Cirrhosis a ‘silent Epidemic’ in Young Adults, Women


Rates of cirrhosis are increasing, particularly among young adults and women, and an epidemic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is one possible reason, say researchers from Canada.

Traditionally, cirrhosis has been considered a disease of older men, but the face of cirrhosis is changing, Dr. Jennifer Flemming from Queen’s University, in Kingston, Canada, told Reuters Health by phone.

“This is likely either related to alcohol or non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease,” she explained. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has been on the rise over the past two decades.

“Alcohol use patterns in young individuals and women have also changed over the past several decades such that women are drinking pretty much the same amount as men and women are predisposed to alcohol-related liver disease at much lower levels of alcohol than are men. My thought is that women are kind of catching up to the same risk factors that men have had, in addition to now having this epidemic of non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease,” said Dr. Flemming.

She and her colleagues did a retrospective population-based study looking at cirrhosis incidence by age group. They identified nearly 166,000 people in Ontario with cirrhosis from 1997 to 2016.

New cases of cirrhosis nearly doubled in the province during the study period, from 6,318 new cases diagnosed in 1997 (3,979 males/2,339 females) to 12,047 in 2016 (7,061 males/4,986 females).

The risk of cirrhosis is 116% higher for millennials who were born in 1990 than for baby boomers born in 1951, the researchers report in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, online December 17. For women, the risk is even higher. A woman born in 1990 was 160% more likely to be diagnosed with cirrhosis than a woman born in 1951.

Strategies to increase awareness of this “silent epidemic in young adults and women are needed,” the researchers note in their paper.

“Future studies able to define the cause and natural history of cirrhosis in these groups are essential to develop strategies that could reverse these trends for future generations,” they conclude.

Funding for the study was provided by the Southeastern Ontario Academic Medical Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD). Dr. Flemming has received grants from both organizations.

14 Interesting Facts About Women That Even Women Didn’t Know!


Since time immemorial, women have always been viewed as beautiful, mysterious beings, capable of swooning us with a bat of their eyelid. Even though they aren’t just a tool for men to satisfy their carnal desires, as they have proved through leaps and bounds.

Despite that, a complete understanding of any being is impossible, for something always crops us that stun us into a stupor. Some of them are ludicrous, but they affirm the preconceived notions that women have been burdened with for centuries.

Bachelors take notes, these facts about women could be important for you, if you try to approach a single lady.

1. Woman Meaning

1. Woman

Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales has been the first known instance when the word ‘woman’ came in usage. The word is a portmanteau of the Middle English word ‘woman’ that means ‘wife of a man’.

2. Eyes Blink

2. Blinking Eyes

A woman fluttering her eyelids have ensnared men for centuries. So, it is somewhat unsurprising that they blink twice more than we men do.

3. Third Nipple

3. Third Nipple

Chandler’s third nipple? Scientifically, 2% of women population has the third nipple.

4. Talking

4. Woman Talking

Before undermining the intellectual and literate status of a woman, one should keep in mind that they speak close to 20,000 words a day, 13000 more than men.

5. Colors

5. Colors

Even been disconcerted when a woman asks you to choose between navy blue, cobalt blue, and royal blue, for they just blue to you? This is because some women have a mutated gene, leading them to see a myriad of colors.

6. Heart disease

6.-Heart-Disease

To identify and diagnose a woman with cardiac arrests, look for signs of nausea, shoulder pain, and indigestion.

7. Sex ratio

7.-Sex-Ratio

The sex ratio of Russia favors women more, for there are 9 million more women.

8. Pregnancy8. Pregnancy

Tragically, one female in every 90 seconds dies during pregnancy, due to faulty and sub-par health care.

9. After Sex Thoughts

9. After Sex

The man’s mind thinks of turning and sleeping after sex. A woman wants to kiss, cuddle and talk.

10. Trust

10. Trust

If you want a woman to trust you, grab her and hold her for over 15 seconds.

11. Computer Science

11. Computer Science

Lady Ada Lovelace was the first computer engineer. She worked on the Analytical Engine.

12. Height

12. Height

Women who are considerable more statuesque, or simply, tall, are more likely to be afflicted by cancer than women who are short.

13. Flexibility

13. Flexible

Have you ever noticed that a woman can answer your call just by turning her neck, where you have to complete displace yourself from your previous position? This is because they have a more flexible neck.

14. Ears

If you’re ranting at a woman who isn’t interested, she would always plug her ears with her fingers, rather than her hands, as men do.

These facts might make someone a bit more informed about women, but there is a lot left, to understand them. The trick is to respect them as equals and treat them with the love and care they deserve. They will pour their heart out to you.

3 Natural, Evidence-Based Aphrodisiacs For Women


3 Natural, Evidence-Based Aphrodisiacs For Women

According to the ancient Greeks, the apple represented abundance and fertility.  In some quarters, it was customary for a bride to eat an apple on her wedding night.  This was believed to ensure sexual desire, as well as fertility leading to babies.

You might think that’s all a silly superstition.  But Italian researchers just discovered women who eat an apple a day may in fact enjoy better sexual function.

Doctors in Trento, Italy, recruited 731 healthy sexually active Italian women, not complaining of any sexual disorders.  The women were aged 18 to 43.  Each woman completed the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire.  The FSFI is designed to assess certain aspects of sexual functioning (e.g. sexual arousal, orgasm, satisfaction, pain) in clinical trials.

The participants also reported their daily apple consumption and their eating habits.  Based on their apple eating, the women were split into two groups.  One group ate at least an apple every day.  The other group did not eat apples regularly.

According to the researchers, the women who ate a daily apple scored significantly higher on the FSFI sexual function index.

How could an apple improve a woman’s sexual function?

The authors acknowledged studies showing a link between phytoestrogens, polyphenols, antioxidants and women’s sexual health.  Apples have an abundance of all three.

Phytoestrogens are weak plant compounds that have an estrogenic effect on the body.  Polyphenols and antioxidants have a positive effect on reducing inflammation and increasing circulation of the blood.

But it’s not just a daily apple that has this beneficial effect on women.

Previously Italian researchers found a daily glass or two of red wine also works.

They recruited 798 healthy women living in the Chianti area of Tuscany.  The women, aged 18 to 50, were divided into three groups.  The groups consisted of teetotalers; daily moderate drinkers of one to two glasses of red wine; or occasional drinkers or those taking more than 2 glasses of red wine or other alcohol per day.

They found that moderate red wine drinkers had significantly better sexual function.  They scored higher on the FSFI questionnaire for sexual desire, lubrication, and overall sexual function than the other two groups.

Like apples, red wine is rich in polyphenols and antioxidants.  In addition, it contains a high concentration of resveratrol which is actually a form of estrogen.

But the Italian researchers didn’t stop there.  Yet another team recruited 153 women around Milan in Northern Italy to report on sex and chocolate.  They found women who reported daily chocolate intake had significantly higher total FSFI scores as well as higher scores on sexual desire.

Like apples and red wine, chocolate is high in phytoestrogens, polyphenols and antioxidants.  Chocolate is also rich in magnesium which soothes nerves and relaxes muscles.  It also contains a compound called phenylethylamine which releases the same endorphins that flood the body during sex.

Apples, red wine and chocolate make a great recipe for better sex.  Maybe even better than sex?

We are multitudes


Women are chimeras, with genetic material from both their parents and children. Where does that leave individual identity?

when Lee Nelson first began researching autoimmune disorders in the 1980s, the prevailing assumption was that conditions such as arthritis and lupus tend to show up more commonly in women because they are linked to female sex hormones. But to Nelson, a rheumatologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, this explanation did not make sense. If hormones were the culprit, one would expect these afflictions to peak during a woman’s prime reproductive years, when instead they typically appear later in life.

One day in 1994, a colleague specialising in prenatal diagnosis called her up to say that a blood sample from a female technician in his lab was found to contain male DNA a full year after the birth of her son. ‘It set off a light bulb,’ Nelson told me. ‘I wondered what the consequences might be of harbouring these lingering cells.’ Since the developing foetus is genetically half-foreign to the mother, Nelson set out to investigate whether it could be that pregnancy poses a long-term challenge to women’s health.

Evidence that cells travel from the developing foetus into the mother dates back to 1893, when the German pathologist Georg Schmorl found signs of these genetic remnants in women who had died of pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorder. Autopsies revealed ‘giant’ and ‘very particular’ cells in the lungs, which he theorised had been transported as foreign bodies, originating in the placenta. While Schmorl speculated that this sort of cellular transfer also took place during healthy pregnancies, it was not until more than a century later that researchers realised that these migrant cells, crossing from the foetus to the mother, could survive indefinitely.

Within weeks of conception, cells from both mother and foetus traffic back and forth across the placenta, resulting in one becoming a part of the other. During pregnancy, as much as 10 per cent of the free-floating DNA in the mother’s bloodstream comes from the foetus, and while these numbers drop precipitously after birth, some cells remain. Children, in turn, carry a population of cells acquired from their mothers that can persist well into adulthood, and in the case of females might inform the health of their own offspring. And the foetus need not come to full term to leave its lasting imprint on the mother: a woman who had a miscarriage or terminated a pregnancy will still harbour foetal cells. With each successive conception, the mother’s reservoir of foreign material grows deeper and more complex, with further opportunities to transfer cells from older siblings to younger children, or even across multiple generations.

Far from drifting at random, human and animal studies have found foetal origin cells in the mother’s bloodstream, skin and all major organs, even showing up as part of the beating heart. This passage means that women carry at least three unique cell populations in their bodies – their own, their mother’s, and their child’s – creating what biologists term a microchimera, named for the Greek fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a serpent.

Microchimerism is not unique to pregnancy. Researchers realised in the 1990s that it also occurs during organ transplantation, where the genetic match between donor and recipient determines whether the body accepts or rejects the grafted tissue, or if it triggers disease. The body’s default tendency to reject foreign material begs the question of how, and why, microchimeric cells picked up during pregnancy linger on indefinitely. No one fully understands why these ‘interlopers’, as Nelson calls them, are tolerated for decades. One explanation is that they are stem or stem-like cells that are absorbed into the different features of the body’s internal landscape, able to bypass immune defences because they are half-identical to the mother’s own cell population. Another is that pregnancy itself changes the immune identity of the mother, altering the composition of what some researchers have dubbed the ‘microchiome’, making her more tolerant of foreign cells.

The phenomenon, believed to have developed in mammals some 93 million years ago, is common to placental mammals to this day. Its persistence and reach was made astonishingly clear in 2012, when Nelson and colleagues analysed brain samples drawn from dozens of deceased women, ranging in age from 32 to 101. They found that the majority contained male DNA, presumably picked up from past pregnancies. And some of these Y chromosome cells had apparently been there for decades: the oldest subject was 94, meaning that male DNA that transferred during gestation would have persisted for more than half a century.

Most of the research focuses on the Y chromosome as a marker for foetal microchimerism. This does not mean that sons, rather than daughters, uniquely affect their mother’s bodies, but rather reflects an ease of measurement: the Y chromosome stands out among a woman’s XX genes. And there is nothing to suggest that the presence of male cells in women’s brains wields a particular influence. Nonetheless, the findings gesture toward an array of questions about what it means for one individual to play host to the cellular material of another, prompting scientists to look into whether this phenomenon affects physical health or influences behaviour, or even carries metaphysical consequences. The Western self is a bounded, autonomous entity, defined in no small part by its presumed distinction from the other. But this unfolding field of research, advanced by Nelson and others, suggests that we humans are not oppositional but constituent beings, made of many. Nelson, who is fond of referencing the poet Walt Whitman’s multitudes, says we need a ‘new paradigm of the biological self’.

Subscribe to Aeon’s Newsletter
DailyWeekly

One of the most cherished images in the West – if not in the world – is the mother and child. Gazes intermingled, bonded as if one, they are suspended in serene togetherness. This cooing placidity presents a scene of utter naturalness, of womanhood fulfilled, of tender destiny. In 1884, the physician John Harvey Kellogg urged women – at a time when childbirth was a leading cause of women’s death – to opt for the ‘slight inconveniences of normal pregnancy and physiological childbirth rather than the dismal comfort of a childless old age’. In spite of the acute health risks that gestation and delivery entailed for Western women well into the 20th century, pregnancy was commonly depicted as the ultimate form of cooperation – mothers sharing their bodies to the point of sacrifice for the sake of kin and species.

This vision utterly obscures the fraught evolutionary journey that delivers the babe in arms, and the screaming, nerve-jangled moments that surround it. Increasingly, pregnancy has come under scrutiny for its profound paradoxes. It is at once essential and unrivalled in its perils. As it engenders life, it also results in staggeringly high rates of death and disease. Scientists are starting to look to microchimerism for clues as to why pregnancy is both life-giving and a singular source of risk.

On one side of the spectrum, foetal microchimeric cells have been implicated in autoimmune disorders, certain cancers and pre-eclampsia, a potentially fatal condition characterised by high blood-pressure during the latter half of pregnancy. But another body of research has found that foetal cells can protect the mother. They appear to congregate at wound sites, including Caesarean incisions, to speed up healing. They participate in angiogenesis, the creation of new blood vessels. A recent survey of the immunological implications of microchimerism in Nature Reviews by researchers at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital asserts that these cells ‘are not accidental “souvenirs” of pregnancy, but are purposefully retained within mothers and their offspring to promote genetic fitness by improving the outcome of future pregnancies’. The researchers suggest that microchimeric cells boost the mother’s tolerance of successive pregnancies, representing an ‘altruistic act of first children’ to support the success of their genetically similar siblings. And they are associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer’s, lower risk of some cancer, and improved immune surveillance – that is, the body’s ability to recognise and stave off pathogens. According to Nelson, having a different set of genes provides ‘a different looking glass for detecting a pre-malignant cell’.

Although foetal cells might contribute to certain autoimmune disorders, they could also benefit women with rheumatoid arthritis. While doctors have been aware since the early 20th century that arthritic pain tends to recede with pregnancy, Nelson and her colleagues wondered whether there is an immunological reason why it tends to re-emerge later. They found that higher levels of microchimerism were associated with a lessening of symptoms, and that giving birth offered a long-term protective benefit. ‘It really looks vaccine-like,’ Nelson said, noting that pregnancy provides temporary protection against rheumatoid arthritis that, much like a vaccine, diminishes over time. ‘Protection starts about a year after birth, and then gradually attenuates after about 15 years.’

‘There is definitely an association between the presence of foetal cells and improved disease status’

Foetal microchimeric cells might even extend longevity and help to explain why women tend to live longer than men. In a 2012 study of nearly 300 elderly Danish women, the first to explicitly link microchimerism and survival, researchers found that the presence of microchimeric cells, as indicated by the presence of the Y chromosome, reduced women’s mortality for all causes by 60 per cent, largely because of a significantly reduced risk of death from cancer. Although the researchers looked only at male microchimerism (because there are no easy targets to distinguish cells between mothers and daughters), they maintain that female foetuses would have the same impact on longevity: 85 per cent of women who possessed these cells lived to age 80, as compared with 67 per cent who did not. While there are no clear answers to explain how microchimeric cells might lead to longer lifespans, researchers speculate that it could be associated with greater immune surveillance and improved repair of damaged tissue. However, the jury is out as to whether the presence of foetal cells in tissues is a sign of repair or of developing disease.

To Kirby Johnson, professor of paediatrics at Tufts University in Boston, the evidence favours a protective role. Like the Nelson lab, Johnson and his colleagues were also investigating autoimmune diseases. However, they reasoned that, if foetal cells were causing disease, then they should be found in greater concentration in affected tissue. ‘But what we found was that it really didn’t matter if you were looking at women with a particular autoimmune disorder or who were perfectly healthy – we were finding male DNA everywhere we looked,’ Johnson said. ‘That observation of ubiquity – of presence everywhere – didn’t match up to the hypothesis that these cells cause disease.’

While that finding was revelatory for Johnson, the bigger moment came during a study in 2001 on the role of microchimeric cells in disease of the thyroid, a hormone-secreting gland located in the neck. Analyses of samples taken from women who had their thyroids removed showed ‘perfectly intact thyroid follicles from male cells. These were not sad, scattered cells like you’d expect’ but strikingly healthy. Johnson recalled: ‘Finding male cells that had assumed the structure of functional tissue made us say, wait a second, it doesn’t look like it’s causing disease. It looks like they’re actually coming to the rescue and participating in repair.’

Not long after, a mother with severe hepatitis C and a history of intravenous drug use checked into a Boston clinic. Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver, and when Johnson and colleagues looked at a biopsy of the organ, they found a high number of male cells. Moreover, these cells appeared to be functioning as healthy liver tissue. Although the woman declined further treatment for her disease, she participated in tests confirming that the cells had indeed come from her son. When she came in at a later date to provide blood samples, Johnson and his research team were astounded to discoverthat she was free of the disease. ‘We can’t with absolute certainty say, foetal cells cured her hepatitis,’ Johnson told me. ‘But we can say, there is definitely an association between the presence of foetal cells and improved disease status.’

For hundreds of millions of years, microchimerism has been a part of mammalian reproduction. From a survival-of-the-fittest perspective, it would make sense that microchimerism might preserve the health of mother and child, helping her survive childbirth and beyond as her offspring make their slow way to independence. However, current evolutionary thinking suggests that the interests of parents and their kin might be at odds – in the womb, as well as in the world. Because mother and the foetus are not genetically identical, they might be engaged in a tug of war over resources. In addition, the mother’s goals, presumably being the successful reproduction and rearing of multiple children, might be at odds with the evolutionary aims of the individual foetus: its own, solitary survival and eventual reproduction.

The geneticist Amy Boddy of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says that microchimerism presents a paradoxical picture of conflict and cooperation, and foetal cells might well play a host of roles, from helpful partners to hostile adversaries. These tensions are thought to originate with the creation of the placenta. Trophoblasts, cells that form the outer layer of the early embryo, attach and burrow into the uterine lining, establishing pregnancy and initiating the process of directing blood, oxygen and nutrients from the mother to the developing foetus. Boddy suggests that microchimeric cells act like a ‘placenta beyond the womb’, directing resources to the baby throughout gestation and after birth.

Conflict ensues: on the one hand, mothers and babies have a shared investment in mutual survival; on the other, the foetus is a demanding, voracious presence, actively trying to draw resources to itself, while the mother places limits on just how much she is willing to give.

In other words, on an unconscious level, the mother might be engaged in a struggle with the foetus over just how much she can provide without harm to herself. Microchimerism extends this silent chemical conversation into the months and years after birth, where, theorists propose, foetal cells can play an important role in ‘manipulating’ the breasts to lactate, the body to increase its temperature, and the mind to become more attached to this new wailing and growing human.

The idea that the womb might not be an enclave of rosy communion took hold in the work of the American evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. An original and often unorthodox figure, Trivers was the creator of seminal theories – such as parental investment, altruism and parent-offspring conflict – that are now mainstays of evolutionary psychology. Where others embraced the veneer of presumed harmony, Trivers saw roiling conflicts hidden from view, whether in the womb or in romantic partnership. He made the case that familial struggles are rooted in ‘conflict between the biology of the parent and the biology of the child’. Tensions arise, he suggests, because a mother wants to make sure all her children have an equal chance at survival and procreation, whereas a child privileges its own survival and wants to commandeer the mother’s resources for itself.

The foetus has been depicted as a manipulative entity, conniving to direct the mother to its own advantage

The evolutionary biologist David Haig at Harvard University elaborated on this idea through the concept of genomic imprinting. For most genes, the foetus inherits two working copies, one from the mother and one from the father. However, with imprinted genes, one of the copies is silenced, leading to genes that are differently expressed depending on whether they are inherited from the mother or father. Haig suggests that genetically determined behaviours that benefit the paternal line might be favoured by natural selection when a gene is transmitted by the sperm. And conversely, behaviour that benefits that maternal side might be favoured when a gene is transmitted by the egg.

Haig extends the battle in the womb to the mother and father, whose evolutionary agendas differ on just how much the mother should give to the foetus, and how much the foetus should take. He theorises that genes of paternal origin are likely to promote increased demands for maternal resources. Moreover, Haig suggests that a given man will not necessarily reproduce with one woman, but rather increase his own reproductive success by having children with multiple partners. As a result, he is, evolutionarily speaking, more invested in the health of his offspring, whose fitness benefits from extracting as much from the mother as possible, than he is in her long-term wellbeing.

Haig has been influential in depicting the foetus as a manipulative entity, conniving to direct the mother to its own advantage. Lactation might be evidence of this subtle control at work, and result from foetal cells that are commonly found in breast tissue signalling to the mother’s body to make milk. Haig also speculates that birth timing might owe to the silent influence of older siblings – which he describes as ‘the colonisation of maternal bodies by offspring cells’ – pushing the mother’s body to delay subsequent pregnancies. While there is nothing overtly harmful to the mother about lactation or delayed birth timing, by Haig’s rendering they are evidence of the parasitic control that a foetus wields over its mother, and the developing child’s efforts to claim the largest share of a presumably scant pie. He argues that microchimeric cells can extend inter-birth intervals beyond the mother’s optimum time frame, and cites as evidence a 2010 study showing that male births are more likely to be followed by multiple miscarriages.

Haig is quick to point out that these antagonisms are not an expression of feuding spouses, squabbling families or ongoing culture wars, but rather are playing out unconsciously through ‘genetic politics’. Nonetheless, there is a ready slippage between the interpretation of social behaviour and analyses of biological activity, and current research is ripe with hyperbole and bellicose metaphors.

If I am both my children and my mother, does that change who I am and the way I behave in the world?

An ‘evolutionary arms race’ is what Oliver Griffith, a postdoctoral associate at Yale University, calls pregnancy. He elaborates that mothers ‘marshal their best defensive tactics’ against offspring’s ‘strategies to steal resources’.

Harvey Kliman, a reproductive scientist at the Yale School of Medicine, makes the case that the placenta, which he proposes is controlled by the genes of the father, is at odds with the evolutionary aims of the mother. While the father’s goal is to make ‘the biggest placenta and the biggest baby possible’, the mother’s objective is to place limits on this growth so that she can survive childbirth. Kliman was part of a group that investigated the role of a protein dubbed PP13 in pre-eclampsia. During gestation, trophoblasts work to expand the mother’s arteries to bring blood flow and nutrients to the foetus. In an analysis of placentas from terminated pregnancies, the group found that PP13 was largely absent around these arteries, but that it was concentrated near the veins. They concluded that PP13 acts as a diversion, luring the mother’s immune cells to the veins and away from the placental expansion – Kliman uses the term ‘invasion’ – into the arteries. As Kliman put it to The New York Times in 2011: ‘Let’s say we’re planning to rob a bank, but before we rob the bank we blow up a grocery store a few blocks away so the police are distracted. That’s what we think this is.’

But as alluringly action-packed as these analogies are, they remain wholly speculative. And indeed, theories of conflict in and beyond the womb are just that. As the biologist Stephen Stearns at Yale has remarked: ‘the annals of research journals are littered with the corpses of beautiful ideas that were killed by facts’. At present, there is no definitive proof that the microchimeric activity, commonly described as conflict, combat or colonisation, reveals one entity pitted against the other. The assumption that the solitary organism strictly pursues goals of survival and genetic self-interest favours a parsimonious view of the individual: homo economicus operating in an environment of scarcity, in eternal competition with a nameless other.

The self emerging from microchimeric research appears to be of a different order: porous, unbounded, rendered constituently. Nelson suggests that each human being is not so much an isolated island as a dynamic ecosystem. And if this is the case, the question follows as to how this state of collectivity changes our conscious and unconscious motivations. If I am both my children and my mother, if I carry traces of my sibling and remnants of pregnancies that never resulted in birth, does that change who I am and the way I behave in the world? If we are to take to heart Whitman’s multitudes, we encounter an I composed of shared identity, collective affiliations and motivations that emerge not from a mean and solitary struggle, but a group investment in greater survival.

Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With


Women retain and carry living DNA cells from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study.

Women retain and carry living DNA from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study by the University of Seattle and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

The study, which discovered the startling information by accident, was originally trying to determine if women who have been pregnant with a son might be more predisposed to certain neurological diseases that occur more frequently in males.

But as the scientists picked apart the female brain, the study began to veer wildly off course. As it turns out, the female brain is even more mysterious than we previously thought.

The study found that female brains often harbor “male microchimerism“, or in other words, the presence of male DNA that originated from another individual, and are genetically distinct from the cells that make up the rest of the woman.

fake-news-websites

According to the study: “63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain. Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions.”

So 63% of women carry male DNA cells that live in their brains. Obviously the researchers wanted to know where the male DNA came from.

 Anyone care to guess? From the women’s fathers? No. Your father’s DNA combines with your mother’s to create your unique DNA. So where else could it come from?

Through the study the researchers assumed that the most likely answer was that all male DNA found living in the female brain came from a male pregnancy. That was the safe, politically correct assumption. But these researchers were living in denial.

Because when they autopsied the brains of women who had never even been pregnant, let alone with a male child, they STILL found male DNA cells prevalent in the female brain.

At this point the scientists didn’t know what the hell was going on. Confused, they did their best to hide the evidence until they could understand and explain it. They buried it in numerous sub studies and articles, but if you sift through them all you will find the damning statement, the one line that gives the game away and explains exactly where these male DNA cells come from.

What are they so afraid of?

CONCLUSIONS: Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.

So according to the scientists, the possible sources of the male DNA cells living in the women’s brains are:

  1. an abortion the woman didn’t know about
  2. a male twin that vanished
  3. an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation
  4. sexual intercourse

Considering the fact that 63% of women have male DNA cells residing in the recesses of their brain, which of the above possibilities do you think is the most likely origin of the male DNA?

The first three options apply to a very small percentage of women. They couldn’t possibly account for the 63% figure. The fourth option? It’s rather more common.

The answer is 4. Sex.

This has very important ramifications for women. Every male you absorb spermatazoa from becomes a living part of you for life. The women autopsied in this study were elderly. Some had been carrying the living male DNA inside them for well over 50 years.

Sperm is alive. It is living cells. When it is injected into you it swims and swims until it crashes headlong into a wall, and then it attaches and burrows into your flesh. If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.

Like something out of a scifi movie, it becomes a part of you and you can’t get rid of it.

We are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourse.

Women, Menstruation And Impurity: Why Men Need To Give Up This Obsession


Women, Menstruation And Impurity: Why Men Need To Give Up This Obsession

Whether women want to enter temples or preside over religious functions during menstruation is a matter only they can decide.

It is not for men to place these arbitrary restrictions, especially in the modern age when feminine hygiene products are so widely available.

For any man who obsesses about the “impurity” of menstruating women and why they must be restricted from entering sacred spaces of worship, here is a one-line quiz: Would you stop a man carrying a bottle of urine or stool samples from entering your sanctum sanctorum?

Most hands will probably go up, including possibly that of the Kerala Congress chief who came up with this idea two days ago. Many men will probably be aghast at the suggestion that “dirty stuff” like urine can enter temples or other places of worship.

But here’s the kicker. If you have answered yes to the question, you should be barred from temples. All living beings, including men and priests, have urine accumulating in their bladders almost all the time, and fecal matter is not something that turns up in the intestine just before you head for the morning potty. If the logic of keeping women out is that their bodies are accumulating or ejecting waste material through menstruation, men are not excluded from this logic. Maybe we need clinics to certify that only those whose bodies are clean from the inside should be allowed into temples.

The human body is a huge filtration and waste disposal system for both men and women. Our noses and ears accumulate external dirt to prevent them from entering areas where they can do damage. Our skin is generating sweat to cool the body, emitting sodium and other minerals in the process. Our hearts clean the blood before they circulate all over the body. The liver cleans blood coming from the digestive tract and generates bile. And, of course, women clean up their wombs once it is clear there is no pregnancy during any month.

And so on.

The body is constantly working on cleaning and purging waste material and impurities, and to presume that only one function involving one gender – menstruating women – equals impurity and lack of cleanliness displays huge ignorance.

Patriarchy has such a strong hold on men and women primarily because of two reasons: the physical handicap women face while bearing and nurturing infants; and the regressive idea that menstruation somehow makes women unclean, and therefore inferior, to men when performing godly duties.

India, which has avoided the patriarchal Abrahamic mindset of having only male gods, has, despite having female gods, chosen this route to subjugate and mentally debase and colonise women. If we presume that our goddesses will have the same physiology of women born to humans, we are essentially abusing Saraswati, Durga, Laxmi and Parvati, among others.

The point that needs underscoring is this: whether women want to enter temples or preside over religious functions during menstruation is a matter only they can decide. It is not for men to place these arbitrary restrictions, especially in the modern age when feminine hygiene products are so widely available.

The gods and goddesses would not be amused to hear that one of their kind is somehow unclean. For a society that thought up elevating ideas like Aham Brahmasmi (I am brahman, the creator and me are the same), one wonders how laws on purity can be so different for men and women. We also have the concept of the Ardhanareeswar (the human being as being both male and female in parts). To hold one half of humankind as somehow inferior when we are both man and woman rolled into one body is nonsensical.

Source:swarajyamag.com

Women, Menstruation And Impurity: Why Men Need To Give Up This Obsession


Women, Menstruation And Impurity: Why Men Need To Give Up This Obsession

Whether women want to enter temples or preside over religious functions during menstruation is a matter only they can decide.

It is not for men to place these arbitrary restrictions, especially in the modern age when feminine hygiene products are so widely available.

For any man who obsesses about the “impurity” of menstruating women and why they must be restricted from entering sacred spaces of worship, here is a one-line quiz: Would you stop a man carrying a bottle of urine or stool samples from entering your sanctum sanctorum?

Most hands will probably go up, including possibly that of the Kerala Congress chief who came up with this idea two days ago. Many men will probably be aghast at the suggestion that “dirty stuff” like urine can enter temples or other places of worship.

But here’s the kicker. If you have answered yes to the question, you should be barred from temples. All living beings, including men and priests, have urine accumulating in their bladders almost all the time, and fecal matter is not something that turns up in the intestine just before you head for the morning potty. If the logic of keeping women out is that their bodies are accumulating or ejecting waste material through menstruation, men are not excluded from this logic. Maybe we need clinics to certify that only those whose bodies are clean from the inside should be allowed into temples.

The human body is a huge filtration and waste disposal system for both men and women. Our noses and ears accumulate external dirt to prevent them from entering areas where they can do damage. Our skin is generating sweat to cool the body, emitting sodium and other minerals in the process. Our hearts clean the blood before they circulate all over the body. The liver cleans blood coming from the digestive tract and generates bile. And, of course, women clean up their wombs once it is clear there is no pregnancy during any month.

And so on.

The body is constantly working on cleaning and purging waste material and impurities, and to presume that only one function involving one gender – menstruating women – equals impurity and lack of cleanliness displays huge ignorance.

Patriarchy has such a strong hold on men and women primarily because of two reasons: the physical handicap women face while bearing and nurturing infants; and the regressive idea that menstruation somehow makes women unclean, and therefore inferior, to men when performing godly duties.

India, which has avoided the patriarchal Abrahamic mindset of having only male gods, has, despite having female gods, chosen this route to subjugate and mentally debase and colonise women. If we presume that our goddesses will have the same physiology of women born to humans, we are essentially abusing Saraswati, Durga, Laxmi and Parvati, among others.

The point that needs underscoring is this: whether women want to enter temples or preside over religious functions during menstruation is a matter only they can decide. It is not for men to place these arbitrary restrictions, especially in the modern age when feminine hygiene products are so widely available.

The gods and goddesses would not be amused to hear that one of their kind is somehow unclean. For a society that thought up elevating ideas like Aham Brahmasmi (I am brahman, the creator and me are the same), one wonders how laws on purity can be so different for men and women. We also have the concept of the Ardhanareeswar (the human being as being both male and female in parts). To hold one half of humankind as somehow inferior when we are both man and woman rolled into one body is nonsensical.

Source:/swarajyamag.com

Women With Larger Behinds Are Healthier And More Intelligent, Study Finds.


It turns out that having a little “junk in the trunk” is a good thing, health wise. Not only does having a larger derriere boost overall health, but it’s tied to increased intelligence and lower risk of chronic disease, according to researchers at the University of Oxford and Churchill Hospital in the United Kingdom.

Fat distribution is important, say researchers, and if you’re going to have some, it’s best to have it below the waist, as it helps to serve as a barrier against heart disease, diabetes and other conditions linked to obesity.
“It is the protective role of lower body, that is [thigh and backside] fat, that is striking. The protective properties of the lower-body fat depot have been confirmed in many studies conducted in subjects with a wide range of age, BMI and co-morbidities,” scientists wrote in the Journal of Obesity.
Apple-shaped vs. pear-shaped
Comparing your body shape to that of a fruit can help you identify whether or not you’re on the right track. If you’re pear-shaped, you’re probably in a good place, researchers say. If you’re apple-shaped, you may want to embark on a healthier lifestyle.
Individuals with belly fat have more obesity-related problems than those who carry extra weight on their hips, thighs and butt.
“There’s a lot of evidence that shows that the fat depots are not the same in the body,” said Dr. Robert Kushner, a professor of medicine specializing in obesity at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.
Belly fat “is more metabolically active,” explains Kushner, meaning it has a greater effect on the brain and overall body, compared to fat stored in the lower half, which tends to be more stable and invokes fewer cytokines or proteins associated with insulin resistance and the onset of diabetes.
“There’s a whole range of these hormonal markers that seem to be more preferentially released from the belly,” he adds.
Regulating weight gain in the brain
Another factor tied to fat distribution in women is leptin. Leptin levels, crucial for regulating appetite, are correlated with a bigger derriere, too. In individuals who are obese, their brain stops responding to the hormone entirely, causing the person to develop leptin resistance, which is similar to insulin resistance, reports Elite Daily.
“Having a big butt also favors leptin levels in the female body, which is a hormone responsible for regulating the weight, and the dinopectina, a hormone with anti-inflammatory, vascular-protective and anti-diabetic attributes. The adipose tissue of the buttocks traps harmful fatty particles and prevents cardiovascular disease.”
Big butt equals big brains
Maintaining a larger behind requires significant amounts of Omega 3 fats, which are proven to boost brain function, memory and cognitive abilities. Research also shows that children born to women with wide hips are more intelligent compared to those conceived by thinner and less curvy mothers.

Do Women Really Value Income over Looks in a Mate?


Article Image
Multiethnic couple of lovers hugging under the umbrella on a rainy day.

Economists love online dating websites, not to find the love of their lives (although they might be doing that) but because they provide an opportunity to observe a fascinating market in action: the market for marriage. From this market we can determine what individual preferences are for a mate, and this can be extremely useful in economic analysis.

If we can’t directly observe the market for a mate, we only really have two options if we want to determine people’s preferences: ask people their preferences or observe the outcome of the market. Neither one of these options is satisfactory though.

For example, you might ask, “On a scale of one to ten, how important is it that your mate is the same race as you?” This is an interesting question because we observe surprising few mixed race marriages in the census data and finding out why is informative (we will definitely return to the question of same-race preference in a future post). The problem with this approach is that people either lack self-awareness or tend to not to be very honest in their answers. This doesn’t just apply to the question of race but about other characteristics as well.

An economist could look instead at people who are already married and try to determine their preferences that way, but this doesn’t work very well either. Let me give you an example. Suppose I have evidence that women with breasts that are smaller than average are more often married to men who are below average height. Does this information tell us that small-breasted women prefer shorter men? Of course it doesn’t. One possible alternative is that all women prefer taller men and that taller men prefer large-breasted women. If this was the case, then at the close of the market smaller-breasted women only have an option to choose shorter men. It is a silly example but it does demonstrate the point that we can’t tell much about preferences for a mate simply by observing people who are already matched.

Really what we want to do is observe people’s choices directly which is why dating websites are so useful to us. Here’s an example. What if I have a hypothesis that when choosing a mate, men care more about their potential partner’s appearance than her income and women care more about her potential partner’s income than his appearance. Imagine the following experiment. A woman/man can choose between communicating with two people. One earns $60,000 a year and is more attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. The other earns X dollars per year and is less attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. Every other observable characteristic about these two people is identical. We can use the information that tells us who individuals choose to communicate with to determine what X would have to be in order to make a woman/man prefer the less attractive person.

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

I know what you are thinking: that there is more to finding a partner than looks and income. True, true, but dating websites don’t let you filter your searches by the way he tilts his head when he laughs or her affection for slap-stick humor. When they do, maybe even I will think about giving them a try.

Source:http://bigthink.com

Why Aren’t Women Advancing At Work? Ask a Transgender Person.


Having experienced the workplace from both perspectives, they hold the key to its biases.

Fifty years after The Feminine Mystique and 40 years after Title IX, the question of why women lag in the workplace dogs researchers and lay people alike. While women are entering the professions at rates equal to men, they rise more slowly, and rarely advance to the top. They’re represented in smaller numbers at the top in fields from science to arts to business.

Some suggest that there is something different about women—women have stalled because of their personal choices, or their cognitive and emotional characteristics, whether innate or socialized. Another possibility is that the obstacles to women’s advancement are located within their environments—that they face barriers unique to their gender.1

But while bias has been experimentally demonstrated, it’s hard to study in the real world: Just as it’s hard to isolate a single environmental pollutant’s effect on human health, it’s been near impossible to isolate gender as a variable in the real world and watch how it affects a person’s day-to-day experience.

Until now. Trans people are bringing entirely new ways of approaching the discussion. Because trans people are now staying in the same careers (and sometimes the very same jobs) after they change genders, they are uniquely qualified to discuss the difference between how men and women experience the workplace. Their experience is as close to the scientific method as we can get: By isolating and manipulating gender as a variable and holding all other variables—skill, career, personality, talent—constant, these individuals reveal exactly the way one’s outward appearance of gender affects day-to-day interactions. If we truly want to understand women at work, we should listen carefully to trans men and trans women: They can tell us more about gender in the workplace than just about anyone.


Ben Barres is a biologist at Stanford who lived and worked as Barbara Barres until he was in his forties. For most of his career, he experienced bias, but didn’t give much weight to it—seeing incidents as discrete events. (When he solved a tough math problem, for example, a professor said, “You must have had your boyfriend solve it.”) When he became Ben, however, he immediately noticed a difference in his everyday experience: “People who don’t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect,” he says. He was more carefully listened to and his authority less frequently questioned. He stopped being interrupted in meetings. At one conference, another scientist said, “Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister’s.” (The scientist didn’t know Ben and Barbara were the same person.) “This is why women are not breaking into academic jobs at any appreciable rate,” he wrote in response to Larry Summers’s famous gaffe implying women were less innately capable at the hard sciences. “Not childcare. Not family responsibilities,” he says. “I have had the thought a million times: I am taken more seriously.”

This experience, it turns out, is typical for transmen. For her book Just One of the Guys? Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality, sociologist Kristen Schilt interviewed dozens of FTM (female to male) transgender individuals. One subject noted that when he expresses an opinion, everyone in a meeting now writes it down. Another noted, “When I was a woman, no matter how many facts I had, people were like, “Are you sure about that?’ It’s so strange not to have to defend your positions.” When they suggested women for promotions, other men said, “Oh! I hadn’t thought about her”—they were able to promote women because their advice was taken more seriously. Personality traits that had been viewed negatively when they were women were now seen as positives. “I used to be considered aggressive,” said one subject. “Now I’m considered ‘take charge.’ People say, ‘I love your take-charge attitude.’”

The effects of FTM transition, however, aren’t universally positive. Race, it seems, has the ability to overshadow gender when it comes to others’ esteem. Black transmen, for instance, found they were perceived as a “dangerous” post transition. One subject said he went from being “obnoxious black woman” to “scary black man”—and was now always asked to play the “suspect” in training exercises.

What happens when the opposite transformation takes place—when a man becomes a woman? Joan Roughgarden is a biologist at Stanford who lived and worked as Jonathan Roughgarden until her early fifties, and her experience was almost the mirror image of Barres’s. In her words, “men are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise, whereas a woman is assumed to be incompetent until she proves otherwise.” In an interview, Roughgarden also noted that if she questioned a mathematical idea, people assumed it was because she didn’t understand it. Other transwomen have found changes not only in perceptions of their ability, but also their personality. In Schilt’s work with transwomen for a forthcoming book, she found that behaviors transwomen had as men were now seen as off-putting. What was once “take-charge” was now “aggressive.” And they had to adapt; the transwomen quickly learned that “being the same way in the world would be detrimental to your career.”

Unlike those of us who have only experienced the world a single gender, Schilt’s subjects were able to see very clearly that “men succeed in the workplace at higher rates than women because of gender stereotypes that privilege masculinity, not because they have greater skill or ability.” Bias is a hard thing to acknowledge. “Until a person has experienced career-harming bias,” wrote Barres in his response to Summers, “they simply don’t believe it exists.” And people tend to think the problem is located elsewhere: “Everyone thinks that there’s bias out there, but ‘I’m not that person,’” says Schilt.

But, says Schilt, bias is both more pervasive and less invidious. And addressing it is going to take more than just waiting around for the old guard to retire: The “fantasy of a demographic shift just isn’t true,” Schilt says. ”It’s our culture. It’s how we organize gender, separate by gender, men’s rooms and women’s rooms—it’s so ingrained in us that these things are different. And it’s not just men, it’s also women who have the same ideas.” The experiences of trans people are bringing these factors to light in a wholly new and unclouded way.

Of course, the sample size is small here. And there’s no perfect agreement on cause-and-effect. Chris Edwards, a trans advertising executive, says that post-transition, he was given greater levels of responsibility—but he thinks it’s because the testosterone he took changed his behavior. He became less timid and more outspoken—and was seen, at work, as more of a leader. Indeed, some suggest that transmen might experience these workplace benefits partly because, post-transition, they are happier and more comfortable, and that this confidence leads to greater workplace success. But if that’s the case, one would expect that transwomen, armed with this same newfound confidence, would see benefits. The opposite seems to be true.

To truly understand trans people’s experiences of workplace gender bias, more research is needed. But the window to do so may be closing, as people are able to change genders at younger and younger ages. Puberty-inhibiting medications are becoming more mainstream, meaning young trans people can choose to suppress the development of secondary sexual characteristics from a relatively early age. (The treatment became available in the U.S. in 2009.) A child who identifies with the opposite gender and seeks treatment is now able to experience the world, for most of their life, as that gender alone.

And the group of trans people who are vocal on the subject is already fairly small; many seem to feel they have much larger issues facing them. When asked how people react when she describes the different treatment she receives as a woman, Roughgarden responds simply, “I don’t bring it up.” Ultimately, Schilt says, it’s not trans people’s responsibility fix gender bias. Roughgarden agrees. “We’re trying make a life,” she says. “We have to live in our actual roles, we can’t sit in a coffeehouse and complain about how this is the world. This is the world and we have to live in it. We have to navigate it.”

  1. It’s been shown, for example, that both women and men attribute women’s success more often to luck, and attribute men’s more often to ability. Women also received fewer rewards for sharing opinions and taking leadership roles. One study showed that a female fellowship applicant had to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male applicant to be deemed equally competent.
%d bloggers like this: