A recent study purporting to examine the transmission and clinical features of monkeypox in women conducted its research on a sample where nearly half of the participants were male.
The study, published in prominent medical journal The Lancet in November, was titled “human monkeypox virus infection in women and non-binary individuals during the 2022 outbreaks: a global case series,” and sought to contribute to the data on confirmed monkeypox cases in women. It surveyed 136 people from May 11 until October 4, and pulled the respondents from multiple countries.
Of the 136 “women” included in the study, 62 were trans-identified males. The remaining 74 respondents were described as “assigned female at birth,” including 69 “cis women” and five “non-binary individuals.”
While introducing the paper, the authors “hypothesized that the transmission routes and clinical presentation of monkeypox virus in the current outbreaks might not be the same for women as for GBMSM [gay, bisexual, men who have sex with men], and that presentations might also differ between cis and trans women.”
The majority of the trans-identified males involved in the study were also living with HIV, had multiple male partners, and were involved in the sex trade.
“37 (27%) of all individuals were living with HIV, with a higher proportion among trans women (31 [50%] of 62) than among cis women and non-binary individuals (six [8%] of 74),” the study states, going on to show to show that 73% of the trans-identified males had multiple male sexual partners within one month of the study being conducted, compared to 12% of “cis women and non-binary individuals.”
The study also noted similarities in the way the disease is transmitted and presents in “trans women” and men, but observes that these similarities did not extend to those “assigned female at birth.”
When outlining the implications of the study, the authors group all results together, and state that “special attention must be paid to avoid delayed diagnosis and misdiagnosis in women.” This is despite having found that it was significantly more likely for “cis women” to be misdiagnosed than “trans women.”
According to the Center for Infectious Disease Policy and Research, 99% of monkeypox cases identified in the United States have been in males, with 94% reporting recent homosexual intimate contact.
Screenshots of The Lancet article began to make the rounds on Twitter this week, inviting ample mockery from women’s rights advocates and those critical of gender ideology.
“Apparently there has been an unexplained increase in the incidence of testicular cancer among women too,” Twitter user Ian McLean wrote in response to a screenshot of the article posted by Anne Brøndum.
“This is an utterly ridiculous study. Biomedical scientists have swallowed the Kool-Aid. Now research is going to be harder to interpret because of this obfuscation,” another user wrote.
This is not the first time The Lancet has come under scrutiny from those concerned with female erasure.
In September of 2021, the editor-in-chief of the publication was forced to issue a video apology following widespread backlash after releasing an article in which women were described as “bodies with vaginas.”
The article, which was a review of an exhibit about the history of menstruation at the Vagina Museum in London, was featured on The Lancet‘s front page with a prominent quote reading: “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”
Researchers have found that “gender inclusive” language, especially when used in specific medical contexts, can result in negative outcomes for women.
A collaborative research effort led by Australian academic Karlene Gribble concluded that so-called “inclusive language” had “consequences that have serious implications for women and children.” Gribble’s study focused around the neutralization of language in reproductive healthcare, and argued that it risked dehumanizing women.
“Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive,” Gribble and her colleagues wrote. “Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.”
Gribble and her team of 10 global women’s healthcare experts went on to assert that neutralizing the language around motherhood, including “disembodying and undermining breastfeeding,” would result in “reducing protection of the mother-infant [bond].”
A co-author of the paper, midwifery professor Jenny Gamble, said that sex-based language “is important due to sex-based oppression,” and that neutralizing and confusing terms to refer to females “risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women.”
Reduxx is a newly-launched independent source of pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding news and commentary. We’re 100% reader-funded! Support our mission by joining our Patreon, or consider making a one-time donation.
