This conception of empiricism—what it means to do "good," "reliable," and "valid" science—constrains what work can be done in the future. The exclusions "necessitated" by these models of research aren't an accident either—broadly speaking, the conception of rationalism underpinning the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment came out of white, Western, bourgeois and aristocratic thought. Also, the scientific and social scientific paradigm that reigns in university research (and in much of the private, state-sanctioned research programs) says that many types of studies require a certain-sized subject population in order to claim statistical validity. So studies about, say, queer people or trans people, or queer trans people, are often thwarted by the comparatively smaller numbers of folks who a) feel comfortable being out to a group of strangers in a clinical environment, b) feel comfortable exploring potentially sensitive issues in the context of their unequal status as a research subject, c) even believe in this type of research, and d) are targeted by researchers' advertisements or happen to see such adverts.
It's a shitty time to have a uterus, especially if you don't want the government telling you what to do with it. Since we'd rather laugh than cry, check out this spot-on video from the folks at Funny or Die, featuring eight middle-aged men giving their "expert" opinions on women's reproductive health.
From Joe Wilson to that death panel lady, everyone has healthcare on the brain lately (or at least we think they do – who can afford a CAT scan these days?). This includes the folks at Funny or Die, who put this video together. Jon Hamm, Linda Cardellini, AND public healthcare? We'll take it.