It's not that women are too special to be criticized. I didn't say that. Further, nearly every feminist out there criticized feminism from time to time. So, it's clearly not like we think we're above reproach.

It comes down to wording and accuracy of the criticism. When I've poonted out to you that an author didnt mean all men, I did so based on wording and context, not because I'm saying you're supposed to have a magic crystal ball and read the author's mind. That reference or context might have been in that sentence, in another paragraph, in a title or subtitle, but it was there.

For example, if a title is: Men In Drag Racing Are A Threat To Public Safety, and then down in the article there's a sentence that says, "These men are irresponsible with no regard to the welfare of their fellow citizens," by nature of how the English language works, the author is not talking about all men. These men. 'These' is a descriptor that defines a type of man. What kind of man? Men who drag race. You can also infer that the author means a known group of drag racing men in the city the article either mentions or was published in.

Many men don't seem to wrangle the language in that same way. (Many men isn't it all men, it just means it's something you see common in man writers). Perhaps it's because they ( it all men, we're still referring to many men) see women as a monolith. Perhaps it's because they (still talking about men who don't like linguistically delineate) they don't feel the need to. Who knows?

But it does come across as accusatory as when men run across that same thing from women writers. For the most part, we've made an effort to be more clear.

So again, the notion that women shrivel in the face of criticism is ludicrous.

Lastly, disabled women are included in the rape and sexual assault statistics for women. Because they are women. Just like Black women and Indigenous women or any other type of woman.

Now, you can break down impact of sexual violence in women by looking at this intersectionality or race, ableism, or even Transwomen and perhaps there could and should be more written about that. But just because a generalized article doesn't do that every single time, doesn't automatically equate to a failure of inclusivity. Depending upon structural things like theme in the article, it could be distracting, or take away from the overall impact or resonance of the piece. Here on Medium, a lot of folks are writing personal stories. I completely agree that it would be lovely and useful to see more people writing stories from a disabled person's experience. I hope to see that.

Sadly, there's a lot being published on here, across the board, that's just not that good. One of the downaides of content creation, it takes time, effort, and sweat to make truly quality work. There's no editing, unless the writer does it themselves. It seems, even most publications do not do much in the way of editing or fact checking, or quality control. I have to wonder, if more writing in the manner you suggest, would cause more harm than good in the long run, simply from such writers not truly knowing or understanding disabled issues or perspective.

For myself, that's why I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. In their own body of work, and not as an unfair or undue criticism of someone else's.

You could be doing that. As I said, you're articulate, you have the specific experience and pkint of view, and you're passionate about it. What do you think somebody like me, without those insights, could possibly write on your behalf that would be better than your own words?