You didn’t get the point of what I said, did you?

If you just can't believe the scientist quoted in this very article, here's a ton of other thoroughly sourced examples! That someone already linked and I'm now decent enough to just hand to you! You're welcome! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

“Jason Forman, one of the scientists conducting the University of Virginia study, told City Lab, “We obviously know a lot of ways that men and women are different bio-mechanically. These differences [fat distribution, pelvis shape]… have the potential to change the ways that seatbelts interact with the body and with…

It’s like you don’t want to accept that *the realities of physics are something you need to take into account in design and not just whine about so you can continue considering one body type default and another a variant.*

Seatbelts also are not made fit people with boobs properly, especially if they're short.

Sure, it could have. What’s that have to do with anything I said?

“These results provide insight into where advances in the field have made gains in occupant protection and what injury types remain to be addressed.” That’s so weird, I don’t see where it says “screw it, we’re done all we can, women just break too easily.”

Do you not understand that this isn’t even primarily about height?

If it was we wouldn’t need female-type dummies at all, we’d just scale down the male ones.

What are you even trying to say here?

You realize this is literally an argument for female dummies and not just assuming that smaller male dummies are sufficient, right?

Like, I can’t even piece together what kind of “contradiction” you’re trying to form here.

“95% of women are captured in the design of automotive safety systems.” Uh...exactly how? There’s only one dummy of typically female proportions, and it’s smaller than the vast majority of women. You seem to think you can just extend the male dummies to women because they’re larger. That’s....not how it works.

That was literally my point.

You’re still not actually getting my point.

It’s known who the standards are based around. All else is NOT equal. Taking into consideration that women are generally more fragile, shouldn’t, if anything, special attention be paid to them? Rather than barely being considered?

Oh my Lord you have no idea how systemic sexism works.

Literally one one thinks “there’s some group of engineers that are getting together and saying, ‘yea, YEA, let’s fuck over women in safety!’” We’re saying *they aren’t thinking of us at all.*

We know engineering is hard? So’s medicine and every other field where…

No one said it was a “conspiracy.” We’re not being considered. It happens over and over, not just for cars. Safety is literally being defined by a male standard because it’s considered societal default. We don’t think anyone’s plotting against us, they literally didn’t *think of* us. You...don’t understand very well…

Is “women just drive more dangerous vehicles” the new “women just gravitate to lower-paying professions”?

Wow, next someone might say that perhaps cars should be designed to protect people with less muscle mass and less dense bones! :O

Oh wait, that was literally the point the entire time.

Your first sentence. “As a related point, people who are “outliers” size wise, generally gravitate to vehicles that have the room and or adjustability to fit them properly.”

The proportions between “male” and “female” dummies are different; that’s what defines the dummy’s “sex.”

In fact, *that’s covered in the article.*

“If safety can has to be pegged to one body type” It doesn’t, though. You’re creating a false dilemma here.

Right? I got time to blame EVERYONE.