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.

They would have had to have asked all of the groups how they identified, not just the trans women group

This explains the aim of this research

“Furthermore, most epidemiological surveillance datasets have not distinguished between cis and trans women, thereby prohibiting a detailed description and characterisation of any differences in these two subpopulations, which are generally under-represented and under-reported in HIV and sexual health research.“

We are a sub population, not sure how to feel about that, are men also a sub population I wonder, but clearly it is true that distinctions need to be made between the two groups in this study. We do need clear data collection.

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

This.

They would have had to have asked all of the groups how they identified, not just the trans women group

So unless you want to be labelled "cisgender" you can't be part of the cohort? Can you really not see the problem there? The problem, is calling a group of males any kind of women. They are not, and we're just dancing around the issue.

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.

Yes, it's quite striking.

But there would have been no option to simply state woman. A factor of the research then is that all participants believe in or support belief in gender identity theory. Women who believe in the importance of sex and sex based language are excluded from the study. Perhaps if the study had used sex based terminology the men would have refused to participate. I suspect therefore that they were the unstated target of the research, men who have sex with men but who are uncomfortable with being referred to by their sex.

Not saying I'd have written it like that,
but it's far from being the most confusingly presented paper I've read.

And who knows, maybe they originally submitted it to the lancet as a comparison of males and females and got told to go away and rewrite their hideous piece of bigotry

I'm wondering if saying gender identity was bullshit would just get you put in the non-binary box

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.

Agree with this. The findings may be important, but the language muddies it and makes comprehension difficult, at best. And it makes an interested layperson like me trust the Lancet, and by extension science, rather less, not more.

Perhaps if the study had used sex based terminology the men would have refused to participate.

Is this a wholly new idea? How would they even know?

It has never even occurred to me that participants in a study would get any sort of say on the editorial policy of any resulting paper.

Not saying I'd have written it like that,
but it's far from being the most confusingly presented paper I've read.

The data shows a notable difference in disease between men and women, but the conclusion says the disease pattern is similar. That’s not just confusingly presented, it’s outright misleading its findings.

And who knows, maybe they originally submitted it to the lancet as a comparison of males and females and got told to go away and rewrite their hideous piece of bigotry

In which case a LTE would be required to get them to clarify, was it the authors or the editors who are a big bunch of sexists? Hopefully someone like Susan Bewley is on the case.

This bit was interesting:

Monkeypox virus infection was treated with the antiviral tecovirimat in a higher proportion of trans women (21 [34%] of 62) than cis women and non-binary individuals (12 [16%] of 74).

So some of these 'women 'were more likely to get appropriate medical treatment than others, a division by sex that often comes up in research. Despite the TW cohort having more flags for vulnerability etc, which you'd usually expect to reduce levels of treatment.

Could be due to more prompt diagnosis I guess, monkeypox is more likely to come to mind when treating TW sex workers than married heterosexual women who think their husband is faithful

I agree. This does seem to be a new trend probably with the intention of being respectful to participants but with consequences of reducing the clarity of the study and the strength of the data. Queering science seems like a terrible idea. Who is the study for in the first instance? I would have thought it would have been aimed at fellow scientists, medical professionals, and the makers of public policy not the participants.

It’s so cringe when non-scientists think they know more about what a scientist
studies than they do.

Even with the more literate here who have actually read the study trying to explain the relevance it’s amazing how many people think they can just say ‘they used a word I don’t like so all their work is valid’ or ‘the lancet once published something I disagree with so it’s not valid’ 😂 sure sweetie.

Well fortunately in the scientific world you have to have a bit more base to your arguments than that.

Although if you have well thought out objections and have reached a similar level of education in a similar field as the researchers who published this, you’re always able to offer to peer review

I took from the summary that the incidence of Monkeypox is influenced by who you have sex with - men who have sex with men - rather than sex or gender.

However this is muddied by this:
121 (89%) of 136 individuals reported sex with men which is not broken down. ‘Cis’ Men? Trans men? Trans women?

And the other major takeaway for me was this:

most epidemiological surveillance datasets have not distinguished between cis and trans women, thereby prohibiting a detailed description and characterisation of any differences in these two subpopulations,21,
22 which are generally under-represented and under-reported in HIV and sexual health research.23

The idiocy of translating gender identification into medical studies means that women are not being accurately studied. I find it alarming that most mass epidemiological studies do not distinguish by sex. Male and female.

It is typical of this that the study describes women as a subset of their own sex, and maybe these researchers and the Lancet need to take their own conclusions and see that this creates a disservice to everyone. For example, Transwomen seem not to get the healthcare they need if their HIV status / risk is viewed overall statistically as if they are women.

The study seems to dismantle some traps (in separating data for Transwomen from women) but leaves other traps in place.

OK. So what base is there to "non-binary" in the example under discussion? What does it mean, and what material link does it have to the study of monkeypox?

It’s so cringe when non-scientists think they know more about what a scientist
studies than they do

You don’t have to be a scientist to know what a woman is and when a scientific paper is describing men.

Even with the more literate here who have actually read the study trying to explain the relevance

The relevance of the paper is that it shows sex-based differences between the disease in men and women. So why didn’t the conclusion state that?

it’s amazing how many people think they can just say ‘they used a word I don’t like so all their work is valid’ or ‘the lancet once published something I disagree with so it’s not valid’ 😂 sure sweetie

Any paper that uses women to describe men is partaking in the erosion of women and doing nothing to advance the health knowledge of women. Any journal that encourages that should be challenged.

Although if you have well thought out objections and have reached a similar level of education in a similar field as the researchers who published this, you’re always able to offer to peer review

I have and I have and I do offer it and have done previously. If I’d been asked to peer review this paper, I would have made the same objections.

@SomePosters did you have a comment to make on the paper,
or did you just come on to be rude?

You have no idea of any of our backgrounds or experience so your patronising tone is rather off.

Fwiw I've never heard an actual scientist describe anything as 'so cringe', and generally they're very enthusiastic about explaining and discussing things in lay terms. I have met a few dickheads who speak to people like you just did though mostly consultants

This does seem to be a new trend probably with the intention of being respectful to participants but with consequences of reducing the clarity of the study and the strength of the data.

I can buy arguments about "using terminology for a group that the group likes". Normally wouldn't affect clarity significantly, if at all. (Although you'll never get 100% consensus on preferred terminology, and you're opening yourself up to euphemism treadmills).

But when a group specifically wants to be referred to as another group, that's quite another matter, and the requirement for clarity should effectively cut that out.

Plus it seems like maybe it would be respectful to that other group to not just go along with the appropriation without them getting a say? Unless they're women of course, in which case, fuck them.

Non binary means whatever it means… the point in this study is that female subjects identifying as non binary have been categorised as female. This this study, unlike other epidemiological studies, differentiates between adult human females and other people who include ‘woman’ or ‘non binary’ in their self id.

female subjects identifying as non binary have been categorised as female.

So it means no more than if females identified as having a strong feeling about enjoying the weekend or not, then. It means nothing in this context.

There rises the question - what is this term doing in a study like this? It's reasonable to question it and without it having a real, tangible link to anything, to be concerned that this is part of a number of efforts we have seen in a number of papers and policy etc, to normalise this term.

The effect of normalising it - if we don't push back - will eventually be to erase women. This is extremely concerning to women.

“Vulvovaginal lesions from are more common” in biological (refuse to use cis) women - who would have thought? What about any lesions on the transwomen’s penises? I think that data piece is missing.

maybe I should be a scientist? I could accurately have predicted that any lesions in certain genitalia would be more common in the cohort which possessed said genitalia.

do you think I would get a grant for replicating this study but looking for penis lesions ? I predict this will be higher in transwomen than in biological women.

Why don't you address some of the points raised @SomePosters ?
Maybe start with why a study that claims to look at women includes men in their cohort. I mean, if I run a study on ruminants (as I sometimes do) I would have to come up with a good reason if I'd want to include pigs, or chickens. So, why does a study about women include men, unless it's clearly labelled as a control group?

Professor Chloe Orkin one of the co-authors and researcher of this study has described the findings of the study in her Twitter feed - twitter.com/profchloeorkin/status/1593387674718568449?s=46&t=WSMJlRgO44haUf5Fg5nt9w

What makes you think we aren't scientists?

Oh I see, mumsnet users must all be mummies with no education.

<cringe>

I had no idea 'cringe' was a technical term. How science. Much impressive, Sweetie.