JoBo
As in 1997, a pineapple could beat the Tories at the next election. Nobody needs you cheerleading the Labour right as if everything will magically be fine if only they’re in power. It won’t. It’ll be a fucking disaster for generations to come. That’s the best of your least worst options and the very least you can do is make it clear that you are not fucking happy about it.
I grew up under Thatcher, looked on with disbelief in 1983, 1987 and 1992, and celebrated with almost everybody in 1997. Then they attacked single parents, loaded the NHS and schools up with PFI debt, failed to reregulate the banks and deliberately reinflated the housing bubble. Inequality continued rising and the Tories supported them every step of the way.
Voting for the least worst option means you end up with no good options. Do what you feel you have to at the ballot box but don’t pretend it means anything. If you won’t fight them, you’re helping bury us all.
I’m assuming you mean for voting, the least important thing you can do, politically.
It doesn’t matter much. Protest vote (if there’s a good protest vote available to you), spoil your ballot (if there’s something you want to say because it will be read by bored candidates), or stay at home (so that you don’t add to turnout). In the vanishingly unlikely event that your local Labour candidate is an actual leftist, vote for them.
For more meaningful action, whatever works for you. Protest, direct action, letter-writing. In the vanishingly unlikely event that your local Labour candidate is an actual leftist, campaign for them (and turn out to support them when the leadership inevitably comes for them).
Just don’t pretend that voting for the least worst option will give you better options in future. It will not.
Literally no point voting for the Tory seat-warmers. Even if you concede that they can’t be worse, rewarding this behaviour just dooms us to, at best, treading water while the Tories pull themselves together and then pick up where they left off.
Been there, done that, it got us where we are today. Fuck that, fuck Labour.
Maybe read it again, in context, and decide if there are equal rights to initiate that particular interaction (no matter what the genders or sexualities involved are).
Then have a stern word with yourself about being so incredibly defensive that you end up portraying yourself as a sex pest.
No study exists comparing the capacity of currently available menstrual hygiene products using blood.
They don’t have to explain how they know. Literature searches are standard, and done before doing research like this. Funders want to know if they’re wasting their money on a question that has already been answered, and whether the proposed methods are appropriate given what has been done, and learnt, before.
That’s not to say that all literature searches are perfect. You can check on PubPeer for any howls of anguish from unacknowledged researchers. But the only legal requirement for testing is tampons due to toxic shock syndrome and its relationship to absorbency. It’s really unlikely that manufacturers are doing the tests without being forced to and, if they have done any, really unlikely they would fail to publish their results if they liked the results. If they are suppressing unwelcome results, the research might as well not exist.