BBC Health article - New 3D female anatomy model used to better treat women

[WhereYouLeftIt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-61258731

In contrast to Edinburgh Napier University trying to teach student midwives that males get pregnant, Brighton and Sussex Medical School are actually teaching that females are not males.

Claire Smith, Professor of Anatomy - "Previously the teaching of anatomy has always been based on the male form, and the the differences in females added on, as an almost strange kind of adjunct."

Yasmin, Medical Student - "It makes a huge difference because women aren't just the sort of small men that medical textbooks usually make them out to be."

I'm amazed that Brighton are permitting such heresy within their borders!

It’s nice they’ve done this, but can’t agree with this quote:

”Claire Smith, Professor of Anatomy - "Previously the teaching of anatomy has always been based on the male form, and the the differences in females added on, as an almost strange kind of adjunct."

We learned on cadavers. Female cadavers for the female bits, male cadavers for the male bits. 50/50 split for the rest of the body (ie luck of the draw what sex body you were assigned to). Much easier to understand than rotating a 3D image.

I was also astonished that this is being permitted in Trans Central, but good on them. Hope it's not stopped.

Learning on 'the real thing' is always better surely, to take up on Change's point, but are cadavers expensive now? Maybe not in themselves but they need refrigerated storage etc.

I saw this, and wondered how certain groups will react to the heresy of acknowledging female biology.

I'm sure there will be much frothing and flag waving.

I was interested to see that the differences between bone structure was being pointed out very clearly..perhaps not so easy to see on cadavers, changy

Seeing the structures from different angles is so powerful as is the ability to zoom in and out of details. Amazing tool, shocking it's taken so long for a female specific model to be created though.

Long time lurker on this board- sorry to chip in.

I watched this and was horrified to find out that parts that both sexes have but are fundamentally different (ie pelvis, I believe), doctors seem to have been taught using a male model, with a female version as a bit of a bolt on.

Apologies for leaping in, but this really bothered me.

Don't apologise, Queen, you're as entitled to comment as any of us. The standard view was always that the male was the default and they only bothered about the female in pregnancy-related issues. Let's hope it's shifting a bit now.

I can see why it would bother you, but that certainly wasn’t the case when I trained - we were absolutely taught about the differences, using skeletons of both genders. Watch any episode of Time Team and you will see the osteo-archaeologists sexing the skeletons - that is what we were taught (obviously not in as much detail, but we were definitely taught about it).

This is like the “GPs only spend half a day learning about the menopause” claim - complete nonsense, but people latch onto it.