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.

Yes you do keep saying that
fair enough 🤷‍♀️

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

The more I'm thinking about it the more I'm baffled by the choice of their cohort. It makes no sense unless you either want to draw attention to the fact that sex matters (good!) or if you want to hide that you are mostly interested in risk-factors like prostitution (especially between men) and drug use but didn't want to spell it out.

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.

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

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'?

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

This language fuckery isn't a good thing, however you slice it.

I don't understand the sense of using trans women. The fact these biological men decided to put on a frock doesn't change their sex, or make any difference to how a virus behaves. Why not just compare men and women. The world has gone mad.

You’re saying that from now on it’s perfectly ok to read a piece of medical research in the world’s highest impact journal and have to mentally substitute words to make sure it makes sense.

How is that acceptable?

It’s unethical to pass off this piece of research as being solely about women, when it’s about people.

“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 curious? 🤔

It's fascinating how inviolable men's "consent" apparently is. Even medical papers must be butchered if it's thought a man might withhold some "consent" about a word used about them.

Certainly much more powerful than women's "consent". Women's lack of consent for men in their spaces is routinely overruled, and the notion about women being able to withhold consent for terminology doesn't even occur to anyone.