4 ms·
> There really was a series of government-funded studies concerning gender in mice this is true...in the sense that if you make a list of government-funded stu
by evil-olive 2y ago
> There really was a series of government-funded studies concerning gender in mice
this is true...in the sense that if you make a list of government-funded studies, and ctrl-F it for "gender", and then ctrl-F that list for "mice", you get a non-zero number of results.
of the $8 million they're claiming, $3.1 million went to “Gonadal hormones as mediators of sex and gender influences in asthma”
so...they're studying asthma. using mice. who are given hormones. this is pretty far from the "they're making mice transgender" talking point.
if you read the abstract that they link to [0]:
> Starting around puberty and peaking during mid-life, women have increased asthma prevalence and higher rates of asthma exacerbations than men. Causes of these disparities remain unclear; however, studies have shown that sex-specific inflammatory mechanisms controlled by hormones contribute to differences in airway reactivity in response to environmental stimuli. Despite this, experimental models of asthma have not explored the contributions of sex hormones to inflammatory mechanisms in the female and male lung
asthma affects men and women differently, and they want to figure out why. specifically, they're trying to isolate the affects of hormones on lung tissue. that seems like a worthwhile subject to me? a simplistic understanding of biology would be that lungs are lungs, and the same between men and women. refining that understanding seems like a good goal for basic research to pursue.
if you continue reading the abstract, oh my god they mention that trans people exist
> and no studies have explored the effects of feminizing hormone therapy with estrogen in the lungs of trans women
but...this just seems to me like the scientific method? they're trying to eliminate as many uncontrolled variables as they can:
> In Aim 2, we will study the contributions of estrogens to HDM-induced asthma outcomes using male and female gonadectomized mice treated with estradiol
if you want to study the effects of sex-specific hormones, it seems logical that you would neuter them first, so that they're not producing any hormones of their own, they're only receiving the ones that you inject them with.
so you have female mice, with ovaries removed, who are receiving replacement female hormones. and male mice, with testes removed, who are also receiving female hormones.
if you want to call that "transgender mice", sure, knock yourself out. what I see is just a scientific experiment where they're tried to eliminate as many uncontrolled variables as possible.
now, why are they only doing it with female hormones (estradiol)? why aren't they doing the opposite experiment where the male and female gonadectomized mice are given testosterone? I don't know for certain, but the most likely explanation is that testosterone is a controlled substance in the US (due to its use by weightlifting bros), and so doing experiments with it would be more difficult because of the increased legal requirements.
0: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526
- FeepingCreature 2y agoThis often happens: 1. X says that A did stupid thing B! 2. Y makes fun of X because obviously A didn't do stupid thing B. 3. Z (that's you) points out that A did a thing B', that is like B, only not stupid, but technically X described it accurately if tendentiously. How do you deal with that? I don't think the human political brain is built for this level of indirection. But realistically this will now always be a fight between X's and Y's faction, because Z's position, though true, is too complicated to fit in a soundbite. I don't know how we get back from that. If it were truth vs lies it would be manageable, but the truth isn't even on the table because it's too big to fit into the argumentative paradigm.
- watwut 2y ago> 3. Z (that's you) points out that A did a thing B', that is like B, only not stupid, but technically X described it accurately if tendentiously. It was not "technically described accurately" tho. It was a lie and comment you are responding to makes that clear. So I think that response to that tactic would be to simply call it a lie rather then "technically accurate".
- FeepingCreature 2y agoIt's more accurate to say that "a paper studied gender in mice" than to say "no papers studied gender in mice". edit: Nevermind I retract this. I think you're right about this paper in particular. I guess it comes down to whether a study involving weird things with gender hormones is "about gender"? But it still seems like the core debate is ultimately not very much attached to actual reality. edit: It's like the "chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay" Alex Jones meme - if you thought "no that's nonsense there were no chemicals in the water" you would know less about Atrazine than Alex Jones did, despite Alex Jones also being wrong about what's going on with the frogs. The way in which you think that someone is wrong can also be wrong, even if that someone is in fact wrong.
- pas 2y agothe paper used the word "gender" completely unnecessarily, no? those are sex hormones.