Interesting Links for 16-10-2015

[andrewducker]

• Feel guilty a lot? You're probably really sensitive to other people's emotions
  • (tags: guilt emotion )
• I'm going to "The Humanities in a Post-Human Future: Iain M. Banks’s Theory of Mind" (tickets still available)
  • (tags: IainBanks scifi writing )
• The tantalizing links between gut microbes and the brain
  • (tags: microbiome brain bacteria )
• Mathematicians

Comments

[bart_calendar]

It's interesting to see that tampon tax story in the way it's being presented in English language media.

In French media there is a component to the story that that article doesn't get into:

The push by the French medical community for women to stop having periods for most of their lives.

The argument is that with free reliable hormonal birth control there is no medical reason at all for women to menstruate.

They claim (and I have no idea where to even look to find out if this is accurate or not) that the only reason birth control pills were set up originally with placebo pills several days a month is that they were worried that women would freak out and be convinced they were pregnant if they didn't bleed once a month.

Meanwhile, they say, that it's actually healthier for women not to take the placebo pills but to simply keep taking their regular pills - which will provide them with birth control protection but not cause them to bleed.

(They also say that what happens when you are on the pill and go to placebos isn't a "real period" it's something the resembles it but a different body process. My knowlege of medical French is not high enough for me to even begin to try to explain this.)

Their argument is that causing this "reassurance bleeding" is dangerous because it depletes iron levels, raises risks of infections and makes STI transmission considerably higher while also having dangerous effects on blood pressure and cardiac levels.

So, doctors are arguing not to reduce the tax because they are doing everything they can to make is so that women don't need tampons at all and they feel that making tampons cheaper is counterproductive to that effort.

(This is not me taking a stance either way - this is just me trying to explain how the situation is being presented here. I honestly have no opinion at all about menstruation.)

[andrewducker]

I agree that it's nowadays considered perfectly safe:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/no-periods/403894/

However, I know several women who have had major issues with hormone pills (including really awful weight gain, mood swings, etc), and I don't want to put any pressure on women to feel that they must ingest artificual hormones on a constant basis.

Also, I'd like to see some evidence around infections, STI, etc. I'll go digging when I'm not at work though.

I'm also _really_ against doctors effectively arguing that we should make women's choices more expensive to force them into making a particular choice.

[bart_calendar]

Yeah, it's an incredibly complex issue and as a dude I don't think it would be fair for me to take a stance either way.

I just think it's an important part of the context.

(And, yeah, I don't think doctors want to stop periods for all women, simply for the huge numbers of them who use hormonal birth control.)

As to periods raising STI risks there is some controversy over it, but in general it probably does. Many STIs are transmitted through blood. Adding blood to the sexual act (because lots of people have period sex) naturally increases exposure.

Also it seems like the cervix is more open during periods.

http://std.about.com/od/riskfactorsforstds/f/Does-Period-Sex-Increase-STD-Risk.htm

[bart_calendar]

Another thing - making things expensive to alter health choices is pretty common.

Hence taxes on beer and cigarettes.

[andrewducker]

I think there's a qualitative difference between "things you do for fun which are harmful" (and thus you need raised taxes to pay for the healthcare) and "things where you need to make a healthcare choice".

[naath]

My understanding is that this it is basically true that using contraception to avoid getting periods at all is safe. In English the term tends to be "withdrawal bleed" for the fake-period you get if you take the placebo pills.

However many women can't take hormonal contraception at all (the side effects can suck) and some women get some bleeding even on constant hormones (taking the pill all the time, or using other long-term hormonal contraceptives). And of course some women want to conceive and are probably going to have some periods between stopping contraception and conceiving (might not, but likely will), and other women have no need for contraception and don't want to risk the side effects of the hormones... so I don't think concluding "period having is totally optional and the tax system should incentivise no-period-having" is great.

On a completely different hand though - single-use menstrual products are very environmentally damaging, and I think that an argument that it would be better for women to use reusable products (cloth pads, moon cups, etc) and that the tax system should incentivise that could be made. Of course then moon cups should not have VAT on them!

[helflaed]

Are these pharamceutical companies actually aware that even when using pills/implants/injection that some women bleed anyway? It may not be a true mentrual period, but it still needs to be mopped up somehow...

[chess]

While the plural of anecdote isn't evidence, I get super crazy (everything is a disaster, everything will be terrible forever, suicidal thoughts) if I run more than two packs of pills together.

Obviously I have no idea whether this is somehow a habituation thing rather than a hormone level thing, but it certainly feels like a buildup of the kind of PMT I used to get before I took hormone pills, and the madness clearly breaks and clears up a day or so into bleeding.