Feisty article on The Lancet cover

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

unherd.com/2021/09/what-the-lancet-gets-wrong-about-women/

That's a really impressive piece by Debbie!

Very good from Debbie, thanks for the link. Loved this bit - well done that man:

The complaints appear to be piling up at The Lancet, including objections from the medical profession itself. Professor Dave Curtuss^, a contributorr^ to The Lancet, tweeted::^ “Just wrote the Lancet to tell them to take me off their list of statistical reviewers and cancel my subscription and never contact me about anything ever again. Absolutely inexcusable language to refer to women and girls.”

Yes, it was a very thoughtful article from a surprising (to me) source. Debbie Hayton really has no time for such bullshit.

It's a piece in line with the preferred style of UnHerd readers. Harrington wears her knowledge lightly and it shows in the effortless flow of her writing.

Debbie Hayton really has no time for such bullshit.

Except for rescinding the guidelines for schools for which DH was an author.

However, I appreciate that DH's status as a transwoman will attract a wider audience and will appeal to those for whom lived experience trumps other considerations.

Granted. But it was still an excellent piece. I didn't check the author's name until I'd read it :)

This journal is of course no stranger to controversy. In 1998, it published Andrew Wakefield’s now notorious article that linked the MMR vaccine with chronic enterocolitis and autism. By the time that paper was retracted — 12 years later — children had been harmed. According to Public Health England, “It had an important impact on MMR coverage which dropped to about 80% nationally in the late nineties and early 2000s and took many years to recover. … Measles cases continued to rise and in 2006 endemic transmission became re-established in the UK.”

I didn't know that Wakefield had published in the Lancet. That's interesting.

@ArabellaScott

This journal is of course no stranger to controversy. In 1998, it published Andrew Wakefield’s now notorious article that linked the MMR vaccine with chronic enterocolitis and autism. By the time that paper was retracted — 12 years later — children had been harmed. According to Public Health England, “It had an important impact on MMR coverage which dropped to about 80% nationally in the late nineties and early 2000s and took many years to recover. … Measles cases continued to rise and in 2006 endemic transmission became re-established in the UK.”

I didn't know that Wakefield had published in the Lancet. That's interesting.

It was the paper that lent validity to the farrago. This was despite warnings from one of the authors who then insisted on having his name removed from the paper (unbelievably courageous move for someone who was submitting his PhD around that time).

A lot of material came out Brian Deer and later the Autism Omnibus hearings. The paper should never have been published and it is a stain on the reputation of medical publishing that it took so long to be retracted.

Interesting comments on the article. One comment was that the statement was designed to create controversy. That it could possibly be regarded as akin to the intent of a flasher; not just to upset women, but to show a contempt for them as well.

Why would a supposedly respectable medical journal set out to "cause controversy"?

The Wakefield thing didn't seem to harm The Lancet's rep, I'd still say it would be described as "respected" and "premier". But perhaps this episode plus remembering Wakefield will put dent in it.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know why 'The Lancet' under Horton refers to women as 'bodies with vaginas', while still referring to men.

To upset and show contempt for women seems reasonable; in the light of 'The Lancet' still affording men respect for their humanity and sex. That context makes any other excuse seem like a pretence.

That was a good read - I thought this was a great comment underneath:

Gender ideology is a Trojan horse for men to legitimize male access to female spaces. By deconstructing the concept of womanhood to mere sexual organs, they seek to remove the social inhibitions surrounding male behavior toward women. If ideas like this become written into law, in theory there will be no reason to separate men and women in spaces like bathrooms, changing rooms, sports clubs or prisons. In short when a man physically assaults a woman it will not be viewed as particularly heinous. We already see this happening in wrestling events where a man is permitted to smash a woman up with crowds cheering him on.