• NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You’d kinda need to be a female gynecological researcher w clout, and then maybe like 40 years after you demonstrate a need for a new technique, it might start to catch on.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I would imagine that tolerating the pain was beaten into women for so long that at this point it would be futile to try to change it because they would be shamed and seen as weak.

    • ReiRose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      So b your logic, do you believe some minority cops means no institutionalised racism in policing?

        • ReiRose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t believe for a second that you didn’t know there were female gynecologists. You were attempting to shift blame, not ask questions and engage in meaningful discourse.

          • z00s@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I was making people question the original premise that a. No gynecological procedures involve sedation b. That this still occurs universally and contemporaneously and c. That male doctors somehow have exclusive and universal control over procedures and have denied sedation out of deliberate malfeasance.

            You then tried to apply a false reading to an unrelated situation to create a false equivalency.

            Your comment was as ludicrous as saying, “You don’t like chocolate ice cream? So what you’re saying is that you support the bombing of Palestine!!!”

            • ReiRose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If perhaps you explained yourself in the original comment, I would not have assumed incorrectly.

              Your question doesn’t even fully cover point c, let alone a and b. I’m not psychic 🤷‍♀️

              • z00s@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I didn’t have to, because it was a question. Your ridiculous response is on you, buddy 🤷‍♂️

                • ReiRose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You absolutely didn’t have to. And my response is absolutely on me. If your goal was to be ambiguous with your question, you achieved it. If your goal was to outline points a, b and c above, you did not succeed.

                  • z00s@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You’re trying to impose a goal then claiming that I failed? You’re really telling on yourself here bud