The Lancet's Latest Disgrace
When almost 50% of the "women" in your study are men
Not content to dehumanise women and girls by reducing the female sex to a singular body part (cadaver-like “bodies with vaginas”), The Lancet, a once-respected scientific journal, has decided the search for truth is no longer within its purview.
In other words, its editors have decided to dispense with science in favour of political correctness.
Let’s take a look at a disgraceful study titled Human monkeypox virus infection in women and non-binary individuals during the 2022 outbreaks: a global case series by Thornhill and equally disingenuous colleagues:
I have no idea what “Share-Net writing group” is, but they are also listed on Mpox Cases Among Cisgender Women and Pregnant Persons. (Men can give birth, y’all!)
Anyway, one dishonest study at a time:
“The cohort comprised 62 trans women, 69 cis women, and five non-binary individuals (who were, because of small numbers, grouped with cis women to form a category of people assigned female at birth for the purpose of comparison).”
The study investigated monkeypox infection in 69 women, five women who do not wish to be perceived as women, and 62 men who do. Not “women and non-binary individuals”—men and women*.
Males and females—the two physiologically and behaviorally distinct sexes lumped together in a study of a virus that is by and by large sexually transmitted. (And could be nipped in the bud if sex clubs temporarily shut, but I hear that’s some sort of “-ism” according to the Woke who can only abide by pointless collective, Bergeronian suffering or else unnecessary discrimination.)
Pretend aims:
Provide insight into monkeypox virus infection in women, and enable comparison with studies conducted in (gay and bisexual) men
Kowtow before gender identity ideology and pander to gender-related delusions
I say pretend because only the men’s identities were elevated above the truth. There was to be no coddling of the biology-denying women.
Why aren’t they allowed to self-exclude from reality like the menfolk branded “women”? Since these “non-binary individuals” were erroneously “assigned” females at birth, surely it is pure violence to group them together with the other women? Surely it’s an insult to include them at all?
Actual aims:
Fluff up the delusions of a minority of men
Prioritise the fleeting happiness of these men above women’s everything—but not least of all healthcare—as well as even a semblance of scientific objectivity
Erode the (correct) impression that gay and bisexual men are the individuals predominately at risk of the monkeypox virus
“Transmissions during the global outbreaks have been overwhelmingly associated with sexual contact and have almost exclusively affected sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men”
And we wouldn’t want that correct impression to promulgate unchecked, now would we? How can we coerce vaccination if we give the hoi polloi any indication their specific risk profile suggests a cost-benefit calculation that isn’t in Big Pharma’s favour?
Predictably, the (gender-confused) gay and bisexual men in the study had a much higher rate of infection through sexual transmission than the actual women included in the study. I suppose we ought to be grateful that any women at all were included in this study of women.
Men aren’t women. The men who claim to think they are don’t behave like women*** but rather wrap themselves in man-made, commodified feminity whilst enacting offensive (often porn-addled) stereotypes. (Trans-identified women engage in similarly sexist nonsense, whether they call themselves men or “non-men”, interestingly enough.)
It’s high time this forced teaming and obfustication—in medical research, in criminal offending statistics—stopped. Quite enough damage has been done already by inflating and watering down statistics pertaining to women through the inclusion of men. Men are precluded by biological reality; it’s best that statistics reflect reality, not spun-cotton fantasy.
“The clinical features of monkeypox in women and non-binary individuals were similar to those described in men [in other studies]”
I have a cart labelled “oranges”; the more apples I fill it with, the more similar it becomes to my stall neighbour’s apple cart. Funny that. (I look forward to the above quote being twisted to tell me women are at equal risk due to being “similar” to men.)
Anatomically, anogenital lesions were reflective of sexual practices: vulvovaginal lesions predominated in cis women and non-binary individuals and anorectal features predominated in trans women
Yes, it’s almost as if men, being male, don’t have female genitalia. (Even if a surgical wound is carved out by unscrupulous surgeons, such an affliction has nothing to do with women.) Lesions were reflective of sex too—or do the authors think people engage in sex using their gender identity feelings?
The prevalence of HIV co-infection in the [woman and non-binary individuals] cohort was high.
If your sample of “women” includes a large number of gay male prostitutes such a thing is well within the realm of possibility. (Over half of the men mislabelled as women in the study engaged in sex work as compared to 3% i.e. two of the women.)
The study is comical in its desperation to pass off gender-deluded men as a subset of women, all whilst denigrating women as a subset of their sex category.
If you’d like to study monkeypox infection in women, restrict the sample to adult female humans. The authors were halfway there by acknowledging “nonbinary” female participants are women (their immature and solipsistic NotLikeOtherGirls™ beliefs aside)—why not depress the plunger for a full injection of reality?
On the other hand, if you wish to conduct a study comparing a sexually transmitted disease among men who have sex with men (regardless of how they “identify” their sex and sexuality) and women—do so. You don’t even have to note the various idiosyncratic self-perceptions of your male and female participants.
Delusional self-conceptions are irrelevant; only sex and sexuality (what you are and what you do) are relevant to viruses. Viruses don’t care about your love affair with regressive gender stereotypes or your alienation from bodily reality. No one does. Or at least, no one cares beyond the degree they might care about the colour of your aura were you to disclose it to them.
If you are examining trans-identified, same-sex attracted men, it should be in a (correctly labelled) study of men and monkeypox. Perhaps prevalence could be broken down by presence of autogynephilia within such a study.
Or at least, it should be split thusly if you believe promiscuity differs on that basis, thus placing gender-deluded men at higher risk of infection. Such information would be far more beneficial to disseminate to these men than any dissembling on the subject of sex.
Is this what we’re going to see in clinical trials from now? A measly thirty or so years of women being included in medical research and then tanking women’s healthcare once again?
It’s sickening to think how many girls and women will physically (and then emotionally) suffer at the altar of these men’s whims and fantasies under the auspices of gender identity ideology’s every profiteer and useful idiot.
Think of how we all, man and woman alike, suffer at the hands of this ideology’s psychological warfare and coerced participation. So, for the love of reason, don’t submit your manuscripts to The Lancet—its editors are morally-bankrupt clowns.
Footnotes
*Zimzamshabooboo’s sincerest apologies for treating this religion far, far more seriously than it deserves. (If it weren’t decimating human rights, I’d pay this absurd philosophy no mind nor bring any of its inanities to your attention.)
**Isn’t it interesting that gender ideologues always write “transwomen and ciswomen”, their word order mirroring the phrase “men and women”? Now you’ll never unsee it.
***I’ve had men tell me “trans women” might not be women physically (but ought to play in women’s sports nevertheless—go figure) but certainly psychologically. It’s hardly surprising when men agree with each other’s conceptualisation of women rather than viewing women as the prime authority on womanhood, but it has no bearing on reality.
Apologies for the lack of posts lately; I’ve been learning 3D animation in Blender (it’s free!). Here’s a still from my second animation so far—it’s almost done :)
If you’d like to support KIPFIB, buy me a coffee to go with these doughnuts.
Should'nt All doughnuts be 'Ring' doughnuts? Once they realized this Monkey Pox was a male disease they dropped all MSM coverage, possibly to hard to handle... welcome back Angela :)