Both articles were rather interesting. For the first one, I thought it was very interesting how they made the distinction of the terms "gender" and "sex" at the beginning. I also thought it was intriguing that people used to study autoimmune disease individually, without trying to put them together or study connections. Although the logic of making studies specific and therefore "manageable" is a very often used tactic, I would have thought that they would put together the similar disease sooner. In a similar way, I suppose that the connection between gender and disease might have escaped people's notice too. That said, it was interesting to observe how all the "key events" highlighted in the paper seems to follow one after another, as if they were influenced by the previous event to happen.

I did also notice that a lot of the experiments done relating to females, was that they were either performed on rats or on non-living things, but hardly ever on humans (I think). Although there might be some risks involved in studying pregnant women, it might be worthwhile to take the study to a more direct place.

For the second article, I think it's really important for doctors to really be careful and listen carefully to what patients say. In this course and the article, the focus is on women, so it might sometimes feel like women are the only ones that usually get this sort of trouble because they are under-studied, but the issue of overlooking details that are not studied yet probably exists in all cases. So this idea could be expanded in a more general sense too?