Study of Monkeypox in Women in the Lancet

As pp said, I wouldn't consent to be referred to as a "cis woman".

What if a woman doesn't identify as a cis-woman because she wears trousers and holds down a full-time job (manly things) but doesn't identify as non-binary because she considers the term to be highly sexist? Are the results still relevant?

What is the scientific definition of 'cis'?

They are male. They can refer to them as biologically male.

I read the paper previously, and to be fair I thoight it did a reasonable job.

Much easier to read if every time you see "cis women and non-binary individuals', you mentally substitute 'females', and 'transwomen', males.

It would be unethical to recruit transwomen to your study amd then refer to them all as men though, consent is everything and I doubt they'd conesnt to that.

The Lancet has lost all credibility, with this nonsense and the “bodies with vaginas” earlier this year.

They lost it in Feb 2020, with their letter denouncing any theory that covid didn't have a natural origin. And in which signatories' interests were not clearly stated.

From that to "bodies with vaginas" to a group of "non-binary" people signals a sharp decline in rigour. It's worrying in many ways, including public trust.

It certainly seems odd that they didn't try to recruit more prostituted women.

They are saying women but seem to include men. They say Cis so I couldn’t be bothered to read any more!

This is the way it’s always been, this is not news. All medical research is done on men and extrapolated to women. Plus ça change.

The difference here is we are being told that the outcome of the research is based on women, when it’s only half true.

@ArcticSkewer OMG, surely this farce isn't real?

It's important research apparently because of the risk to pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Not sure why they bothered with the 50% of women without uteruses for the study in that case.

Q: When is a man, not a man?
A: When he tells you he's a woman

@Igneococcus so future medical research findings will be implemented for women, based on outcomes for men.
This is scary.

I wonder if they were looking for a way to study men who reject their manhood and actually weren’t all that interested in the women but including roughly the same amount of women “validates” the men who believe that they are women. At least until the results show that men who are physically intimate with other men have the same patterns of behaviour and disease regardless of whether they claim the identity of the opposite sex or not and that is distinct from the women’s pattern of behaviour and disease regardless of whether those women reject or accept their sex. In other words I am not convinced that the researchers ever actually wanted to do their research on women.

And it’s been published in the Lancet as a supposed point of difference.

“Other studies have focused on men who have sex with men. We looked a women.”

No you didn’t. You looked a women, and men who have sex with men. If it had been accurately titled as another study of men and women it wouldn’t have been published in the Lancet.

The Lancet has lost all credibility, with this nonsense and the “bodies with vaginas” earlier this year.

It says its a study of women and NBs. But it's not. It's a study of men and women. Not very scientific to have such a misleading and factually incorrect title.

Everybody already knows they aren't actually women. It's the language that is causing all the problems, because we have no direct way to talk about women's sex based health issues. So no, I don't see it as positive.

I understand the language concerns, but I see the study as a quite positive one.

Monkeypox were mostly studied in men, so even half of a study focused on women adds something relevant.
The study practically shows that results obtained from men can be applied on transwomen, but not on women.

No matter the language this study shows how important is to actually use sex, not only a gender (which some seems to be trying to support) in science.

It isn't a full victory, but it kind of confirms that transwomen are very different group.

Ok, simple question:

The title says it’s about monkeypox virus in women and non-binary individuals. Do you think this is a study of women?

Yes you do keep saying that
fair enough 🤷‍♀️

I mean, I really wanted to hate it, but it feels like a small win. And yes, I too am generally concerned about what is happening to language and especially female specific language, but the use of the dreaded cis in this emphasises that these two populations are not the same, they don’t even behave in the same way. No sensible person can read that article and think ‘oh yes clearly all of these people are the same so they are all women’. I do wish they had had some stats on men as a reference though.

No, it’s why it’s important that the abstract and interpretation represent the findings of the paper not ideological presentation of the definition of the word “women”.

This is a study of men and women with monkeypox. It is NOT a study of women with monkeypox. It shows a sex based difference in disease just like all the other papers on the subject yet it allows itself to be misrepresented for ideological purposes.

Like I said, it’s a joke.

75% of transwomen have had multiple male partners as opposed to 3% in women/NBAFAB.

Gosh. Such a huge difference, wonder why that is. Perhaps they need a completely seperate study or something.

This is why it’s important to read the whole paper and not just the abstract which is heavily word limited

“We observed many similarities in transmission and clinical characteristics in trans women to those that we previously reported for men, but noted several differences for cis women and non-binary individuals.”

How does this compare to gay men though- which is essentially what many transwoman are?