Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

This is outrageous - medical paper argues that wanting healthy, undeformed babies should be "queered"

190 replies

Sidaway · 18/07/2023 08:38

So shocked I'm beyond words. I read on Twitter this morning that a paper, in a mainstream medical journal published by Elsevier, says:

"The authors argue that “gendered” pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that it might be okay for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy despite the known health risks to the fetus and effects on its normal development. The desire for “normal fetal outcomes,” according to the authors, is rooted in a problematic desire “to protect their offspring from becoming anything other than ‘normal’” and “reflect historical and ongoing social practices for creating ‘ideal’ and normative bodies."

https://twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1681087794998030337
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house

The queer lobby must really, really hate children.

What did Elsevier think they were doing by publishing this? They should be called out for this very hard.

https://twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1681087794998030337

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Helleofabore · 18/07/2023 09:12

It is remarkable isn’t it, how all this commentary highlights the outcomes that are desired by this group. Always the individual. Never the infant, the family or society as a whole.

It is all about the individual.

Imagine the children of this group in the future. Will they be able to take their mothers and breastfeeding fathers to court over these decisions ?

Alcemeg · 18/07/2023 09:09

@potniatheron is correct - just at a quick glance, the last author listed is a Senior Fellow of the "Centre for Fat Liberation and Scholarship" ...

But hey, they seem ideally qualified to comment on pregnancy outcomes: "their doctoral thesis, 'British Indie Music in the 1990s: Public Spheres, Media and Exclusion', concerned the gendered construction of artists in the music press during the Britpop era."

Original poster
Sidaway · 18/07/2023 08:59

Thisismynewusername1 · 18/07/2023 08:43

What did Elsevier think they were doing by publishing this? They should be called out for this very hard.

they have published a research paper. If it meets the journal’s standards then there is no reason it should not be published.

better this information is in the public domain than behind closed doors. You can’t challenge research you don’t know about it.

I think they’ve done the right thing publishing. Gives other researchers chance to argue.

It does somewhat fail on the ethics front, though. I feel it's an attempt to normalise this kind of thing in the medical profession, crouching it in respectable, academic language. Publish in an academic journal and hope the public don't notice.

Well, the public have noticed.

But you're right in a way, get their hidden agenda out in the open, get it discussed.

OP posts:
NicCageisnotNickCave · 18/07/2023 08:51

Meanwhile, over in the normie land, many pregnant women agonise over having a single glass of fizz at a wedding and burst into tears when the breakfast eggs they ordered in an cafe are served runny.

potniatheron · 18/07/2023 08:50

The more extreme reaches of the US fat acceptance movement started this sociopathy.

There are a number of extremely obese (BMI index of 50 and above) influencers and academics who argue that 'health' is a social construct and a capitalist white privileged concept. They argue that it should not matter if one's health and even one's mobility is adversely affected by one's weight because too much emphasis is placed on being healthy and able-bodied, concepts which need 'dismantling' (often an alternate word for 'queering').

There should be a clear line between compassion and acceptance for diability, weight issues, etc, and an active embrace of either as a desirable state for otherwise healthy able-bodies people.

Of course we should see more people with disabilities in the media (I'm on the fence about extreme obesity). But we should not have academics saying that we should strive to achieve disability in people, epsecially children, who otherwise are not at risk.

VikingVolva · 18/07/2023 08:49

Well, unless you're going to give the fetus rights, that limits what can be done to the uterine environment, then these choices are on a par with many other substances - prescribed or otherwise - that are used in pregnancy.

JayAlfredPrufrock · 18/07/2023 08:47

Will this madness never end?

OldCrone · 18/07/2023 08:45

I think this is the paper. Sally Hines is one of the authors.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321523000811?via%3Dihub

Thisismynewusername1 · 18/07/2023 08:43

What did Elsevier think they were doing by publishing this? They should be called out for this very hard.

they have published a research paper. If it meets the journal’s standards then there is no reason it should not be published.

better this information is in the public domain than behind closed doors. You can’t challenge research you don’t know about it.

I think they’ve done the right thing publishing. Gives other researchers chance to argue.

PurpleWhiteandGreen · 18/07/2023 08:42

www.realityslaststand.com/p/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house

FoodFann · 18/07/2023 08:42

I feel physically sick.

teawamutu · 18/07/2023 08:40

This is sociopathic.

'Knowingly risk bringing babies with potentially painful and life-shortening disabilities into the world so individuals don't have to stop taking drugs which fuel their wishful thinking.'

Greaterthanthesumoftheparts · 18/07/2023 08:39

Can you share the link to the paper on Elsevier rather than the link to twitter?

Swipe left for the next trending thread