Sex Matters ... we are not the same! - Page 1

Science testing of drugs has predominently been tested only on men. Until now, it was thought between men and women, "there’s this assumption that you are me with pesky hormones."

"If you're clumping men and women together in your study and there truly is a sex difference, you're not just harming the women; you're harming the men."


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-matters-drugs-can-affect-sexes-differently/

Well according to this article the brains (among other things) certainly are different;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/02/the-difference-between-men-and-womens-brains-revealed-in-this-photo/

Despite all of the glaring differences in form and function, I can tell you that there is currently (and for some time now) a tremendous effort on the part of anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists within academia to diminish the significance of those differences. What a shame. Nothing wrong with equal but different.  The entire argument is fueled by some bent to show that gender differentiation is based entirely on the social context. While I admit that to some extent, industrialization and modernization have made rendered some of the cognitive and physiological differences less relevant, this type of societal evolution while significant, has occurred over an infinitesimally minute period of time across the span of homo sapien. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how different we really are.

Not what I thought this thread was going to be about when I read the title. 

Ruger, it is my understanding that surprisingly, this is a "new" idea! Doesn't it even strike one odd, that the test animals have been male as well? It is about time that our research dollars demand that sex distinctions need to be taken into account to actually be the correct way to conduct research testing.

Carlin, I would love to hear more on your thoughts about what the motive for sex differences being attributed entirely to social contexts is truly about, that you say is, I guess, a common echo in the halls of our ivory towers?

Red Sable, here is another link on the same subject. lol.... Yes, I am sure I knew I would "fool' some people into looking at this thread with different expectations in their heads! 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/women-s-health-harmed-as-medical-studies-ignore-gender.html

 

Scientists continue to neglect gender in medical research, endangering women’s health by focusing on males in studies that shape the treatment of disease, a report found.

The lack of attention to gender differences occurs at all stages of research, from lab to doctor’s office, according to the report released today by the Connors Center for Women’s Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital inBoston, and the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at George Washington University in Washington. Animal and human studies typically use male subjects and, even when females are included, researchers fail to analyze and report results by sex, the authors said.

“We’ve got to do the work and change the way science is done and translated to clinical care,” Paula Johnson, executive director of the Connors Center, said in a telephone interview. “Until we do that, we are putting women’s health at risk.”

Congress passed the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act requiring that NIH-funded biomedical research with human subjects include and analyze the effects on woman and ethnic minorities. The legislation doesn’t extend beyond research funded by the NIH and doesn’t apply to animal or cellular studies.

“More often, studies ‘control’ for sex differences instead of investigating them, but this approach is inadequate when the mechanisms underlying health may operate differently in men and women,” the report’s authors wrote.

 

Carlin, I would love to hear more on your thoughts about what the motive for sex differences being attributed entirely to social contexts is truly about, that you say is, I guess, a common echo in the halls of our ivory towers?

Seriously, lol? I have more confidence in you than that Bee. We set the agenda first, and then flesh out the particular findings which forward that agenda. We certainly cannot tolerate a "chink" in the armor. I'm not sure who "Caroline Chen" is or what her credentials are, but I can promise you she would be absolutely lamb-basted within current and relevant academic and scientific spheres for using the word "gender" where she has, as opposed to the word "sex".  The explanation is very simply the word "reactionary". Though there are valid reasons and an element of truth to the genesis, our "best and brightest" evidently  fail to apprehend within themselves the same sort of ignorance which cemented their bent in the first place. There is an extremely accurate experiment available which would undoubtedly demonstrate whether or not "gender" differences are really social contructs -let moons have his fire and see how it all shakes out. Something tells me that deep down, we all know the answer to that one.

I'm not sure who "Caroline Chen" is or what her credentials are,

It took me a second to realize you were referring to the author of the article from the second link, lol I personally do not know who she is, either.

Well, yes, and interestingly enough, both these links were brought to my attention by someone affiliated high up the food chain within Women's Health Research at Yale University. It certainly was one reason why your comment regarding the attitudes of academia piqued my interest. And perhaps, I suppose, I was looking more for validation for my sneaking suspicions, in a way, too! LOL   

According to them they are actively engaged in using social media to combat what I think would be exactly what you describe as the "bent" going on, "within academia to diminish the significance of those differences." This to them is something they have been enduring for at least the past 16 years.



 

i dig chicks