We need Title IX for scientific research. If your study design casually excludes half of of humanity, go back and change your design unless, as happens rarely, it's actually necessary for the subject of the study (like studying prostate cancer). No women, no funding for research.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Right, let's systematically eliminate men from scientific studies as "confounders" and see how far that gets.https://twitter.com/solimar2016/status/1120676334072549377 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That depends on the drug, intervention and method. It's not sexist per se
-
It's sexist per se unless there is a very good reason, and there almost never is.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In a study this small, you have to eliminate as many possible confounders as possible. This isn't sexist; it's good research.
-
It’s not good research, either — the same thing that makes menstruation a “confounder” could substantially impact how the drug works in people who menstruate, and not being aware of those differences can lead to dangerous uses when the drug is eventually approved for the gen-pop.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It’s sloppy research and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the body. The average age of diagnosis for colon cancer in women is 72. Those women aren’t menstruating any more.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As I’m guessing you’d agree, a bit of the problem here is also that this may be fine for a study (as one step in the research process), but not for the one study that gets written up in the New York Times
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That rationale is so thin, it seems more of a rationalization.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.