u/Main-Fly-8295

I was diagnosed with endometriosis this week, and I can’t even explain the sense of relief I felt. It honestly feels like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders.

I’ve consistently weighed around 108 lbs (49 kg) from the age of 14 to 19, and no matter how much I ate, nothing seemed to change.

For years, my parents and doctors have told me to “just eat more,” as if gaining weight was simply a matter of eating enough. After my diagnosis, my gyno explained that endometriosis and inflammation can potentially affect things like energy use and metabolism, which made me feel so much less like I was doing something wrong. I also have mild PID, so there’s obviously a lot going on hormonally/inflammation-wise.

I’d really like to gain some healthy weight and feel more confident in my body, especially with summer coming up. I’m not looking to do anything unhealthy or extreme. I’d just love to finally put on a bit of weight and have more of a “summer bod.”

For those of you with endometriosis who are naturally very lean:

• Have you actually managed to gain weight?
• What worked for you?
• Did you change your diet, strength training, meal frequency, etc.?
• Did treating your endometriosis make any difference to your weight?
• And how long did it take before you noticed a change?

I’d really appreciate hearing from anyone who has been in a similar situation. ❤️

There are certain health issues that some women genuinely only feel comfortable discussing or being examined for by another woman. It’s not about thinking male doctors are automatically bad or incapable, it’s about comfort, vulnerability, embarrassment, past experiences, and just being able to relax enough to actually explain what’s going on.

And honestly, I think a lot of us, myself included, have avoided going to the doctor because we didn’t feel comfortable seeing a male doctor for certain things. We’ll put it off, convince ourselves it’s probably fine, and only go when it becomes serious enough that we can’t ignore it anymore.

Obviously emergencies are different, but healthcare shouldn’t have to reach the emergency stage before someone feels comfortable enough to seek help.

Having a few women available every day wouldn’t solve everything, but it could make a massive difference for patients who otherwise might avoid care altogether. Sometimes feeling safe and comfortable enough to talk openly is the difference between getting something checked early and ignoring it until it becomes a much bigger problem.

Men don't have to put off seeing a doctor for male-specific problems because most clinics have male doctors on staff, and sometimes the entire staff is male. So why should women have to sit out of getting care simply because we’re not comfortable discussing certain issues with a male doctor? Also, its uncomfortable having your parts be inspected by a male if you're female.

Maybe that shouldn’t be considered a luxury in healthcare.

https://preview.redd.it/qwbpjdvbw2kh1.png?width=1262&format=png&auto=webp&s=68d6b55e7954223a0ddf06ad35f50950ebf2f8dd

https://preview.redd.it/1oedfqacw2kh1.png?width=1264&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d87ab6e71b5e5f4f07d1fa92ce64e8dceefc193

https://preview.redd.it/s3snmqwew2kh1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=a768a52791b43705aaeaed0b283b2ed3e3a0c497

https://preview.redd.it/618wjt0nz1kh1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=81893ae0b4fab54eaf14da05e39808827a695038

https://preview.redd.it/a2zgm62qz1kh1.png?width=1296&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5423aaef791752fa86bfb50f5ff177297f3671b

In plenty of places outside the US, an 18 year old dating a 20, 21, 22, or 23 year old, or someone older barely registers as noteworthy. They’re all adults, often in the same university/work/social circles/church, and nobody is sitting there calculating the age gap like it’s a federal investigation.

Obviously context matters, and “they’re both adults” doesn’t magically make every relationship healthy. Yet this healthy/unhealthy thing applies to all relationships. But the way some Americans talk about a 18-19 & 20+ relationship like it’s automatically predatory is genuinely not a universal cultural norm.

I am 18/19 and dating someone whos 22/23 and the only people who think this is weird are Americans online.

The rest of the world did not get the memo that a four year age gap after 18 is supposed to be an emergency.

Most people do not care but there's always mixed opinions when 1 person ends with __teen and the other 1 starts with a 2. If its 23 and 18 then i can kinda understand, but 19 and 23 isnt a big deal dependings on how they met

Hear me out.

Technology and everyday life change insanely fast. Someone who went into prison in 2016 entered a world where Siri/Alexa-style voice assistants were the new normal. Now we have generative AI, AI-powered search, autonomous driving technology, digital wallets, QR-code everything, and workplaces increasingly built around AI.

And that’s just a 10 years difference.

Imagine spending 15, 20, or 30 years completely disconnected from all of that. It’s not just “learning how to use a device.” Banking, employment, healthcare, government services, social norms, scams, transportation, and basic communication may have changed dramatically.

So yes, I think people coming out after 10+ years should have a mandatory reintegration course covering modern technology, digital literacy, financial systems, online safety, employment, and major changes in everyday life.

I know the title is a bit misleading, so bear with me here.

Most people understandably think cousin marriage is weird, and that’s fair. I’m not here to encourage it or argue that it should be more common. But when it comes to some Indigenous groups around the world, particularly in parts of the Americas and Oceania, cousin marriage has historically been normalised or culturally accepted.

What I find interesting is the difference in how people talk about it depending on who is doing it. If a European or Asian person, particularly a Muslim person, is in a cousin marriage, the reaction is often immediate, people call it gross, backwards, inbred, etc. WHICH IS TRUE. But when the same practice exists within an Indigenous community, it can sometimes be framed in much more positive terms, like cultural preservation, empowerment, or maintaining a bloodline.

As an Indigenous person from Oceania, I personally find cousin marriage gross, even though it’s legal where I’m from. I find the double standard interesting, why is cousin marriage treated as something disgusting and regressive in one cultural context, but romanticised or defended as cultural empowerment in another? It should be seen as gross regardless.

https://reddit.com/link/1vq98rd/video/o02pr8y42tjh1/player

If everyone else can go “I’m from NZ, but I was born/grew up in India/China/England/Samoa/etc” when introducing themselves, I genuinely don’t understand why some people get weird when the natives of the country (in this instance, Māori) say their tribe when introducing themselves.

Like, you’re literally giving people some context about where your family/community comes from. Māori saying their tribe isn’t them claiming to be “more Kiwi” than you. It’s just a different way of answering the exact same question.

And if your response to someone saying their tribe is “why do you need to tell me that?” or "are you saying we're not real [insert nationality here]s?" while you’re completely comfortable telling people where you were born/raised, maybe ask yourself why one kind of ancestry feels normal to you and the other apparently feels like a political statement.

Also, if you’re going to introduce yourself with “I’m Kiwi, but I was born/raised in X,” you can’t really be shocked if people think you are less Kiwi based on the information you voluntarily gave them into account. 😭 I am of the belief that everyone who is a citizen of NZ regardless of where they lived prior IS A KIWI, but you cannot tell me to not state that my ancestors were here first and then proceed to admit you were not born here.

Nobody’s taking your nationality card away because someone else knows their tribe.

If everyone else can go “I’m from NZ, but I was born/grew up in India/China/England/Samoa/etc” when introducing themselves, I genuinely don’t understand why some people get weird when the natives of the country (in this instance, Māori) say their tribe when introducing themselves.

Like, you’re literally giving people some context about where your family/community comes from. Māori saying their tribe isn’t them claiming to be “more Kiwi” than you. It’s just a different way of answering the exact same question.

And if your response to someone saying their tribe is “why do you need to tell me that?” or "are you saying we're not real [insert nationality here]s?" while you’re completely comfortable telling people where you were born/raised, maybe ask yourself why one kind of ancestry feels normal to you and the other apparently feels like a political statement.

Also, if you’re going to introduce yourself with “I’m Kiwi, but I was born/raised in X,” you can’t really be shocked if people think you are less Kiwi based on the information you voluntarily gave them into account. 😭 I am of the belief that everyone who is a citizen of NZ regardless of where they lived prior IS A KIWI, but you cannot tell me to not state that my ancestors were here first and then proceed to admit you were not born here.

Nobody’s taking your nationality card away because someone else knows their tribe.

ETA: This isnt specific to the US and Canada.

I think people get weirdly defensive when Indigenous people talk about the long-term effects of colonisation.

Like, yes, eventually you have to take responsibility for your own actions. But that doesn't mean you have to pretend history magically stopped affecting people the moment the original colonisers died.

If someone's great great grandparents [as children] were punished for speaking their own language, taught that their culture was inferior, subjected to violence, and then raised their children according to the behaviours they learned from that environment, you can't seriously act surprised when some of those patterns continue into later generations.

What people forget is that these people were being shown by other adults that hitting children and getting angry is okay.

Take family violence, for example. A parent who grew up seeing their parents resolve conflict through yelling, intimidation, humiliation or violence may learn that this is simply what conflict looks like. They can love their own children and genuinely not want to hurt anyone, while still repeating behaviours that frighten or damage the people around them.

That doesn't mean their behaviour is okay. Understanding where a behaviour came from isn't the same thing as excusing it.

But there's a massive difference between saying: "This person is allowed to hurt people because their ancestors were colonised."

and: "This harmful behaviour didn't appear out of nowhere, and colonisation can be part of the chain of events that produced the circumstances in which it was learned and transmitted."

The second statement is historically and psychologically much more interesting.

And honestly, I think Indigenous people have every right to say "colonisation did this to us" without that automatically meaning "therefore nobody in my family has any responsibility for what happens next."

Both things can be true, colonial violence can have consequences lasting generations, and individuals can still be responsible for breaking those cycles.

You don't break intergenerational trauma by pretending the first generation wasn't traumatised. You break it by understanding the chain, and then deciding where you're going to stop it.

My last post about this topic was taken down, but i feel like this is an important discussion to have with the influx of cis vs trans women posts. I'm not trying to create another huge argument, but I do want to explain where I'm coming from, and am willing to hear people out.

This is a hot takes subreddit. You're going to see takes you disagree with. I don't think disagreement, by itself, is disrespectful or hateful.

A lot of cis women feel like they can't express even a minor disagreement about trans-related issues without immediately being called transphobic, a TERF, or worse. I've also seen people do the same thing in the opposite direction, so I don't think this is exclusively a trans-women problem. I've seen cis women dismiss trans women without listening to them too, calling them misogynists, f*gs, etc.

I think that's part of why this subject keeps coming up here.

There are genuinely difficult conversations to have about sex-based spaces, privacy, boundaries, language, and the differences between sex and gender. I don't think we should have to pretend those conversations don't exist just because they're uncomfortable.

Speaking as a cis woman, I've personally seen men wearing dresses in women's bathrooms. I use the term "men wearing dresses" because I don't think clothing itself is gendered or determines someone's identity. A man can wear a dress without being a woman, just as a woman can wear traditionally masculine clothing without being a man. There are also a minority people who believe that someone doesn't necessarily need to medically transition in order to identify as a different gender. While it makes me uncomfortable, I also understand that the mens bathroom may not be a safe space for them. I think that raises legitimate questions about how we approach sex-segregated spaces. That's something I think we're allowed to discuss without assuming the worst intentions of everyone involved.

This can go the other way around too, even if one cis woman went into a space thats designed for trans women and expected all trans women to change their terminologies in order to be accepting, trans women would feel uncomfortable, and rightfully so.

I've never personally had a bad encounter with a trans woman in a women's bathroom, and I don't assume trans women are dangerous or have bad intentions. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for another woman to feel uncomfortable in a particular situation or to want to talk about why.

Both things can be true.

Cis women and trans women can also have very different experiences. Some cis women experience periods, pregnancy, menopause, and other sex-specific experiences that trans women don't experience in the same way. Trans women also have experiences related to being trans that cis women don't have. Acknowledging that people can have different experiences doesn't have to mean disrespecting anyone.

The same applies to language. Some women genuinely don't like terms such as "birthing people" and would rather be referred to as women or mothers in certain contexts. Other people prefer more inclusive language, because not everyone who has babies identifies as a woman. I don't think either preference needs to automatically make someone a bigot.

What frustrates me most is how difficult it seems to be to have these conversations without someone saying, essentially, "you hurt my feelings because you disagree with my beliefs." People's feelings matter, but disagreement isn't inherently an attack.

And this isn't something I think can be blamed entirely on trans women, either. I've seen cis women dismiss or insult trans women and other cis women, and I've seen people throw around labels like "TERF" or "transphobe" without actually engaging with what someone is saying. I've also seen the reverse. Neither approach is productive.

I understand that this is Reddit, and Reddit can become one giant echo chamber where people mostly hear opinions they already agree with. But surely we can do better than that.

I don't want trans women to be unable to talk about their experiences. I don't want cis women to be unable to talk about theirs either.

We don't have to agree. We don't even have to like each other's opinions.

But if we're going to discuss complicated issues involving sex, gender, privacy, boundaries, and women's spaces, I'd rather we actually listen to one another instead of immediately assuming the other person is hateful.

That's the conversation I'm trying to have here. Not a fight.

Tall Poppy Syndrome is the tendency to criticise, resent, mock, or “cut down” people who stand out because of their success, wealth, talent, status, or ambition. A lot of people see this culture as bad because it can discourage people from wanting to become successful.

In a Tall Poppy Syndrome country, you only really get torn down if you become successful to elevate yourself, or if you know you’re attractive and act full of yourself. If you don’t flaunt what you have, and, when it comes to success, if you use it to help others, you’re generally exempt.

I see people constantly shit on NZ and Australia for having “Tall Poppy Syndrome,” as if it's uniquely terrible that people don't automatically worship anyone who stands out.

Obviously, taken to an extreme, it can become toxic. If someone is genuinely successful, hardworking or talented and people try to drag them down purely out of jealousy, that's shitty.

But in moderation? I honestly think there's a lot to like about it.

Would you actually want to be friends with someone who genuinely thinks they're better than everyone else? Someone who walks into a room expecting to be the centre of attention and believes their achievements make them more important than everyone around them?

I don't think being successful should give you a social exemption from being humbled.

One thing I appreciate about NZ/Aus culture is the expectation that, regardless of your job, wealth or status, you're still just another person. The CEO isn't inherently more valuable than the cleaner. The politician isn't above the person working at the supermarket. Being successful doesn't mean everyone else has to treat you like royalty. Heck, celebrities can come to NZ for a holiday and be treated like a normal human being [without paparazzi following them]. I've seen celebrities out in public, and what do I do? Leave them alone.

And I think that attitude can have genuine social benefits. When people don't see themselves as fundamentally above others, it can encourage humility, empathy and a sense that we're all responsible for looking out for each other.

Obviously there's a line between “don't think you're superior to everyone” and “don't ever be proud of yourself.” I'm all for the latter. Celebrate your achievements. Be ambitious. Take pride in what you've accomplished.

Just don't expect everyone else to treat you like you're the main character because of them, and don't walk around like you are one.

Maybe the healthier version of Tall Poppy Syndrome isn't “successful people deserve to be cut down.” Maybe it's simply “no matter how high you climb, you're still one of us.”

I'm looking for some advice on how to approach this conversation without making it unnecessarily confrontational.

My brother (16-17M) and I (19-20F) have had a fairly established morning bathroom routine for years. I normally use the bathroom around 5:30–5:59 because I get up at 5:30 (to do normal duties + hair and makeup) and need to leave earlier, while he uses it after 6. At one point, he specifically insisted that I needed to be completely finished by 5:59, so that became an explicit boundary between us. He also takes 45 minutes to shower, so when I use the bathroom I make sure I've done everything I need to do.

But i've always respected his routine.

Recently, however, he's started getting up earlier and using the bathroom during my time. My mum has suggested that I talk to him about it again, and I agree that that's probably the right thing to do.

We've also realised that puberty/hormonal changes seem to be affecting his sleep schedule. He's going to bed later, waking up earlier, and apparently spending quite a bit more time in the bathroom than he used to. I understand that he has his own needs and that some of what he's doing is probably related to being a teenage boy and having more privacy-related things to deal with.

I'm not trying to tell him that he can't use the bathroom or that his needs don't matter.

The problem is that his schedule has changed without us actually renegotiating the arrangement, and the result is that he's taking up the time that I've historically relied on.

I also don't want to confront him about the specific things he's doing in private. I've accidentally seen enough [out the corner of my eye when walking past his room since he leaves his door open] to understand that he's spending some of that time on personal/private stuff, but I don't think that's something I need to police or bring up with him. What matters to me is simply that he's occupying the bathroom during the time we've established as mine.

What I'm struggling with is how to say this in a way that acknowledges his needs while still making it clear that my routine matters too.

Routine changes aren't trivial for me. If I've structured my morning around getting up at 5:30, using the bathroom before 6, and then getting on with the rest of my morning, suddenly having to wait for someone else can throw everything off.

At the same time, I don't want the conversation to become:

"Your routine is more important than mine because you need more time in the bathroom."

I feel like the reasonable solution is that if his schedule has genuinely changed, we talk about changing the arrangement together. Maybe we find a compromise, maybe he uses the bathroom for certain things at a different time, etc.

But I don't think it's fair for him to simply start using my time and for me to be expected to silently adapt.

My mum has told me that I should be understanding because of his hormones and autism and the fact that his sleep schedule is changing. I am understanding. But I also feel like understanding his situation doesn't require me to pretend that his behaviour isn't affecting me.

So how would you approach this conversation?

Growing up in intermediate/high school, it felt like there was this weird tendency to interpret gender nonconformity as a sign that someone might secretly be trans or non-binary.

A girl who wanted short hair, wore the school uniform pants instead of the skirt, or generally presented more masculine would be told she might be a trans boy.

Likewise, a guy who had long hair, wore makeup, liked traditionally feminine clothes, or acted more feminine would be told he might be a trans girl.

Obviously, trans people exist, and questioning your gender is completely valid. But being gender-nonconforming doesn't automatically mean you're trans or non-binary.

A feminine guy can just be a feminine guy. He can be a femboy and still identify completely comfortably as a man.

A masculine girl can just be a masculine girl. She can be butch, tomboyish, or just prefer traditionally masculine things and still identify completely comfortably as a woman.

We've gotten better at acknowledging that people don't have to conform to gender stereotypes, but sometimes it feels like we've replaced one box with another, “You don't fit the stereotype of your gender, therefore maybe you're actually another gender.”

Why can't a man just be feminine without his masculinity being questioned? Why can't a woman just be masculine without her womanhood being questioned?

Gender expression and gender identity aren't the same thing.

Someone can have long hair, wear makeup, dress femininely and still be a man. Someone can have short hair, wear masculine clothes and still be a woman.

And this isn't about denying anyone's identity. It's about giving people enough room to be gender-nonconforming without immediately assuming their gender identity must be different from their sex.

A feminine man is still a man. A masculine woman is still a woman. Sometimes people are just allowed to be different.

Kass did not think ahead when naming Suede "Suede". She's going to be an adult one day, don't get me wrong Suede is a weird name, but its one of those names where its kinda cute when they're a baby but weird when they're an adult

https://reddit.com/link/1vka3aw/video/b52mqq3yygih1/player

I find it funny how people were defending Try and Izzy saying Jaine may've been fine with it when she clearly wasnt