Off the top of my head, it makes it desirable to cook the stats to get money, whether by banning abortion or simply prioritizing births vs children. Every funding metric is gamed, that’s why there’s arcane rules to enact change by hoping for a certain game strategy. In this case every strategy leads to misery.

Paraphrasing from a recent episode of Behind the Bastards on the Vioxx scandal: There’s a lot of recency bias in humans where it’s difficult to look past the fuckups of the pharma industry. If their “current” MO is to make a shit ton of money at the cost of human lives, then why would someone with lesser critical thinking skills trust them? One needs quite a bit more faculties to separate the capitalism from the good they are doing and tell apart what’s trustworthy and what not.

So pharma fucked their bed spectacularly and aren’t doing fuck all to restore trust. And that’s very sad considering how important they could be if they wanted to.

Seems that in the latest prerelease builds that is indeed true, even checkboxes work now.

Critically you can’t share to specific accounts, it’s private, completely public or all registered users. Also, sharing is read-only, no collaboration allowed. So sharing sort of yes, but no collaboration say on a shopping list.

Yeah, this is the problem in that the definitions vary between “inclusive of trans women and NB” to “NB leaning on fem” and all the way to “any trans identity that wants to include feminity”. In the end though it might not matter since more inclusive is better and CWs are encouraged anyway for touchy topics.

Totally get that, many practical reasons! I’d vote for including it in the name as well. I did check the sidebar but managed to miss that.

Having googled some definitions, transfem is one of those terms that doesn’t have one clear definition whereas MtF has enough history to be fairly unambiguous. No matter what it would draw a slightly different venn diagram as a name. That isn’t a bad thing, just not sure what it looks like from an NB angle.