4 ms·
They did in fact. > Methods: We recruited healthy adults aged 23-35 who identified as women currently using (n = 62) or having used (n = 37) solely combined OC
by ickelbawd 3y ago
They did in fact.
> Methods: We recruited healthy adults aged 23-35 who identified as women currently using (n = 62) or having used (n = 37) solely combined OCs, women who never used any hormonal contraceptives (n = 40), or men (n = 41).
> Results: Compared to men, all three groups of women exhibited a larger GMV of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, while only current users showed a thinner ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Irrespective of the menstrual cycle phase, never users exhibited a thicker right anterior insular cortex than past users.
(Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2023.1228504/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2023.1228...)
I agree with you it’s somewhat confusing why they use men as their benchmark. But really this isn’t my field of expertise.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago> who identified as women What a weird thing to say if you study the effect of the pill on women.
- jstanley 3y agoIt's not that they "identified as women", it's that they self-identified whether they were using contraceptives or not, i.e. it was not checked.
- locopati 3y agoThey could be making it clear that this does not include trans men, who are still capable of getting pregnant despite being on testosterone.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- viii 3y agoThey're still women though really.
- itishappy 3y agoThose individuals taking birth control who do not identify as women are likely to be on additional hormones.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- piva00 3y agoBecause the full sentence is: > who identified as women currently using It's who identified themselves as using or not using contraceptives, not just identifying as women.
- cies 3y agoLol. Got the feeling this was some new-speak way of saying they tested women without using the word women, because womanhood is not longer a biological fact but now an opinion. Thank god it's not.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoAhhhh so I misunderstood. Cheers!