Study of Monkeypox in Women in the Lancet

[Igneococcus]

Have a guess what percentage of the study are actually women.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02187-0/fulltext#:~:text=The%20clinical%20features%20of%20monkeypox%20in%20women%20and,anal%20and%20genital%20lesions%20with%20prominent%20mucosal%20involvement.

The study makes it clear that trans women are distinct from women

Sex is the key marker here.

Why even mention 'cis'. It is not relevant in any scientific studies. Sex is key.

No one is pretending they’ve changed sex. But by using language that is more ‘palatable’ to the baying crowd, the authors have underscored the sex based differences that are evident in this sample - and cannot be accused of being terfs when doing so

Woman should not be on the same category as trans woman. We are fundamentally different. It can't be changed.

Transwoman are male so should be in that category.

They aren’t in the same category though - they’re a different group

did you actually read it?

yes, and quite cleverly the authors have made that clear without overtly saying so

Anatomically, anogenital lesions were reflective of sexual practices: vulvovaginal lesions predominated in cis women and non-binary individuals and anorectal features predominated in trans women.

This is quite straight talking for the Lancet, tbh. The authors haven't shied away from using anatomical terms in preference to the ghastly Front Hole, for example.

If the study is looking at monkeypox in women, then why include biological men within the study?

If they're looking at men and women, then just report on male and female differences

I saw it a few days ago.

It don't see why the comparison against woman is useful here at all.

What is clear is that moneybox is more prevalent in men than women. That is the key thing here.

"One (2%) of 60 trans women had vulvar lesions, and none had vaginal lesions."

I wonder why that is.

Because then they wouldn’t be able to make it abundantly clear in their findings that trans women are not women.

which they’ve done very nicely

I thought it was a really important article actually - yes the language is tiresome, but the data shows undeniably that TW are not W, as there are such distinctions in the populations. What was most interesting to me is that a very high proportion of the TW in the study are sex workers, or have multiple male sexual partners. It lays bare differences in attitudes to sex and sexualised behaviour, and differences in infection. It could not be clearer that these two populations of ‘women’ are in fact nothing alike.

I know, Ig, I could sit here on my tod all night and still not figure it out.

But they shouldn't have to do that - that's my gripe.

Medical research should not be captured by this ideology.

In my personal opinion, pandering to the ideology diminishes the results of the research.

Now.my opinion doesn't really matter, but I am very concerned about the bastardisation of language and the impact that will have on women and young girls.

I noticed the percentage of sex workers too. I actually wonder if the authors were interested in sex work and monkeypox rather than women and monkeypox because why would they have included so many transwomen in a study that is supposedly about women.

I did find it bloody annoying when they said 'we grouped the nonbinary AFAB people with the cis women because, erm, might as well' and didn't say 'because they're all female'. Shows that increasingly 'female' is becoming as disputed as 'woman'.

But apart from that and the title, useful study.

The thing that I found quite worrying was the fact that 50% of the transwomen have HIV surely this should be of concern to everyone involved in preventing the spread of STIs as clearly something is going seriously wrong with the messages being sent out if half of any group is contracting a fatal disease (when untreated)

I agree

but it has been.

and I’m grateful there are researchers who are still fighting back even if they have to play by new rules.

the lancet is still well regarded and reaches a wide audience.

their writing make the ridiculousness of the situation clear to a large audience

51% women and 46% transwomen.

56% of transwomen were sex workers. 3% of women were sex workers.

This is the first line of the Interpretation section:

The clinical features of monkeypox in women and non-binary individuals were similar to those described in men

So it appears that there’s no sex-based difference. But this is not true. Monkeypox disease IS different, because women - actual women - don’t get anal lesions at the same rate as men. The inclusion of men with anal lesions as women makes it appear that anal lesions are common in women.

It’s an absolute joke of a paper and ridiculous interpretation.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.