion in my home state. I would have to travel out of state, and my doctor told me that Tennessee law prevented her from offering me any resources in that effort. Our daughter died, but the risk to me was still great Although there was no way of knowing how much longer Miley Rose would survive inside my womb, the longer she was there, the more risk there was to my health and safety. I made the decision to have an abortion. Instead of being able to grieve for her and the future we dreamed of, I had to scramble and start calling clinics in the states that allowed second trimester abortions, book flights, find hotels and arrange transportation. And figure out how to pay for it all. Thankfully, I found a clinic in New York City that could get me in the following week. After I arrived at the clinic, I learned that Miley Rose’s heart was no longer beating. Completely broken, I had to call Bryan and tell him over the phone that our daughter was gone. But the risk to me was not over. The doctor told me that my body hadn’t recognized that she had died, and that there was about a 2-week window before I would become severely at risk of blood clots and infections, including sepsis. I can honor my daughter Miley Rose through my testimony Within an hour, I went into surgery alone. I sat in recovery alone. I grieved the loss of my daughter alone, in a city I’d never been to, around doctors I’d never met before, far from my family. I am so grateful for the caring professionals who treated me with such dignity, but I should never have had to leave home for humane health care–abortion care. I realized that sharing my experience publicly could be a powerful way to honor Miley Rose. That is why I’m joining the Center for Reproductive Rights’ case against Tennessee; it’s why I documented my heartbreaking experience on TikTok. It’s why I’m going to keep fighting these dangerous laws. The autonomy to make personal medical decisions about our lives and futures and health care must be returned to patients like me and our doctors.

[thatstormygeek]

That’s because the Cass Review rejects the affirming model of care embraced by groups in the US like the American Psychological Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics and instead openly regards medical transitions as an unjustifiable last step to be pursued after blaming a child’s gender nonconformity on anything and everything else—social influences, comorbid mental health disorders, or the influence of social media among them. Contrary to its stated aims, the Review further pathologizes gender nonconformity itself, claiming “social transitions”—which can be as simple as a new haircut and clothes—”may change the trajectory of gender identity development” and thus should be avoided, a slippery slope argument that suggests letting your son play with Barbies will invariably lead to a vaginoplasty so best to hand him the monster truck and nip it in the bud. Most tellingly, the review claims limiting access to hormone treatments for adults may be advisable, theorizing “a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population.” The overall recommendation is to force patients to wait through psychological busywork and relevant-sounding delays, implementing a largely-arbitrary set of hoops to jump through with the hopes the patient just gives up. Focus on the patient’s anxiety, focus on their autism, focus on any other issue except their gender and their desire for a sex change because, as private British medical provider GenderGP said of the report’s underlying assumptions, “cisgender lives are judged to be more valuable or desirable than transgender lives and that healthcare services should prioritise encouraging youth to assume cisgender lives, regardless of the suffering that this causes.”

This is a democratic vision of medicine that doesn’t disregard empirical measures but, in fact, acts in their defense. These advocates rightfully recognizes that standards of evidence often regarded as “objective” are frequently enough built on the subjective biases of researchers and practitioners and the subjectivity of patients is a necessary corrective. Clearly, however, many politicians and right-wing activists are eager to have the medical state return to its role as a reliable partner for eugenic social engineering, closing paths toward “subjective satisfaction” and forcing patients towards rigid, essentialist understandings of not only who gets to be a man or woman but what men and women are for. You see this not only in the Cass Review nor just in regards to transgender medicine; it was a rife theme in the Supreme Court filings and arguments over the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, where a conservative set of doctors—one of whom also authored Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care—demanded the return of restrictions against the drug which advocates long-held were based in stigma, not evidence.

[...]

The state doesn’t claim banning this care is in the best interests of transgender children—it simply asserts nothing in the Constitution prevents it from doing so. This is why transgender people’s autonomy will either spring from our own humanity and subjectivity or not at all: That right is limited when it is only granted with the blessing of pathology because, when asked to choose between their relationship to power or their relationship to their patients, many doctors like Dr. Cass will go leaps and bounds to choose their power over their patients. For much of the cisgender public—and even some trans advocates—that may come as a surprise. Gender transitions are understood as the treatment for a condition called gender dypshoria rather than a human right. And while the distress and dissociation that we call “dysphoria” is real, gender dysphoria’s existence as a diagnosis is simply the key that unlocks the cage transsexual people are put in to deny us autonomy over our own bodies, tying us to the conditional good will of a biased and compromised medical state.

The doctors who wish to once again be the masters of their abortion patients are now limited to the few cranks and conservative activists who would sign up to overturn the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Because transgender people’s autonomy challenges more assumptions about gendered life than abortion does, however—negating not just patriarchal power but the naturalized gender binary that serves as its foundation—and transgender people ourselves are still denied representation among the decision-making institutions that govern this care, the doctors running that playbook against us are welcomed as liberators by media outlets and politicians already convinced a transgender life is an unlivable life. As much as 19th-century gatekeepers couldn’t fathom a woman that would want to end a pregnancy in the absence of a life-threatening emergency, 21st-century gatekeepers still can’t fathom the desire to change one’s sex—particularly when the world still treats trans people like shit. Our “subjective satisfaction” is thus steamrolled by supposedly “objective” measures constructed around that failure of their own imagination, our misery living in a transphobic world treated as simply yet another reason to do away with transsexual life altogether.

[transmutationisms]

broad af question, but thots on the rise of epigenetics as a model? (i imagine youd be pretty sympathetic to mansfield and guthmans critique esp re: reproductive futurity)

you imagine correctly, lol. they're kinda frustrating because they don't really understand the relationship between epigenetics, eugenics, and social reform projects historically and aren't able to contextualise it in contemporary biology, but they're still right to point out that interest in epigenetics is primarily coming from a desire to enforce ideas of biological normality and ideals of strength / beauty / &c. what's lacking in the historical narrative is the fact that this type of environmentalism has been part of evolutionary biology more often than not; darwin and his contemporaries also believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, so really it was only temporarily displaced by the crude genetic determinism of the modern synthesis in the early 1940s, and this model was in serious disrepute by about 50 years later lmao. i also think mansfield and guthman, like most commentators on this issue, overstate the extent to which epigenetic inheritance is a 'lamarckian' idea (it's not, any more than mendelian genetics is 'darwinian' or evo-devo is the same as 18th-century recapitulation theory lmao).

anyway, regarding epigenetics itself, there's also a lot of overconfidence about the ability for biologists to actually determine which genes are being differentially expressed, how they influence one another, and what that means for the organism. if you even change, like, the length of dna sequence that the computer considers to be a gene, you get a radically different list, and even if you can identify a differentially expressed gene with confidence, determining what exactly it does is still incredibly hard. in practical terms, epigenetics is still confined mostly to similar kinds of epidemiological studies as nutrition science, and many of these studies are plagued with confounding factors and methodological weaknesses. the hope has long been that by identifying epigenetic changes, we could develop targeted therapies. but this is basically a moonshot imo (like, literally no one knows which parts of gene expression to target or how, ever) and also raises the extremely thorny question of: what things, exactly, are we hoping to 'fix'? more often than not, as m&g point out, this type of research is driven by interest in enforcing thinness, specific neurological and affective states, &c. not to say there's NO epigenetic research being done on diseases that would actually be beneficial to cure, but epigenetics has a eugenic bent (because public health has a eugenic bent) and is specifically being funded that way.

although i disagree, like i said, that epigenetics is really lamarckism (& dislike the work of jablonka and that crowd for this exact reason lol), you can certainly contextualise the rise of epigenetics in the longer history of disputations over the role of the environment in determining the condition of the organism. life sciences and medicine have grappled with this issue in many different forms; for instance, hippocrates's non-naturals suggest environmental and climatic influence, galenic humoural theory leans on internal regulation with the environment as an external disruption, germ theory offered what appeared to be a non-environmental theory of disease that was promptly synthesised with sanitary-environmentalist hypotheses by the french hygiene profession. within evolutionary biology specifically, ideas of plasticity within an organism's lifetime have never really gone away, and the dispute was essentially over the extent to which these changes were hereditary. epigenetic theory fits comfortably within this ongoing debate, and if more biologists understood that then they would understand why their work bears such a strong resemblance to so many previous eugenic projects.

[tomorrowusa]

Need an OBGYN? Good luck finding one easily in a red state!

In conservative states, care delays largely stem from the fallout of the Dobbs decision last summer when the supreme court revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Facing possible lawsuits for providing abortion care, OB-GYNs in Texas, Florida, Idaho and elsewhere are choosing to relocate to more liberal states, while medical students are opting for other fields entirely. “Florida has become a place where it is unsustainable to be an OB-GYN,” said Stephanie Ros, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at the University of South Florida who, until recently, ran the school’s OB-GYN residency program. For years, the program was among the nation’s top schools for abortion training, and was found on the prestigious Ryan list of the best family planning residency programs. But after the state banned most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the designation was revoked. Applicant numbers subsequently declined dramatically, as skilled candidates took their talents elsewhere.

Ron DeSantis with his extremist agenda is turning Florida into a women's healthcare desert. Sadly, the same is also true in other states with hardline Republican governors.

In a national survey, 60% of medical students said they were unlikely to apply for residency in a restrictive state. “States with stringent abortion laws won’t align with my goals as a future OB-GYN,” said Rohini Kousalya Siva, president of the American Medical Student Association. “If young doctors want to … get the skills they need, then they have to go to states where they can access [abortion] training.” Verda J Hicks, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the trend as cause for concern about the “next generation of OB-GYNs”. Notably, fewer residents means fewer doctors on the floor. To remedy that vacuum, USF hired locum doctors, who Ros described as “the substitute teachers of the doctor world”. Still, routine care appointments at USF are significantly pushed back. In August, the earliest a new patient could book a prenatal visit was November. “We have people who … don’t get their first ultrasound until 30 weeks, because they just can’t get in,” she said. [ ... ]

When chronic diseases are not managed as well, the overall risk of any pregnancy goes up, explained Erika Werner, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts medical center in Boston. “If you don’t have your first visit until 14 weeks, you don’t have the same access to prenatal testing. You may not have an early ultrasound that reveals a major structural problem,” she said.

It's ironic that Republicans are eager to turn women into baby making machines but are making it impossible to get proper prenatal care.

Women seeking reproductive care are heading to blue states and are putting a strain on services there.

Even parts of the country without abortion bans are struggling to keep up with care needs. Christina Han, the director of maternal fetal medicine at UCLA in California, pointed to the influx of out-of-state patients seeking abortion care and how it stretches the workforce thin. Han specializes in complex procedures like multifetal reduction – an operation that must be completed early in pregnancy. That time crunch means that if a patient travels to LA for urgent reproductive care, which Han says is happening with increased frequency, the hospital has to defer local patients’ scheduled operations, including terminations, that are not as time sensitive. “We have to tell our patient who is struggling with a miscarriage … that we just can’t get them in. And that is an emotional, physical burden for these patients,” said Han. Werner, who also chairs the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine’s health policy and advocacy committee, explained that this displacement effect is especially pronounced in states that directly border those with restrictive policies, and are now receiving the lion’s share of out-of-state patients. In Pennsylvania, which borders West Virginia, Stolfer remembers thinking about women in other states as she awaited care for her miscarriage. “It was one way that I was trying to make peace with how long it was taking,” she said.

Being an OBGYN was stressful even before the Republican SCOTUS decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

For years, studies have predicted that population rise paired with an ageing workforce would lead to gaps in women’s healthcare. Ruth Crystal of Stanford University also points to the high risk for medical malpractice litigation and demands for long and irregular hours as factors that steer people away from the field. “OB care is a 24-hour-a-day job,” she said. “Babies don’t come only between banking hours.”

So Republicans have made an already difficult job nearly impossible in some areas. As a result, maternal mortality rates are growing in the African-American community.

Nationwide, 36% of counties are maternity care deserts, meaning they lack any obstetric care facilities or providers, explains Amanda Williams, clinical innovations adviser at Stanford University’s California Quality of Care Collaborative. The affected populations are also disproportionately people of color, people with lower incomes and people in rural areas – groups that already face care inequities. In the US, Black women are experiencing soaring maternal mortality rates. “All of these things compound for poor maternal health outcomes,” said Williams. “When patients give birth in these maternity deserts, they have higher rates of preterm births and maternal deaths.” [ ... ] Werner believes the most critical fix is abolishing restrictive abortion laws and creating “parity across all states”. “It’s only when it comes to OB-GYN care that what you can get in one state is different than what you can get in another,” she said. “That just forever means that we’re going to have unequal care in different states.”

[gatheringbones]

[“Though a mother’s emotional stress exerts a direct influence on the child’s development and future health, it is not an isolated factor: interpersonal biology holds sway once again.

As was the case with Rae and me, there is a complex interplay between a woman’s psychological states and those of the father. A large Swedish survey recently showed that paternal depression in the year from preconception to the end of the second trimester elevated the risk of extreme prematurity (coming between weeks twenty-two and thirty-one of gestation) by nearly 40 percent. This effect was greater, in fact, than that of depression in the mother herself, which raised the risk only of moderate preterm birth (thirty-two weeks or after).

“Paternal depression is also known to affect sperm quality, have epigenetic effects on the DNA of the baby, and can also affect placenta function,” one of the researchers pointed out. At first blush, the father’s melancholy posing a greater risk than the mother’s seems an anomaly. As always, context is everything.

The social context for procreation in our world assigns women untenably stressful roles in every facet of life, including intimate relationships. Besides being the bearers of children, they’ve generally been expected to assuage the psycho-emotional stresses of the men in their lives. Mothering a child may be a mandate from Nature, but mothering a grown man is both unnatural and impossible. No wonder the father’s stress gets outsourced to the mother, at a cost to children and even to the gestating infant.

There is a predictable socioeconomic link, too: in a recent Wayne State University study that examined a low-resource, high-stress U.S. urban setting, abnormalities in brain connectivity were identified in scans of yet-unborn infants of mothers who reported elevated levels of depression, anxiety, worry, and stress during the last three months. Needless to say, physical factors such as nutrition and air quality interact with socioeconomic status, predisposing children to such problems as depression, anxiety, and ADHD.

“Poor people have more exposure to these things on all counts, whether the bad air, or psychosocial stress and other things,” Dr. Shanna Swan, reproductive endocrinologist and vice chair of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, pointed out. “That’s a societal problem and the changes are not going to be on an individual level. They’re going to be on a societal level.” Thus does inequality of opportunity, even in the basic biological sense, begin in the womb. Long before we had brain scans, blood tests, ultrasounds, and fetal heart monitors, ancient peoples intuitively understood the sanctity of the intrauterine environment.

I spoke once about addiction to a First Nations group here in British Columbia, quoting studies on prenatal development such as cited above. A young man came up to me afterward. “You know,” he said, “in our clan, tradition was that if you were angry or upset, you weren’t even allowed to go near a pregnant woman. We didn’t want you to inflict your troubles on her baby.” In some African tribal societies, infants were greeted by rituals while still in the mother’s belly, including with songs that would later welcome them into the world. Imagine hearing your own melody and lyrics, already familiar to you, as you are ceremonially ushered into your new home, the outside world.”]

gabor maté, from the myth of normal: trauma, illness, and healing in a toxic culture, 2022

[thebiscuiteternal]

SCOTUS To Debate Whether States Can Ban Life-Saving Abortions | HuffPost Latest News

“Before August of 2022, we practiced medicine and acted as quickly as possible to preserve the mom’s health and future reproductive capacity,” Souza said, referring to when the trigger ban went into effect.

“Since then, there’s a lot of second-guessing and hand-wringing: Is she sick enough? Is she bleeding enough? Is she septic enough? For me to do this abortion and not risk going to jail and losing my license. And when the guessing game gets too uncomfortable, we transfer the patients out, at a very high cost, to another state where the doctors are allowed to practice medicine.”

Due to the threat of criminal and civil punishment facing physicians, the state has lost nearly a quarter of its OB-GYNs and 55% of its maternal fetal health specialists, according to Rubel, the state House Minority Leader. Three maternity wards have shut down, and Idaho has become one of the largest maternal health care deserts in the country.

Idaho has also seen a 50% drop in applicants for OB-GYNs to come to the state, Rubel said.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Abby Vesoulis at Mother Jones:

Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung spent four years in medical school, four years in an OB-GYN residency, and three years in a maternal-fetal medicine fellowship learning how to care for high-risk pregnant patients. In her decade-plus of medical training, she learned that in some cases, the only rational and responsible option for medical intervention is an emergency abortion. In July 2021 she moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee, and discovered she was the sole provider in her area trained to perform second-trimester dilatation and evacuation abortions for patients who needed them to survive.

But in 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, and Tennessee’s trigger ban—written in preparation for the possibility that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe—went into effect a month later. Suddenly, providing an abortion in Tennessee became an immediate Class C felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. There were no exceptions, even when an abortion was necessary to save a life or prevent serious bodily harm. Only after being arrested could a physician provide something called an “affirmative defense” to fight the charges. (Eight months after the trigger law took effect, the GOP governor signed a bill allowing abortions in limited medical emergencies.)

Given her unique work, which also includes genetic testing and live deliveries, Zahedi-Spung felt as if she wore a bull’s-eye on her back. She hired a criminal defense attorney—just in case—and immediately began looking for a maternal-fetal medicine position out of state. She didn’t want to leave Tennessee at all, she says, but her goal was “to not go to jail.”  Relocating for work isn’t a novel concept, but in the age of unfettered abortion restrictions, there has been an exodus of OB-GYNs from abortion-banned states, and dwindling interest among future OB-GYNs to settle in those states. The result is worsening health outcomes for the vulnerable patients and moms who remain. 

“As more clinicians leave those states, as more maternity care deserts happen, we will see poorer outcomes,” says Dr. Stella Dantas, an OB-GYN in Oregon and the president-elect of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “And I do think we will see more maternal mortality just by the sheer fact that we won’t have providers even trained to take care of some of these obstetric emergencies.” Indeed, 64 percent of practicing OB-GYNs who responded to a KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) survey said the Dobbs ruling has worsened maternal mortality.  In the before times, a high-risk obstetrics patient might consider having an abortion to nearly eliminate their potential maternal health risks, or even just seek more frequent monitoring to decrease them. But what happens when there are fewer clinicians left to treat sicker pregnant patients—and higher numbers of them—as birth rates rise in abortion-banned states? Data from states tell the story.

Even before outright abortion bans, the states that eventually restricted the medical procedure had higher rates of pregnancy-related deaths, sicker patient populations, and less access to maternal and preventative health care, according to data from KFF and Surgo Ventures, a nonprofit that researches health and social issues.

[...]

The care deserts will disproportionately affect low-income people and people of color. In her new maternal-fetal health role in Colorado, Zahedi-Spung says many of her dilatation and evacuation patients travel to her from Texas, Oklahoma, and Idaho because of unworkable abortion laws there. Given the current reproductive health care landscape, they are the lucky ones. She fears others in abortion-restricted states lack the resources to travel.

“We know that privileged people will always have access to abortion. We know that they will always have access to health care,” says Monica Simpson, the executive director of Sister Song, one of the oldest reproductive justice organizations in the country. For everyone else, Simpson says, “thousands of people are falling through the cracks.” Further, the states restricting abortion are also less likely to have social support benefits to help moms and children. For example, 10 of the 13 states that rejected federal funds for low-income kids to get summer food assistance have banned abortion, either beyond six weeks or at conception. “Those same people who are anti-choice are the ones who want to cut welfare,” says Zahedi-Spung. “They’re the same ones who don’t want to provide food stamps. They’re the same ones who don’t want to expand birth control options.” 

The Dobbs ruling in 2022 has led to an increased rate in maternal mortality, particularly in states that have strict abortion bans.

[science-sculpt]

Evolution of Gene Therapy: A Journey Through History

Gene therapy stands as one of the most promising frontiers in modern medicine, offering potential solutions to a myriad of genetic disorders and diseases. Its journey through history is both fascinating and complex, marked by remarkable breakthroughs, challenges, and ethical considerations.

The concept of manipulating genetic material to treat diseases dates back to the mid-20th century. In 1953, the discovery of the DNA double helix structure by Watson and Crick ignited the imagination of scientists worldwide, laying the foundation for genetic research. It wasn't until the 1970s that the term "gene therapy" emerged, coined by researchers Richard Mulligan and Theodore Friedmann. The 1980s marked the first foray of gene therapy into the clinical realm. The 1970s witnessed the first milestone in gene therapy with the successful introduction of foreign DNA into mammalian cells. This breakthrough, accomplished by Paul Berg in 1972, laid the groundwork for subsequent research endeavors. In 1980, Martin Cline performed the first gene therapy trial on a patient with beta-thalassemia, though ethical concerns arose due to the lack of proper patient consent and scientific rigor. Despite setbacks, the 1990s saw a surge of research, with gene therapy trials targeting various conditions like cystic fibrosis and severe combined immunodeficiency. However, tragic events, such as the tragic death of a young teenager in 1999, a young participant in a 1999 gene therapy trial, highlighted the need for stringent safety measures.

One of the landmark achievements in gene therapy occurred in 1990 when the first successful gene therapy trial took place. Researchers corrected a rare genetic disorder called Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency in two young girls. This groundbreaking feat marked a crucial turning point, demonstrating the potential of gene therapy to treat genetic diseases.

Luxturna became the first gene therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 for the treatment of an inherited retinal disease called Leber congenital amaurosis. This milestone underscored the therapeutic potential of gene therapy and paved the way for future advancements. The development of CRISPR-Cas9 revolutionized the field of gene editing, offering a versatile and precise tool for modifying DNA. This breakthrough has accelerated research in gene therapy and holds immense promise for the treatment of genetic diseases.

Gene therapy isn't a monolith; it dons various hats depending on the target and approach. Here are the major types:

Somatic vs. Germline: Somatic gene therapy: This targets non-reproductive (somatic) cells, impacting only the treated individual's lifespan and not passing changes onto offspring. This is the more prevalent and ethically accepted approach. Germline gene therapy: This modifies genes in reproductive cells, potentially impacting future generations. Ethical and safety concerns surround this approach, and it is not currently used in humans.

Ex Vivo vs. In Vivo: Ex Vivo gene therapy: Cells are extracted from the patient, modified in a laboratory, and then reintroduced. This allows for precise targeting but involves complex procedures. In Vivo gene therapy: The therapeutic gene is delivered directly to the target cells within the body. This offers minimally invasive approaches but poses challenges in targeting specific cells.

Gene Editing vs. Gene Replacement: Gene editing: Utilizes tools like CRISPR to modify existing genes, correcting mutations or fine-tuning their expression. This offers unparalleled precision but raises concerns about unintended consequences. Gene replacement: Introduces a functional copy of a missing or defective gene into the cells, restoring their normal function. This approach is well-established but may require permanent expression of the new gene.

The journey of gene therapy from its conceptual origins to clinical reality is a testament to human ingenuity and perseverance. With each passing year, advancements in technology and scientific understanding propel this field forward, offering hope to millions affected by genetic disorders. The evolution of gene therapy is a testament to human ingenuity and perseverance in the quest to conquer genetic diseases. From humble beginnings to cutting-edge innovations, the journey of gene therapy has been marked by triumphs and challenges alike. As researchers continue to unravel the complexities of the genome and refine therapeutic approaches, the future of gene therapy shines brighter than ever, holding the promise of transformative treatments and cures for diseases once deemed incurable.

[haggishlyhagging]

Just as the edicts on witchcraft served to strip the sixteenth-century woman of power and autonomy, so the scientific dogmas of the nineteenth century ensured that women were confined to the home and to their reproductive role, to avoid damage to their health, and their future offspring. Women were thus firmly excluded from the professions, particularly those requiring the skills of a ‘rational scientist’. For, as one nineteenth-century educationalist claimed, if a woman were to 'violate the natural laws of organisation' by studying or working on intellectual tasks, she would be prone to a 'mental persecution . . . which has fated the cerebral structure of woman, less qualified for these severe ordeals, than those of her brother, man' (Maddock, 1854: 17).

It was not only medicine from which women were to be excluded, but education, politics, law, economics, writing - in fact any occupation which might challenge the authority of men. If science was becoming the guiding philosophy of society in the Victorian age, the key to a future of enlightenment and knowledge, those who investigated and disseminated it were determined that it would be not placed in the hands of women. 'Women' and 'science were contradictions in terms. Nineteenth-century discourse placed women firmly on the side of nature, infirmity and superstition, and men on the side of learning, direction, management and science. Science was personified as male. Nature was female - to be ‘unveiled, unclothed and penetrated by masculine science’ (Fee, 1988:4). Through their use of the tool of science men could uncover and control nature, and, by extension, uncover and control women.

Buttressed by the scientific rhetoric, the medical profession was consolidating its monopoly over healing, and now the woman who was pregnant, who felt sick, or depressed or simply tired, would no longer seek help from a friend or a female healer, but from a male physician. And so throughout the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth century, the psychiatrists looked to extend their power through widening their definitions of madness (Scull, 1979). The general belief underlying the doctors' practice as well as their public pronouncements was that women were, by nature, weak, dependent and diseased. Thus the doctors attempted to secure their victory over the female healer: 'with the "scientific" evidence that woman's essential nature was not to be a strong, competent help-giver but to be a patient' (Ehrenreich and English, 1978: 91). So to talk of 'mad' came to mean to talk of 'woman'.

-Jane Ussher, Women’s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Sanity prevails!  ::  April 22, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

APR 22, 2023

         In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court stayed Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling revoking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. As a result, mifepristone will remain available until the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court consider Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling on the merits. That process will likely take two years.

         The Supreme Court’s order and Alito’s dissent are here: Danco Laboratories LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

         In granting the stay, the Supreme Court pulled back from the precipice of chaos that would have been created by a nationwide ban on mifepristone. There was a palpable sigh of relief among court watchers and reproductive rights advocates that the Court did not accept the invitation to depart the realm of sanity. As Ian Millhiser tweeted,

The Supreme Court did not do the most hackish, credibility-destroying thing it could possibly do.

         Millhiser offers a more sober analysis in his article in Vox, The Supreme Court’s new abortion pill ruling, explained. Per Millhiser,

The plaintiffs’ arguments in this case are laughably weak. They ask the Court to defy longstanding legal principles establishing that judges may not second-guess the FDA’s scientific judgments about which drugs are safe enough to be prescribed in the United States. Moreover, no federal court has jurisdiction to even hear this case in the first place.

[¶]

That said, the Court’s decision to temporarily keep mifepristone legal is a hopeful sign that the justices will ultimately decide not to ban mifepristone. And there are other reasons to believe that a majority of the Court might reject this entirely meritless attack on abortion rights.

         Justice Alito continued his descent into terminal crankiness with a three-page diatribe that belittles the medical necessity of mifepristone and women’s rights to healthcare. Alito would have denied the stay because he believes that a several-month period of restrictions on mifepristone would not “likely [impose] irreparable harm.” Tell that to a woman suffering through a protracted and dangerous miscarriage.

         It is tough to make predictions—especially about the future. But the fact that seven justices refused to allow Kacsmaryk’s ruling to remain in effect bodes well for the ultimate decision on the merits in favor of reproductive liberty.

         That is a good place to come to rest before the weekend. Sanity prevailed (for once), perhaps because the Court realized Dobbs inflicted irremediable damage to its legitimacy.

[allycat75]

All I could think watching the ASP Circle Jerk with you and Mark today, Boston Dumb Fuck (the rant below isn't going to be pretty, you have been warned):

As nauseated as it made me (ironic since you keep saying the site is so digestible), I watched you and Mark jerk each other off for doing such as good job on this colossal waste of time. You do understand this generation is the most information savvy yet and don't need manipulative, lying, whiney Millenials telling them where to start.

Some notes...

Did you really read the audience to give them what they want? Not lately!

I bet the only people you can get now for the site are the GOP deplorables, especially with that racist, antisemetic wifey of yours, BDF.

BDF was famous, but now he has a bunch of failures and a possible Razzie or two in his future. And you are NOT THE SUGAR for the medicine to go down. You need a soul for that. I see you as a big bag of plasma right now, so maybe some salty, bitter bile? With some smokiness from you burning your life and potential happiness to the ground.

What special information are you providing? What can you give that is important in bullet points? I don't want neophytes teaching neophytes. The world is crumbling, in case you haven't noticed while you have been numbing yourself with weed, you white Privleged, tone deaf fucks! You serve no purpose here.

Did you honestly say, BDF, with a straight face "How are we going to navigate truth?"; "Young people can really tell...are aware of selective facts and framing information that is deliberately misleading and I think if you do that once, it is in your nature you'll probably do it again and a picture starts to become clear". I can see it clearly, can you, you fucking hypocrites?

You really think your provide a service and aren't keeping these folks from doing the work of the people. Self-congratulatoryly sniffing your own farts again, are you (thanks, South Park)? And when was the last time you two did the actual work for this ego-stroker, walking the halls of Congress with these civil servants?

What makes you think you can provide civil discussion when no one on the congressional floor, where it actually matters, can get it done? And who on the right has enough brain cells to pony up that information you so smugly think you deliver? "Uncle" Tim Scott has got his face firmly planted in the Toxic Cheetos's ass cheeks so he won't be available. Who else you got?

Have you gone so far from the truth that it is more important how the politicians speak to each other as opposed to what they say? And we aren't talking about speed limits or zoning laws here. What people care about- women's reproductive rights, safe and sane gun laws, critical race theory, immigration, homelessness, student loan debt, cost of healthcare, climate change, LGBTQ+ equality, political corruption..., these aren't delicate bullet points that can be politely discussed and boiled down. And when you try, you run the risk of messages being missed and time being wasted. CAN I SCREAM THAT LOUD ENOUGH SO YOU CAN HEAR OVER THE SOUND OF YOUR OWN EGOS TELLING YOU HOW GREAT YOU ARE!!!! Best thing you can do is get out of the fucking way!

What makes you feel you are the arbiters of all this information that will inspire youth to vote, and not just be more static for them to filter? It's not about you, so why do you feel you are the two that should be talking to high schoolers tomorrow. Besides getting good press and, once again, stroking that ego hard, what are you hoping to get? Do you honestly believe you and Mark are going to inspire anyone tomorrow? Or worse, prove that only pretty, rich, white men get ahead in this world so why even try?

What qualitative and quantitative metrics can you show "the really great feedback from the people who enjoy the information"? I know the feedback for the Antisemitism in Schools was quite engaging, but I don't know how positive it was.

So you still haven't really provided a clear mission statement and goals for the site as it is now with politics, so your solution is to branch out to even more complicated topics around AI and other technologies. Boy, if you took this to "Shark Tank" you would be laughed out of the studio and used as an example of what never to do! Has someone's egoic narrative run amok?

Smart actors steered clear! It's a gimmick.

A Gen Z table is at the back! Pipeline for next spouses 🤞🤞? Both of you have reputations for liking them young, you know.

Aww, you got a mug. You can use it for your coffee. Oh, you don't drink coffee? I've seen you drink it. Oh well, then tea, I know I've seen you drink tea. You say you don't like tea either. Mmhh. Oh that's right, you are a manipulative liar and that was just a stupid one you tried out for funnsies. Like covert narcissists exhibit. (I know, it could just be changing tastes and a need to cut back on caffeine because you are anxious without ever seeming to take responsibility controlling it, so maybe that was a start. Credit where credit is due, maybe).

You should run for office- you've got the lying and manipulation down, despite that you think you are a bad liar. I think that is just one of your many lies. Like an ouroboros always eating its own tail.

May I give you some advice (fuck it, this is my blog and you are not listening, so I am giving it!). Something I don't suspect you do much, because if you did I don't think you would be in this situation where you are living your life like it doesn't belong to you, is think with the end in mind. Ask the magic question, "If this worked out the way I want it to, what would that look like?" And then work backward from there. I would say try that with ASP, but I don't trust your intentions are pure and thus will never be successful. But it could work with other things if you ever get back in the driver's seat of your world and begin to rebuild.

Get it through your fragile male brains ASP is a bad idea that will only get worse, for the entire country, not just you two, so take the loss. You should get used to the feeling.

[ukrfeminism]

Women should be offered "menopause checks" by GPs after turning 40, campaigners and MPs have said.

The Menopause All-Party Parliamentary Group said this should be included in the NHS Health Check offered every five years to those aged between 40 and 74.

MPs said a lot of women over 40 go to their GP with symptoms, unaware they are experiencing the menopause.

Campaigner Mariella Frostrup said it was "ludicrous" that menopause information was not part of the check.

The free NHS Health Check looks for conditions such as heart disease and diabetes.

Ms Frostrup, chairwoman of the Menopause Mandate campaign, told BBC Breakfast it should include information and support about the menopause.

"It seems utterly ludicrous you go to this health check as a woman in your early 40s, which is exactly when perimenopause starts for most women, and the one thing you don't find out about is the one thing that you will absolutely 100% be experiencing over the subsequent decade," the author and journalist said.

Ms Frostrup added that a survey of more than 2,000 women conducted for the campaign found the majority had self-diagnosed their menopause, with only 12% getting a diagnosis from a health professional.

"Surely that's not good enough in the 21st Century," she said.

The Menopause All-Party Parliamentary Group said doctors often failed to recognise the symptoms.

More needed to be done to ensure medical professionals feel "equipped and empowered" to prescribe all types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) - a treatment that helps alleviate the symptoms of the menopause, the group said.

Labour MP Carolyn Harris, the group's chairwoman, said: "We still have many hurdles to tackle to ensure women suffering through menopause get the support they deserve.

"Day in, day out I hear stories from women who can't get a diagnosis from their GP, who can't get HRT due to a lack of supply, who have left their jobs due to a lack of support, or who simply don't know where to turn for help."

What is the menopause?

The menopause is when women's periods stop, which normally happens around the age of 51. Symptoms normally start in the mid-40s.

This signals the end of the reproductive years and the start of a new phase of life.

The lead-up to this happening, when periods become irregular, is known as the perimenopause. It starts, on average, at 46.

This is when many women notice their periods becoming unpredictable or heavy, and have feelings or physical problems they have not experienced before.

When periods have not happened for 12 months, you can look back and say you have been through the menopause (the last period).

For some, it can happen earlier - either naturally, or after treatment for another condition.

It comes as research from the UC San Diego School of Medicine, published by the International Menopause Society, highlights that women going through the menopause are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, associate medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Changes to a woman's body during menopause, such as fallen oestrogen levels, are linked with a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

"After the menopause, the chance of a woman having a heart attack is drastically increased.

"All too often, women don't prioritise their own health. As we women approach menopause, it is a perfect opportunity to reassess our risks of future cardiovascular disease and to take steps to protect our hearts."

She said preventative action included not smoking, exercising regularly, eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy weight.