At least now I understand a bit more the frustration that people feel when they're not represented properly or not taken seriously. That's a nice side effect, and maybe was the whole point of the article. But it still leaves a bad taste.
I understand how one might come to this conclusion but it doesn't appear to be correct. In fact, the vast majority of medical and psychological studies has been conducted on (cis) men. Libraries are filled with the thoughts, stories and reflections of men. If anything, it seems the male experience and physiology has been the default template and has and still does claim the most space.
Therefore, I don't think this post can be considered a common or the only accepted example of how to understand the male experience. To me it was one of a very small number of similar pieces I've encountered online actually. I do think this article can actually be considered interesting due to its novelty but I really don't see how it is presented as _the only_ lense through which we should view male experiences and I don't see how that would be factually correct either.
