Tbh, companies like this don't honestly care about sales, they get enough of funding from their overlords (who basically stole our money). I personally think this was a test run to see how far they can get away with it and Bud Light was the crash test dummy. The big companies who control 80% of the business are going to push this ideology even if it hits them hard. The reason? They can afford to. Eventually most of the consumers will have to give in. I mean all the big-x companies - big tech, media, big pharma, entertainment, sports, e-commerce, fast-moving consumer goods, cars, fashion, groceries, transport, restaurants, etc. Every business will be doing it and how many businesses can a consumer boycott? But that's just my theory.

I am still doubtful about this Feast and devotion. Reasons?

1) The image has no nail wounds. Besides the rays emanate from the right side whereas Scripture does not say which side of Jesus was pierced, but most pictures show the right side, I presume this comes from the Ezekiel 47:1 / Vidi Aquam, where water flows from the right side of the Temple (Jesus' Body). But I suppose the left vs right side is not so much an issue as the missing nail wounds. Later versions of the image do have nail wounds, but if the original is the one to be venerated, how can they change the paintings?
2) The diary has some troubling passages, at least for me.
3) The day chosen for this Feast. In the Old Rite, the calendar has this Sunday as Low Sunday. As per "The Liturgical Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger" (free to read on the ipieta app): "Such is the solemnity of this Sunday, that not only is it of a Greater Double rite, but no Feast, however great, can ever be kept upon it." So while I know that the Novus Ordo calendar changed, for a Trad, Low Sunday remains Low Sunday.

I do not have any problems with the actual Novena itself, nor the chaplet. However, the Rosary of the Holy Wounds aka the Chaplet of Mercy is strikingly similar and pre-dates the Divine Mercy Chaplet. So I would rather pray that instead.

I hope someone can clear up my doubts. Since it's a devotion, it's optional, but once it's a Feast, don't we have to observe it?

Well the video is by an anti-woke watch company Egard and maybe could have been better worded. But to give them the benefit of the doubt, I think they mean that womanhood (the state of being a woman) is the birthright to one who is born a woman (female) and the ones who aren't born female cannot claim womanhood, nor can anyone deprive women of the right to womanhood by calling them 'birthing parent', forcing women to identify as some other gender, etc.