Male pill: The scientist working on 'progress for humanity'
Male pill: The scientist working on 'progress for humanity'
A new non-hormonal pill would slow sperm cells' swimming action, effectively disabling them.
A Welsh scientist working on a new male pill wants to reduce the burden on women of protecting against unwanted pregnancies.
Prof Chris Barratt is leading research on a non-hormonal drug which prevents sperm cells from reaching an egg.
His team at the University of Dundee has received significant funding from the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation.
"It's been a very poorly researched topic for 40 or 50 years," Prof Barratt said, but society has changed.
His team's research could see men given a gel or a pill that would affect the sperm cell, effectively disabling its function.
Instead of targeting the production of sperm, his research focuses on slowing the sperm cells' swimming action down and making them similar to those in infertile patients.
You're viewing a single thread.
There have been several attempts at this over the years and at the final hurdle they always fail because men refuse to deal with any of the side effects (but are happy for us to continue to do so), and/or with the toxic idea of it being "emasculating".
And if it ever did get past those hurdles, it might work for couples in a long term trusting relationship, but I, nor any other woman I know, would trust some random guy to have either taken the pill and/or be honest about it. If "stealthing" is a thing, believe that people would lie about taking a pill. Even if it had to be taken on the spot, some people would come up with ways to fake it. I'm not going to risk it, and I'm in the UK where we still have semi-reasonable access to abortion, I can't imagine anyone with more restricted access being willing to..
You have absolutely no idea if the side effects are comparable between male and female birth control pills. Nobody does. Maybe stop to consider the that side effects might be really bad, before just invalidating the experience of all those who have tested it?
Lmmfao, typical.. You having absolutely no idea, doesn't mean I don't, since I actually read the reports I'm talking about when they came out years ago, and the side effects were essentially identical to those women have been expected to put up with for decades.
You can pretend toxic masculinity and male fragility and entitlement, never mind the male dominance and minimisation of women's suffering in medicine, don't exist all you like, but that doesn't make them any less real or impactful.. ¯\(ツ)/¯
You're not actually that slow, are you? Just because the side effects have the same names doesn't mean they're in any way comparable. If you actually read any of the trial reports you'd know the side effects they described were crippling.
Hormonal pills have horrible side effects for some women, but for millions of women around the world the benefits well outweigh the side effects. If you did any of this reading you claimed to do you'd know that wasn't the case with the male trials at all.
From my understanding, its more along the lines of “risk averse regulators see the side effects as unacceptable”… not “crybaby men are crybabies” like your post infers. (Seriously, your post has some really toxic vibes)
Birth control has a lot of very horrible side effects.. in addition to the common hormonal changes, they also come with things such as an increased risk of stroke.
For women, child birth is extremely intense on the body with lots of increased risk. Lets look at the stroke side effect as an example.. birth control causes increased risk of stroke, but pregnancy causes an even higher risk of stroke. Its easy for regulators to justify the stroke risk of birth control because it actively prevents the higher stroke risk of pregnancy.
For men, child birth comes with no risk whatsoever because they cant physically get pregnant. lets look at that same stroke side effect for example.. birth control provides increased risk of stroke, but comes with no medical benefit. that increased risk is extremely difficult to medically justify.
Essentially, childbirth/pregnancy is extremely high risk for women, which makes it easier to justify the side effects for a medication that prevents it. The risks of childbirth/pregnancy dont exist for men though, so its much harder to justify the same side effects.
Yes, it feels unfair and fucked up, but thats because reproduction is inherently unfair and fucked up…
there may be something to be said about whether or not the regulators factor in the externalities of the pregnant partner when looking at approving such medication.. i have absolutely no clue though.
Oh please, do mansplain to me about the risks of pregnancy some more, I hadn't had a fucking clue! 🙄🙄🙄
You assholes just can't fucking help yourselves, can you??? 😂
It's not as if there are other ways to stop pregnancy if the risk is such a concern, if only men didn't regularly refuse them too, perhaps women wouldn't have to suffer the hormonal hell men have_ the privilege_ to refuse, that is imposed on us often from puberty on top of that risk. But clearly it isn't really that much of a concern after all.. Not for men.
Also, because I'm not wasting any more energy on you:
You can pretend toxic masculinity and male fragility and entitlement, never mind the male dominance and minimisation of women's suffering in medicine, don't exist all you like, but that doesn't make them any less real or impactful.. ¯(ツ)/¯
Oh please, your toxic incel-like worldview effectively proved my point. pregnancy is inherently unfair and fucked up.. the unfair nature of it makes the burden of risk inherently unfair & fucked up.
No amount of male birth control is going to make you content, so i ask, what the fuck are you advocating for?
Yeah. I think you explained it well. The bodies themselves are different, so it makes sense why the interventions are different.
We could use male condoms, but the problem is couples don't like that because they want as much of the sexual process to continue naturally.
If you want the process to go uninterfered as much as possible, it makes sense to put the cork at the end of the race (right before fertilization).
If you're ok with interfering at the beginning, by all means use a male condom (put the cork at the start of the race).
This is belied by the fact that one of the most common elective procedures for men is a vasectomy. It (actually) has more to do with numbers. In men you have to block millions of sperm- in women it’s one egg. Physiologically, it’s an easier problem to solve in women.
-
male BC requires stopping essentially thousands of sperm, while female BC only requires stopping one egg from attaching. That's why female BC is physiologically "simpler".
-
risk is relative. For example, woman's BC risk is weighed against childbirth, because childbirth is dangerous. That's why women's BC has a relative advantage. Childbirth isn't something that men face, which is why men's BC has no relative advantage. That's why the bar for BC is strict with men. It's because the situations are different.
-
(related to point #2) trust and liability. If the man lies about taking BC, the woman ends up pregnant. The risk and responsibility lie on the woman.
-
the reason why the BC responsibility typically falls on the woman has to do more so with the nature of our bodies and how far people want the sexual process to travel.
For example, we could just make it so that every man wear a condom during sex. But there are both men and women who don't like that, because they want to "feel a more natural sex". Condoms interrupt the natural process right at the start. What's ideal is that as much of the process happens normally, and it is only stopped at the end to prevent fertilization. Following that logic, the sperm travels towards the egg and you wanna stop it right then before the end (for example, a cervical cap perhaps).
Women are on the receiving end of the sexual process, so if the couple doesn't want a condom, or if they want the sex to feel as natural as possible, logic follows that the "stopper-plug" would be in the woman, because the finish line of fertilization takes place inside a woman.
If the couple is ok with a stopper plug closer to the beginning of the race, just use a condom then.
I'll address your comment now.
Your first paragraph honestly comes off as quite toxic and bitter now that I'm reading it again. Everybody has bodily autonomy and the right to refuse anything, and the reason is irrelevant. You have 3 choices.
-
The woman accepts the BC,
-
the man accepts the BC, or
-
both refuse and just decide that you can't have sex.
You don't want female BC that's fine. Nobody here is shaming you for your choice. If you don't want it that's fine. But the same standard applies to the men you're choosing to date. If they don't want it, that's the end of that conversation. Move on to option 3. What you don't have is the right to scold or shame your partner because they don't wanna take something they aren't comfortable with. You should accept option 3 if the first two aren't available.
Your first paragraph honestly comes off as quite toxic and bitter now that I'm reading it again. Everybody has bodily autonomy and the right to refuse anything, and the reason is irrelevant.
Most women don't have bodily autonomy, why are you claiming otherwise?
Allow me to rephrase it then.
Everybody should have the right to refuse any sort of intervention.
Somebody offers you a medication or procedure and is like "here try this" you should be able to say "no thanks, I don't want it"
And that's the end of that.
-
I for one would have liked to get one in my twenties and skipped out on some of the worries.
You may be remembering the study from almost 10 years ago where a whole bunch of men got injections and some stopped because they got severe acne. Now, that seems like a wimp thing to do. It doesn't include the fact that some men had wild mood swings with it (doesn't happen with womens pill), one developed severe depression, and one successfully committed suicide.
I also disagree with the wording from NPR - men didn't "complain" about the side effects, they REPORTED them. Because they were on a clinical study. And that's what you do on clinical studies.
The boards overseeing the trial stopped it at that point. The men that stayed in on the trial would have kept going if they could have, even with the side effects. So no - men can and have dealt with the side effects.
"stealthing" is also a thing now. It's just women claiming to be on the pill to men instead of vice versa. Trust between two people always has to be there, and some people will break that trust to get their parts licked. It's human nature, not a man vs woman vs NB thing.
Stealthing still going to be a problem with STIs, even with a pill/injection male contraception. Condoms are still going to be necessary.