WTF - #WomenInStroke

[IamAporcupine]

I work in the medical genetics field and I have just found in my inbox an invitation for the following webinar:
"Stroke in cis/trans women: current data on clinical trials, hormonal therapies and stroke prevention"
This is part of 'Women In Stroke' for IWD, ffs.

In parallel there are other brief case report presentations on 'the suboptimal treatment and how diagnosis of acute stroke is often missed in women'

I am speechless.

#WomenInStroke - World Stroke Academy (world-stroke-academy.org)

[Froodwithatowel]

.... so if a man says 'I identify as a woman' - they will present with the female pattern of symptoms and not male ones?

On what research exactly? So very very tired of this penis patting.

[Brefugee]

oh god this is why we should be recording Biological Sex (in medicine, in crime, every-bloody-where) and if necessary add Gender Identity (because that helps us in some ways, and not in others)

Because otherwise we get more trans men presenting to ER in labour and dying.

[Cazpar]

It doesn't look like it's at all related to IWD? There's an IWD statement at the top of the page but the webinars - past and future - are all further down the page and appear unrelated.

Although I'm unsure about the inclusion of trans women in the webinar / positioning them as the same as "cis" women, I'm sure there is data published which shows a heightened stroke risk in TW taking female hormones. So I can understand from some angles why it's being covered in the webinar.

[tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz]

@Cazpar

It doesn't look like it's at all related to IWD? There's an IWD statement at the top of the page but the webinars - past and future - are all further down the page and appear unrelated.

Although I'm unsure about the inclusion of trans women in the webinar / positioning them as the same as "cis" women, I'm sure there is data published which shows a heightened stroke risk in TW taking female hormones. So I can understand from some angles why it's being covered in the webinar.

Bit this is medical data/research ... surely bunging in data of women with a penis who may have taken some oestrogen is not relevant?

[Cazpar]

@tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz

Bit this is medical data/research ... surely bunging in data of women with a penis who may have taken some oestrogen is not relevant?

Well the webinar makes it clear that it's covering trans women as well, and the title is "Stroke in cis/trans women: current data on clinical trials, hormonal therapies and stroke prevention" (emphasis my own).

It does seem to me like TW would be covered by hormonal therapies. So although I don't agree with the categorisation, I can see why they thought it was relevant.

The webinar itself is obviously not a study - I can't speak for the data which supports the studies which the webinar will be referencing. I don't know if the underlying studies included TW with women or whether there are separate studies.

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

@IamAporcupine

I work in the medical genetics field and I have just found in my inbox an invitation for the following webinar:
"Stroke in cis/trans women: current data on clinical trials, hormonal therapies and stroke prevention"
This is part of 'Women In Stroke' for IWD, ffs.

In parallel there are other brief case report presentations on 'the suboptimal treatment and how diagnosis of acute stroke is often missed in women'

I am speechless.

#WomenInStroke - World Stroke Academy (world-stroke-academy.org)

Actually this programme makes sense. They are looking at females (underrepresented in clinical trials), people who take oestrogen (could be both women and transwomen), and social factors affecting the treatment of trans stroke patients. It seems like a good idea to study all these problems, and it's not their fault that the problems exist, because of misogyny/mad ideology/whatever. Their language is clear, also.

But where are the trans men? Doesn't testosterone affect stroke risk?

[IamAporcupine]

@Cazpar

It doesn't look like it's at all related to IWD? There's an IWD statement at the top of the page but the webinars - past and future - are all further down the page and appear unrelated.

Although I'm unsure about the inclusion of trans women in the webinar / positioning them as the same as "cis" women, I'm sure there is data published which shows a heightened stroke risk in TW taking female hormones. So I can understand from some angles why it's being covered in the webinar.

You are right, is not part of IWD, just the general Women In Stroke, which is worst in my opinion. Not sure how to edit my OP.

If TW are more at risk (than who?) then there should be proper research on the subject and it should be clearly stated when discussed 'gender affirming' care etc etc. But they have zero relevance in the context of sex-specific medical research.

I can't believe one of the discussion points in this seminar is "Are females underrepresented in clinical trials?"

FFS

[Cazpar]

@theilltemperedclavecinist

Actually this programme makes sense. They are looking at females (underrepresented in clinical trials), people who take oestrogen (could be both women and transwomen), and social factors affecting the treatment of trans stroke patients. It seems like a good idea to study all these problems, and it's not their fault that the problems exist, because of misogyny/mad ideology/whatever. Their language is clear, also.

But where are the trans men? Doesn't testosterone affect stroke risk?

I wondered that, but perhaps the focus is on those taking female hormone therapy, or perhaps trans men are included in the "female" groups mentioned?

[IamAporcupine]

Also, it is interesting that transmen are not even mentioned

[Froodwithatowel]

Male people who take female hormones are obviously going to have unique medical needs and presentations.

But lumping them in with female people is medically unhelpful, disadvantages and confuses the issues specific to female medical care, and is just ego boosting the male people by saying 'look at us treating you as 'real' women'.

As usual, male ego is the primary driving force, and women are sacrificed to propping it up.

[ScrotumGantry]

Surely even if a TW is taking oestrogen, he isn't necessarily taking the same amount as a woman, and even if he is taking the exact same amount of the same drug as a women, the effect on his male body would not necessarily be the same as the effect of the same amount of the same drug on a female body. Because as you know biology and pharmakinetics are legendarily transphobic.

It's just not good science.

[Cazpar]

@IamAporcupine

You are right, is not part of IWD, just the general Women In Stroke, which is worst in my opinion. Not sure how to edit my OP.

If TW are more at risk (than who?) then there should be proper research on the subject and it should be clearly stated when discussed 'gender affirming' care etc etc. But they have zero relevance in the context of sex-specific medical research.

I can't believe one of the discussion points in this seminar is "Are females underrepresented in clinical trials?"

FFS

If TW are more at risk (than who?)

Than men not taking female hormones.

then there should be proper research on the subject

Pretty sure there is a fair amount of this out there.

But they have zero relevance in the context of sex-specific medical research.

Agreed, but this is a webinar looking at the effects of hormone therapies in women and in trans women and reporting the most recent clinical studies. It doesn't necessarily mean the two have been conflated in the underlying studies.

[ScrotumGantry]

The only advantage here is that if men are now affected by <insert disease> then the money might fall off the magic money tree to actually research it. Like now men can get endometriosis I'm sure it's going less than 10 years to diagnose it😑

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

Agreed, but this is a webinar looking at the effects of hormone therapies in women and in trans women and reporting the most recent clinical studies. It doesn't necessarily mean the two have been conflated in the underlying studies.

They've bundled some disparate but slightly adjacent topics. I don't think they did it to give transwomen 'webinar euphoria'. The description makes it far too obvious that females and transwomen are different things (the bigots!)

[Brefugee]

I can't believe one of the discussion points in this seminar is "Are females underrepresented in clinical trials?"

the only issue I'd have with that is that actually as we know it isn't a question so they need to reword: females are underrepresented in clinical trials.

I recently re-read Invisible Women. And frankly i think that everyone involved in any kind of trials and research (conducting or reporting on it) should just be shouting "will there be sex disaggregated data avaliable?" followed by "why not?"

[IamAporcupine]

@Cazpar

If TW are more at risk (than who?)

Than men not taking female hormones.

then there should be proper research on the subject

Pretty sure there is a fair amount of this out there.

But they have zero relevance in the context of sex-specific medical research.

Agreed, but this is a webinar looking at the effects of hormone therapies in women and in trans women and reporting the most recent clinical studies. It doesn't necessarily mean the two have been conflated in the underlying studies.

I could agree with you, but the fact that transmen are not even mentioned makes me think that is not the real motivation.

I'll report back after the webinar....

[Brainworm]

This is the sort of things TRAs should be campaigning on. Pretty much every other minority group I can think of ask to be studied as a discrete group when their characteristics mean they are likely to have different issues/presentation etc.

If ideology wasn't at play, TRAs would be wanting health risks that come with the healthcare they seek (hormones, surgery etc.) to be understood and mitigated. Instead, they obsess on perception and optics.

Important questions:
What acute and chronic risks come with taking cross sex hormones (these are not hormone replacements!). More specifically, testosterone with natal females and oestrogen in natal males.
Then, when this is established, the questions linked to spotting symptoms early within these populations should be identified, alongside the best treatment pathways.

It is crazy that those supposedly 'advocating' for trans people are focussing on language, micro aggressions and being included in the sex group they don't belong to.

I can't think of any other activist groups doing the same

[endofthelinefinally]

It is not very clearly presented, but the risks of taking wrong sex hormones need to be studied and widely publicised. An acquaintence who had transitioned m to f died from a massive stroke. The medical staff at the time said that the medication was probably the cause. That person had just turned 40 and it was devastating for the family. People need to know the risks.

[Cazpar]

@theilltemperedclavecinist

Agreed, but this is a webinar looking at the effects of hormone therapies in women and in trans women and reporting the most recent clinical studies. It doesn't necessarily mean the two have been conflated in the underlying studies.

They've bundled some disparate but slightly adjacent topics. I don't think they did it to give transwomen 'webinar euphoria'. The description makes it far too obvious that females and transwomen are different things (the bigots!)

Yes I agree. I think the categorisation of them into the same webinar is clumsy but given the linguistic separation I suspect this is an attempt to try and cover as much ground in one webinar as possible rather than trying to meet some sort of D&I quota.

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

@Cazpar

Yes I agree. I think the categorisation of them into the same webinar is clumsy but given the linguistic separation I suspect this is an attempt to try and cover as much ground in one webinar as possible rather than trying to meet some sort of D&I quota.

OP is planning to attend, so we might find out.

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

@Brainworm

This is the sort of things TRAs should be campaigning on. Pretty much every other minority group I can think of ask to be studied as a discrete group when their characteristics mean they are likely to have different issues/presentation etc.

If ideology wasn't at play, TRAs would be wanting health risks that come with the healthcare they seek (hormones, surgery etc.) to be understood and mitigated. Instead, they obsess on perception and optics.

Important questions:
What acute and chronic risks come with taking cross sex hormones (these are not hormone replacements!). More specifically, testosterone with natal females and oestrogen in natal males.
Then, when this is established, the questions linked to spotting symptoms early within these populations should be identified, alongside the best treatment pathways.

It is crazy that those supposedly 'advocating' for trans people are focussing on language, micro aggressions and being included in the sex group they don't belong to.

I can't think of any other activist groups doing the same

Excellent point. It's an incoherent mess that is already causing massive harm - just look at all the mentally vulnerable young people who've had their bodies wrecked from experimental / unevidenced drugs and surgery.

Political activism should have no place in medicine - as @Brefugee commented:
"everyone involved in any kind of trials and research (conducting or reporting on it) should just be shouting "will there be sex disaggregated data avaliable?" followed by "why not?"

[ChateauMargaux]

After centuries of being overlooked in medical research, when we finally are acknowledged as needing separate consideration, we have to share the stage, the webinar and most likely the research funding with special men. I have no doubt, that the proportion of time and money spend on this, spent on men, will far outweigh the number of women affected, meanwhile over in the gender medicine sector.... no one is talking about implications and side effects.

[tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz]

@Froodwithatowel

Male people who take female hormones are obviously going to have unique medical needs and presentations.

But lumping them in with female people is medically unhelpful, disadvantages and confuses the issues specific to female medical care, and is just ego boosting the male people by saying 'look at us treating you as 'real' women'.

As usual, male ego is the primary driving force, and women are sacrificed to propping it up.

Quite - surely the most logical next group would be transmen?

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

@ChateauMargaux

After centuries of being overlooked in medical research, when we finally are acknowledged as needing separate consideration, we have to share the stage, the webinar and most likely the research funding with special men. I have no doubt, that the proportion of time and money spend on this, spent on men, will far outweigh the number of women affected, meanwhile over in the gender medicine sector.... no one is talking about implications and side effects.

This.

[IamAporcupine]

Update for anyone interested

Seminar consisted of 3 talks:

1. A female Prof from Slovakia, spesialised in cerebrovascular disease, gave a very good talk re the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials, the possible social and physical reasons for this, and its implications for treatment and prevention. She had one slide mentioning 'pregnant and lactating people' which seemed a bit like an afterthought to me.
   
   
2. A male Dr/PhD from Spain also spesialised in cerebrovascular disease, gave an excellent talk on HRT and its risk and benefits from a hollistic perspective. There was only a brief comment in passing re the particular circumnstances of transwomen undergoing hormonal treatment.
   
   
3. A female PhD in coronary disease from the Netherlands gave a talk on the particular risks in transgender people. She started with the definition of transgender individual and mentioned 'sex assigned at birth' and 'gender identity'. She continued with the rainbow flag and a statement re the vulnerable minority and the effect of stress in cardiovasculat risk. There was a slight enphasis on transwomen (but I might be biased here). The rest of the talk was good (even though she was not an engaging speaker) and concluded that both transwomen/men were at increased risk of stroke and thrombosis.
   
   There were Q&A afterwards. Some interesting ones were:
   

• are there any studies looking at stress/risk in gay/lesbian individuals?
• if recruitment for women in clinical trails is low, could we include transwomen? (by the chair of the webinar 😳)

Overall, I think it was good and relatively balanced, with a dose of look how inclusive we are. My initial reaction was probably unnecessary.