Scientists Pinpoint Cause of Morning Sickness To Hormone Made By Fetus 145
Scientists have pinpointed the cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, "finding that the severity of illness is influenced by how much of a hormone called GDF15 the growing fetus makes," reports Science Magazine. The findings have been published in the journal Nature. From the report: GDF15 is present in the blood of nonpregnant people and is known to be associated with nausea; it's also been tested as a weight loss aid because of its tendency to suppress appetite. Levels of the hormone rise sharply in early pregnancy and increase throughout gestation. Pregnant people with higher GDF15 concentrations have been documented as having a higher risk of vomiting and nausea. Some researchers suggest the hormone-caused aversion to some smells and tastes might encourage an expectant parent to avoid foods potentially dangerous to the fetus.
To find out more about GDF15 changes during pregnancy, University of Cambridge physician-scientist Stephen O'Rahilly and colleagues studied half a dozen pregnant people who were known from previous genetic screening to produce a slightly different version of the GDF15 protein from their fetuses. Researchers could take advantage of that difference to trace whether GDF15 in the parent's blood originated in the parental or fetal genome: Almost all of it came from the fetus, O'Rahilly says. The team also took a closer look at the link between GDF15 levels and pregnancy sickness. Consistent with previous research, questionnaires from more than 300 participants showed that people who reported vomiting and nausea had significantly higher levels of circulating GDF15 on average than people without these symptoms. The researchers also found elevated levels of GDF15 in an analysis of more than 50 women hospitalized with hyperemesis gravidarum.
Still, hormone levels alone couldn't explain the difference in sickness severity. "There was a big overlap" in GDF15 levels between the groups, O'Rahilly says. He and co-author Marlena Fejzo, a researcher at the University of Southern California, suspected that people's sensitivity to GDF15 might also play a role. (Fejzo began to study the condition after her own pregnancy loss following hyperemesis gravidarum.) To test the idea, the researchers studied 10 nonpregnant people with a rare genetic variant known to carry a heightened risk of hyperemesis gravidarum. These people had reduced GDF15 levels in their blood, hinting that naturally low levels of the hormone might predispose someone to sickness during pregnancy. The researchers found the opposite when they asked 20 pregnant people with beta thalassemia, a blood disorder associated with high GDF15 levels, about their pregnancy symptoms: Just 5% of this group reported nausea or vomiting. O'Rahilly's lab found a similar pattern in animal experiments.
To find out more about GDF15 changes during pregnancy, University of Cambridge physician-scientist Stephen O'Rahilly and colleagues studied half a dozen pregnant people who were known from previous genetic screening to produce a slightly different version of the GDF15 protein from their fetuses. Researchers could take advantage of that difference to trace whether GDF15 in the parent's blood originated in the parental or fetal genome: Almost all of it came from the fetus, O'Rahilly says. The team also took a closer look at the link between GDF15 levels and pregnancy sickness. Consistent with previous research, questionnaires from more than 300 participants showed that people who reported vomiting and nausea had significantly higher levels of circulating GDF15 on average than people without these symptoms. The researchers also found elevated levels of GDF15 in an analysis of more than 50 women hospitalized with hyperemesis gravidarum.
Still, hormone levels alone couldn't explain the difference in sickness severity. "There was a big overlap" in GDF15 levels between the groups, O'Rahilly says. He and co-author Marlena Fejzo, a researcher at the University of Southern California, suspected that people's sensitivity to GDF15 might also play a role. (Fejzo began to study the condition after her own pregnancy loss following hyperemesis gravidarum.) To test the idea, the researchers studied 10 nonpregnant people with a rare genetic variant known to carry a heightened risk of hyperemesis gravidarum. These people had reduced GDF15 levels in their blood, hinting that naturally low levels of the hormone might predispose someone to sickness during pregnancy. The researchers found the opposite when they asked 20 pregnant people with beta thalassemia, a blood disorder associated with high GDF15 levels, about their pregnancy symptoms: Just 5% of this group reported nausea or vomiting. O'Rahilly's lab found a similar pattern in animal experiments.
GDF15 is linked to eating carbs (Score:3, Informative)
The nutrient-induced increase in GDF15 levels depends on rapid glucose and insulin excursions following fast-digesting carbohydrates, but not on the amount of calories taken in.
Re: GDF15 is linked to eating carbs (Score:2)
Obvious solution (Score:3)
Re: Obvious solution (Score:2)
"Pregnant people" alarm (Score:3, Insightful)
This signal is useful because you know that you can't trust what the rest of the article says. Serious people don't says this. Serious editors wouldn't let it pass. Serious journals wouldn't publish such things. 'Nature' has been captured. Keep that in mind when reading things that don't seem to make sense - it may not be your inability to comprehend the paper that is the problem.
Re: "Pregnant people" alarm (Score:2)
Back to 4chan it is then.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
Politics and money drive science now. Look at the tidal wave of bogus "science" being published by the journals if you want proof.
Re: (Score:2)
This signal is useful because you know that you can't trust what the rest of the article says. Serious people don't says this. Serious editors wouldn't let it pass. Serious journals wouldn't publish such things. 'Nature' has been captured. Keep that in mind when reading things that don't seem to make sense - it may not be your inability to comprehend the paper that is the problem.
The signal is useful because it helps us identify precious snowflakes who are triggered by accurate scientific language.
Does this study apply to the genetically XY woman who gave birth?
Does the study apply to a transgender male who can still get pregnant and give birth?
I would think the answer is yes in both cases, so why then are you insisting the researchers use less accurate language? Is it really that traumatizing to be confronted with the idea that biology isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Trans men and intersex people can get pregnant. That's just a fact. Isn't it great that modern medicine both understands that, and can help people assigned female at birth make a successful and happy transition to being male?
Ironic that your username is Dr Who, a show famously willing to accept diverse concepts. The Doctor would shrug and ask "don't men get pregnant on your world?"
Probably don't want to suppress it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this doesn't lead to a treatment which suppresses GDF15. While I don't like mothers feeling sick, if that's necessary to protect the health of the fetus, then leave it be. It's only a few months (Or less? I don't know--I inherited grown stepchildren)
The modern-day approach to a situation like this will likely be to find some way to block the parent's response to the increased levels of this hormone, rather than block the hormone itself. The trick will be finding something that blocks the nausea trigger that doesn't block the effects the hormone has on the uterus, the mother, or the child gestating in her womb. But we love our chemical alterations right now. And somebody, somewhere, is seeing the results of this study and seeing dollar signs in their ey
Re: (Score:2)
Which parent? As the father of two children, I am a parent. Do I get to experience this GDF15 response too? No? Why not?!?! Don't oppress me!
Re: (Score:1)
And then 10 years later after babies have been born with extra arms there will be a massive lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly likely that thalidomide blocks this pathway.
It was quite safe and effective (for the mother).
We shouldn't mess with Nature that we don't understand. As another commenter here alludes to, an evolutionary diet prevents most of the wild swings of this hormone.
Sorry, ladies - Ben & Jerry's isn't good pregnancy food. Have a ribeye.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't like mothers feeling sick, if that's necessary to protect the health of the fetus
It isn't the fetus' choice. Mother's choice. It's not baby, not a person. Right?
Re: Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:2, Insightful)
At least we there are things about 'pregnant people' we don't need to guess about, like a uterus and a vagina, probably ovaries. 'Non-pregnant people' is somewhat less informative. Did that person have a uterus and ovaries? Was this study so woke that they included people without ovaries in the non-pregnant group?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so stupid as to not even understand what a non pregnant person is?
Either a male or a female, and by context a human. Did I get the answer correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations you're smart enough and not too much of a snowflake to read the study.
Gee, thank you.
If only everyone was that smart.
For the bonus round, do you understand what a pregnant person is?
A woman.
Re: (Score:3)
You're strange - call me a snowflake yet you're the one with a complex. I expect nothing less from people who hide behind the name "Anonymous Coward".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd correctly mod you down for being offtopic.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd correctly mod you down for being offtopic.
You would incorrectly mod me down because the truth upsets you.
I modded your post down as off-topic. The reason for this was because your post was off topic.
I'd mod every post in the thread down if I could, but I run out of mod points, sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
Except for when you're running away from ACs and hoping nobody will notice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate seeing people pretending there is no "normality", no "default", no "usually" about anything and rephrase their language pretending to include the rarest of special cases.
Even if something is true for 99.9% of people, we are forced to pretend it isn't, or that the other 0.001% have enough importance to change every sentence and phrase in every document and every speech. As if human activity, values, speech, society, processes etc would be wrong or even evil, if they did not accomodate for every single
Re: Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:5, Insightful)
In a scientific article there is little room for "mostly correct" and "generally applicable".
Re: (Score:2)
Changing a previously well-defined category "MOTHER" from meaning "human with xx chromosomes and a set of more-or-less functional female organs" into a category that also includes "humans with xy chromosomes and no uterus, but wearing skirts and makeup" and "humans with xx chromosomes that have a uterus, but take hormones that healthy xx-chromosomed bodies never produce" and all other sorts of genetic and hormonal status, then the science concerning that becomes LESS precise. It is a generalization to the c
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
lol, I was going to post the same thing after reading the summary. WTF "studied half a dozen pregnant people " ? They can't say women.
This is a disease
Re:Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:5, Informative)
Example of a genetic man giving birth, https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk] did take some medical help as their womb was not quite developed.
Re: (Score:3)
Example of a genetic man giving birth, https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk] did take some medical help as their womb was not quite developed.
That's fascinating, particularly the fact that she seemingly used her own eggs.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that person had developed (incompletely) as a female due to androgen insensitivity and so was anatomically female from birth (and presumably before that), but with developmental abnormalities.
Re:Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:4, Insightful)
Something tells me that you'd have also complained if they had said "pregnant women" -- or "... women and girls", or "... females" -- noting something like "Well who else could get pregnant?" So while they could have said any of those to be increasingly specific, "pregnant people" is just as accurate without any hoop-jumping that you'd probably complain about anyway. Why do you even care?
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, what are "nonpregnant people". Does that include males or not?
Re: (Score:3)
I hate seeing science infected by trans ideology.
And I hate how Slashdot is "infected" by people who lack even a basic understanding of science, and refer to science as "ideology."
Let me explain it to you AGAIN.
Humans have three characteristics: 1) Sex, 2) Gender and 3) Orientation.
Sex: Whether you have male or female reproductive organs (or, in some rare cases, both).
Gender: Whether your brain considers you to be a man or a woman, or somewhere in-between.
Orientation: Whether you are sexua
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
what the fuck is wrong with you. âoepregnant peopleâ is just as accurate a term even if you are a bigoted dick who has a problem with trans folks. thereâ(TM)s no reason to be a goddamned bully about a word choice that doesnâ(TM)t reduce accuracy and makes some people feel better just because you arenâ(TM)t one of those people. empathy is a basic skill. learn it.
The problem is it triggers the hateful little person inside him.
You're right that it's completely correct and doesn't contain any ideology, however the small minded bigots will see what they hate in anything, no matter how innocuous.
Re: Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course ive never heard of a first world psychiatric organization that thinks gender dysphoria is a reversible condition (ours certainly doesn't) so I'm a little puzzled as to how you plan to help these folks. An educational campaign suggesting others stop obsessing over a tiny minority that isn't hurting anyone?
But hey, what do well educated experts know, right!?
Re: (Score:2)
One would think a "here you go" reply would show me a major first world psychiatric organization that takes the stance that gender dysphoria is a reversible condition which is what you quote me stating but I guess some folks dont care about their posts making sense.
Let's take a look at that link though. Specifically this part
"Reasons for detransitioning vary, and may include health-related concerns, finding that transition did not alleviate gender dysphoria, a negative social environment, and financial conc
Re: (Score:2)
Of course ive never heard of a first world psychiatric organization that thinks gender dysphoria is a reversible condition (ours certainly doesn't) so I'm a little puzzled as to how you plan to help these folks.
Here you go [wikipedia.org], you're welcome.
From your link:
Estimates of the rate at which detransitioning occurs vary, as do definitions of the term and methodology for measuring the phenomenon. A systematic review of twenty-seven studies conducted in 2018, with a total of 7928 participants, determined that the 'regret rate' was generally less than 1%, with pooled data showing a range from 0.3 to 3.8%.[4] Although some studies cite a range up to 8%, this combines 3% of survey respondents who had de-transitioned at the time of the survey, along with 5
Re: Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:5, Insightful)
As a mentally ill person, perhaps you should take your own advice and not try to change the language then. Seems to me that thinking in binary like you do is a mental illness, next you will be denying the existence of left handed people as 80% of people are right handed it must be the only normal and a mental illness that some prefer using their left hand.
Re:Pregnant people? *eyevroll* (Score:4, Insightful)
STFU, incel. You're not a nerd, you're an ignorant idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe your children got their body parts chopped off, and now you are afraid to realize you were wrong to support their delusion?
Either way, however woke you are you cannot argue with biology. "Pregnant persons" are those that produce certain kind of cells, and those persons are ex
Re:Pregnant People ?! SHAME ON NATURE (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for this is likely that a sentence before, the compare group is "nonpregnant people". Which means that this group may as well contain men because they, too, may have the hormone associated with nausea in their body.
Would it make any relevant difference if they talked about "nonpregnant people and pregnant women" instead of "nonpregnant and pregnant people"? Quite frankly, it simply makes for an easier read to compare two groups that differ just by the qualifier instead of the word for the groups, too.
Re: Pregnant People ?! SHAME ON NATURE (Score:4)
But it doesnâ(TM)t tell us if they compared pregnant women against men or only other women.
Re: (Score:3)
The study itself does specify that all human participants were women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sleeping at the girlfriend's apartment. Duh.
Re: (Score:1)
Replying anonymously as I'm moderating this one. I actually read the paper in Nature. FYI -- the authors consistently use the word "women" when discussing participants in the study. The word "people" appears once in the actual report (in reference to a large genetic database) and once in the acknowledgement section. The TFS was taken from a news article in Science by Catherine Offord.
Re: Pregnant People ?! SHAME ON NATURE (Score:2)
So if the hormone is in the blood pregnant people and non-pregnant people ( meaning everyone else) why not just say 'people.'. I interpreted use of the phrase 'non-pregnant people' in this context to mean non-pregnant biological woman.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess because they want to showcase that the hormone is possible to be present in all people (i.e. the presence is not dependent on pregnancy), and at elevated levels it causes nausea in all people, not just pregnant ones.
That way, you can detach "nausea" from "pregnancy" and instead link the hormone to being the reason for the nausea.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the issue that the world is larger and more complex than some people are able to comprehend. This makes them confused, frustrated, and angry.
Fortunately, many of them are easily distracted by videos of WWE wrestling, UFC fights, or things exploding.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Hicks said it better than I ever could [youtube.com].
The reason for the gender neutral terms (Score:5, Informative)
There were problems with trans men skipping required healthcare because they didn't think of themselves as needing it, i.e. they still have uteruses and the like and some of them even get pregnant (not every trans person even goes on hormones, some of them just present).
Anyway studies were done an it was found a lot of them were very uncomfortable with discussing those parts of themselves because it (rather unsurprisingly) triggered their dysphoria ( not surprising, imagine you're a guy with some parts associated with the ladies, that's gonna cause some mix ups here and there).
That discomfort was keeping them away from doctors. So to get better health outcomes for those 850k Americans doctors started using phrases like "birthing persons" and "nonpregnant persons".
It works, and it doesn't have any negative health outcomes for cis women, but you know how the right likes to make a culture war out of everything. These are the same folks who when we on the left joked about Hershey's going woke (get it, "Her-She-y's"?) two week later they actually did it. Anything to avoid fixing the economy or making housing affordable I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't get the whole hubbub. So some people want to have a different gender. Why the hell should I give a fuck? Let them be happy and that's it, how exactly is this anyone's business but theirs?
Uncanny valley effect (Score:2)
A moral panic is when a public figure (not always a politician, often a preacher or pundit) raises a moral issue as an immediate an severe threat. Often but not always as "think of the Children". They do this to gain viewership, clout, cash donations and political power.
In the 80
Re: (Score:2)
The people who complain about trans people make me uncomfortable, yet you don't see me throw a fit every time one of these dimwits starts freaking out about someone using a bathroom they don't think they should.
Get a fucking life, people. If you don't have any real problems, don't make making someone else problems your problem. Find a hobby outside of being a miserable fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just trans women. Cis women who have had chemotherapy for cancer, affecting how they look. Cis women who have an unusual amount of facial hair. Cis women who just choose not to look typically feminine.
This particular moral panic affects all women.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get the whole hubbub. So some people want to have a different gender. Why the hell should I give a fuck? Let them be happy and that's it, how exactly is this anyone's business but theirs?
I'd love to do all of that.
But I am a father, and I believe my daughters ought to be able to use the restrooms without having to share them with men. Based upon the comments of a few, I ask too much.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it kinda creepy that you perv on the bathroom habits of your daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it kinda creepy that you perv on the bathroom habits of your daughters.
Agreed. Everytime I hear somene say they're checking to see if the person next to them has a dick (or not depending on the situation) it makes me wonder what other creepy things they're doing. Are they recording their neighbors to see if one has a dick and the other doesn't? Or are they hoping both have a dick?
Here's the funniest part about this. If someone in a bathroom were to ask them to show their dick they'd probably beat the person for being a perv. But apparently when they want to see if you have a
Re: (Score:2)
I find it kinda creepy that you perv on the bathroom habits of your daughters.
So I must accept men using the same restrooms as my daughters? Nice narrative you've invented there.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, people who worry about trans people going into bathrooms are likely just projecting what they would love to do rather than knowing fuck all about what reasons trans people have.
And yes, that's fucking creepy. Pervert.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, people who worry about trans people going into bathrooms are likely just projecting what they would love to do rather than knowing fuck all about what reasons trans people have.
Why the name calling? Have you run out of talking points and now must resort to personal attacks?
Re: (Score:2)
Because I noticed that such weird accusations say more about the fantasies of the people making them than the people they are made about.
Ever bin in a women's restroom? (Score:2)
So unless your daughters are getting their boobs out when touching up their makeup for some reason I'm not sure I see the problem.
Or do you think there are cis men out there taking months of therapy and hormones not to mention all the abuse from folks such as yourself so they can sneak into a bathroom and rape your daughter because that little sign works like garlic and they can't just walk right past it
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going to the effort of transitioning just to get into the women's bathroom. All they need is a vest with "janitor" written on it.
Re: Pregnant People ?! SHAME ON NATURE (Score:2)
Yeah, it would. (compare group? /facepalm) In a scientific paper, details are critical. What's a nonpregnant person? Let's play the "maximum inclusiveness" game for a minute:
Does the control group include actual men? Why or why not? Does BarBar, son of Hud, count as a nonpregnant person? Sure, he cut his dick off and all, but despite repeatedly, often and loudly identifying himself as a "half-blind grandmother who has been raped" (his words) he can't and never could get pregnant, and he certainly never had
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sounds like you are in need of a safe space.
Not Nature [Re:Pregnant People ?! SHAME ON NATURE] (Score:2)
"Shame on Nature and all the woke cunts behind their choosing to do stupid, unscientific things like this."
I didn't read the full article, since it's behind a paywall. The abstract, however, is not behind the paywall. It does not use the phrase "pregnant people". It uses use the word "woman" once, and "maternal" five times. So you seem to be blaming Nature for something that they didn't do.
Re:"pregnant people" (Score:4, Insightful)
The sentence before this refers to nonpregnant people. Which is everyone on earth, male or female, that isn't pregnant.so maybe you should not be so fragile that it overrides your ability to read for content and context instead of political agenda.
Re: (Score:1)
The phrase is used throughout despite the study being 100% women.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase is used throughout despite the study being 100% women.
The phrase "pregnant people" is not used in the actual paper.
Nature did not use the phrase "pregnant people" (Score:2)
Nature, an alleged science publication, uses it liberally. The fact the source paper doesn't only looks that much worse for Nature.
If you look at the top of a web page, it will tell you the source. If you click the two links in the summary, you will find that one links to Nature, one does not.
Nature does not use the phrase.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. Raised with nothing I retired in my early 50s, great wife, fabulous daughter, and now have time to educate mindless uneducated Marxist incels here everyday for my amusement while earning more in just interest every year than 99% of you make at work, no debt, put myself through school with no loans or outside help, own my house and nice cars bought in cash, have unlimited time for my friends, travel internationally at least 3 times a year (except for Covid), take care of my extended family's needs when
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why are we being stupid about this?
I agree you're being stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remind us again how many "not women" have been pregnant in the last million years?
What was the scientific benefit to using the vague term "people" when the study was 100% women and the correct and accurate term to use was "women"?
I don't know how many were pregnant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There is no such thing as a "trans man". Those are women who need therapy (at least) to come back to,reality where they are women.
There is no such thing as "cis" anything. That is more nonsense trans terminology. There are men and women.
And yes for the ocd there are a trivial and irrelevant number of people who have genetic defects where their chromosomes are mess. That's an illness, too. And no, we don't need to restructure all of society and language to suit the 1 in a few million people with a genet
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are women who don't want to fit a gender norm--which is perfectly OK, but departs from reality when we start calling them "men".
Why do you think there is zero controversy about women participating in men's sports? Because gender differences really do exist and can't be erased by a change in nomenclature--and women are at a huge disadvantage in most sports regardless of pronouns. No credible person disputes this, an
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to have mixed sex characteristics. Some women have internal, non functional testes instead of ovaries, for example.
So it's not hard to understand that some men have a male brain and female genitalia. They are men, their brain is male, they are biologically male in the most important sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It helps to understand the basics of the subject before arguing about it. Here's a helpful primer: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.... [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria, and that the core of what makes a person's personality and identity, their brain, can be biologically a different sex to other parts of their body.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation missing]
Re: (Score:2)
The sex/gender separation was primarily the thesis of Dr. John Money, a sadistic, pedophilic piece of shit who literally destroyed a family with his bullshit, cruelly: ...convincing the desperate parents that gender-swapping one of their sons to a girl was going to make everything better ...forcing sexual roleplay (ugh) on and between these two brothers (one being convinced he's a girl) and his own son and taking pictures of it (among a lot more heinous behaviors which should have had him incarcerated, no
-
-
Re: (Score:2)
Only a complete moron would assert that "a woman who can't have children" isn't a woman.
She's a woman with whom we universally recognize there is a DEFECT, and it's generally considered tragic, not that she should change her name to Bill.
Trans men are women pretending to be men; them getting pregnant despite the wave of hormones and drugs (shudder for that developing fetus) doesn't mean "men can get pregnant".
Yes, and 'pigs can fly' as long as we're silly enough to call planes pigs.
Your approach is tantamou
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, hormones occur in women and men. The study included men along with non pregnant women. Hence the term non pregnant person when referring to the group.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
"The study included men along with non pregnant women" really?
I don't see anything in the abstract that suggests this. In fact the abstract implies strongly that all they were looking at were women. Copied here for convenience:
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one example of a genetic male getting pregnant, https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article, thank you.
Is that "one in 8 billion" meaningful in any way regarding general medical assertions or public policy?
I don't think anyone would use a single exceptionally cold day to disprove global warming?
One extraordinarily unique mutation that happened to survive out of billions and billions is interesting but statistically absolutely meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a group photo of at least a dozen people with the same androgen insensitivity, it is not as uncommon as you think. Wiki says 1 in 20,000-64,000 XY births. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The point being that gender does not mean tied to genetics and various hormone in-balances affect people creating a spectrum from "normal" to in this case a genetic male who used their own eggs and womb to give birth.
Re: "pregnant people" (Score:2)
You can be pregnant due to sexe and legally a man due to gender. I know these things have been conflated in the past but we're at the point where they are no longer tied together as much as in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone agrees to the ridiculous dogma propounded by John Money, a sadistic child abuser that advanced the theory to justify his sadosexual abuse of children.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible to understand this due to the use of woke language. The phrase "pregnant people" implies men can get pregnant, which is impossible. Does "nonpregnant people" mean women who aren't pregnant? Men and women? Sad to see science infected with woke ideologies.
The phrase "pregnant people" assumes the audience is familiar enough with the human species to understand that females are the ones who get pregnant, and intelligent enough to get that women are people. Unfortunately, it was presented to an audience that is far too stupid to focus on the actual content of the message, and far more ready to lash out stupidly at a word that they have somehow imagined to be offensive.
Seriously? This whole response chain is filled with people bitching about women being referred
Re: Infected by wokeness (Score:2)
Indeed. They keep complaining about how easily the left gets triggered but seriously... are these adults?
Re: (Score:3)
And unfortunately the two have been mixed which destroys the hard science.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not mixing social science and biology, it's that some people think things that are social are actually biological.
It's not just gender. Race is mostly social, and the biological bits mostly date back to when Europeans were keen to explain why they were superior to every other race. Unsurprisingly, most of that has been debunked and doesn't feature in modern biology.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is why people of different races are more likely to get different diseases and various medications behave differently for different races. It's all social. Just the placebo effect. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
There are some small genetic differences in likelihood of getting certain conditions, but that is a tiny part of what "race" if is. Stuff like intelligence, propensity to certain behaviours, all that is bunk.
Re: (Score:1)
And let's see... in addition to the very serious medical differences you just dismissed there are statically significant physical structure differences.
Why are the majority of basketball players black? Is the height difference socially created?
Why do ashkenazi Jews test higher on mental ability tests of all sorts compare to most races? Jewish mother guilt driving them to succeed?
Or how about some every day basics? People descended from hill/mountain people have wider shorter feet but plains people have l
Re: (Score:2)
You picked height arbitrarily. Are the Irish a different race because red hair is much more common among them?
As for intelligence, that's been debunked here at length, I'm not going to repeat it.
Re: (Score:1)
Do I need to explain basic genetics? You wouldn't understand anyway.
And that's not a straw man. You don't even know what straw man means. It does not mean, "I don't like your point because I can't refute it and don't even understand it".
If you have nothing intelligent to say, then just hit the AC button next time... oh wait, you did.
Re: (Score:1)
Genetics is very basic. If you had an education.
I stopped reading right there. You're not smart enough for this topic.