The candidate “solution” to that problem is to remove any representation requirements in medical trials, so adverse effects that manifest just in specific subgroups aren’t found. I wish I were joking.

They didn’t include 'women' and 'female' in that list.

Consider for a moment: what if it did include those terms? What do you think it'd indicate if some hypothetical government decided to hunt down those words across the scientific literature and subject them to review? Would that indicate something meaningful to you?

Now keep that thought in mind... and now acknowledge that that hypothetical government is actually the current one.

Pay close attention to what your mind is doing and let us know if you notice any interesting contortions that somehow draw a line between the obviously fucking insane hypothetical government you were imagining a second ago and the current real one. Report back!

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/02/05/n...

There is no executive order banning use of the words women and female.

Thanks for sharing your contortions! Honestly impressed with your candor, I appreciate it.

I replied to someone who thought the words had been banned and scientists would have to use phrases like “ovulating person”.

It seemed to be based on taking your post (“scrub all mentions of the word "women"”) at face value.

You understand now that that isn’t true? That the word “women” is not being scrubbed, and nobody has asked for it to be scrubbed?

I don't find it funny at all.