4 ms·
Is anyone offended that this article uses the words men, women, and gender as they were understood ten years ago? Is it rude or problematic? Hurtful to a vulner
by delichon 3y ago
Is anyone offended that this article uses the words men, women, and gender as they were understood ten years ago? Is it rude or problematic? Hurtful to a vulnerable population? Would you rather that they were replaced with more sensitive equivalents? Is it even ethical to publish a study that emphasizes sexual inequality? Are these questions offensive? I don't know what the zeitgeist of this forum is on this.
- silverquiet 3y agoI'd say that if one is considering a male to female sexual re-assignment, then perhaps this can be considered on the "pro" side of the cost/benefit analysis.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- riehwvfbk 3y agoUm, regardless of how woke you are, that is not how biology works. Biologically this person would still be male and would not get the cardiovascular benefits.
- silverquiet 3y agoI don't think that's entirely obvious; I'd actually be quite interested to see a study on it. Artificially modifying the hormones of a human can cause significant changes. It's particularly obvious in trans males; lowered voice, facial hair growth, and increased muscle are all effects. It doesn't seem crazy to me to think that there may also be cardiovascular changes.