{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02110022607385079, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003014318010550113, 'mean_word_length': 4.928571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Breeders: A Subclass of Women? Directed by Jennifer Lahl and Matthew Eppinette (review)

When Louise Brown was born in 1978, the joyous occasion of her birth was met with more than a little handwringing and consternation about this new way of making babies. Some of the hyperventilating resulted from mere hyperbole: calling the little bundle of joy a “test tube baby” was both scientifically inaccurate and provocative, conjuring images of a dystopian future where babies would be grown in factories, manufactured to order. Millions of babies later, many of the initial fears about in vitro fertilization (IVF) proved more science fiction than science fact. The babies born through IVF are, for all intents and purposes, just like everyone else. Our speculations about what could go wrong and where the technology might lead were, as often is the case, limited by our anxieties, by fears of the unfamiliar, and by a lack of imagination. The unfamiliar soon became commonplace. It took little time for an enormous and lucrative industry to grow up around IVF, promising babies to the infertile, and potentially liberating women from the ticking clocks of their biology by offering a way to postpone childbearing. But the social changes wrought by IVF have in some ways been more insidious than those envisioned by early critics