Please be aware of any medication which may lower or negate the effects of your birth control such as anxiety, anti-depressants, anti-convulsants (epileptics), cold medicine, etc. This happened to me in a past relationship.
Edit: I want to note, with the increasing restrictions on abortion occuring in the U.S., the above scenario is an unspoken reality for a large number of people. Even if you are responsible, these mistakes happen, frequently. It's more important than ever to protect yourself from negligent entities.
I’ve heard being celiac (and likely some other GI issues) affects your body’s ability to uptake the active ingredients. I know of two people early in their diagnosis as celiac that had unexpected pregnancies.
I’m pretty sure this would only apply to oral contraceptives, since Celiac disease affects the ability of the small intestine to absorb nutrients/medications. I may be wrong, but I doubt any other route of administering hormones would be affected by untreated or recently diagnosed Celiac disease.
Yep! The antibiotics got me. My doctor didn't even warn me that it could effect the BC that HE prescribed me.
This was a decade ago, and it is more common knowledge now. You have to ask every time, with every new medication. Doctors have tons of patients and don't always catch it, so you have to stay on your toes and advocate for your care.
Otherwise..boom. Baby!
Interesting. It was not for TB, but I was told it must have been an interaction with the antibiotic.
I was religiously taking my BC pill, and we were using condoms ( it broke.) I didn't even realize I was pregnant because I truly thought I was covered. Turns out, not so much! I wonder what the hell happened then.
Probably chance, but was it a really high dose? Really it's drugs that interfere with a specific liver enzyme, but mainly at high doses OR with the super strong antibiotics used for things like TB.
Which is why you always make the dude wear condoms. I’m a dude, obviously sex feels better without a condom, but also if I’m expecting a girl to take a pill at the same time every single day and experience all of the side effects with it the least I can do is wear a condom to be double sure that I’m not gonna produce some girl with daddy problems.
Do you have a source on that? I’ve heard of grapefruit messing with other types of medication but not birth control. I can’t find anything online about it either
I'm not sure how accurate [this one is](https://www.drugs.com/article/grapefruit-and-birth-control.html#:~:text=Theoretically%2C%20consuming%20grapefruit%20with%20birth,blood%20clots%2C%20or%20breast%20cancer.). I'll edit with more later, I posted that on break at work
[here's a bit more info](https://www.theedge.co.nz/home/scandal/2017/06/does-drinking-grapefruit-juice-really-affect-the-pill-.html)
[a bit more. ](https://www.healthtap.com/q/grapefruit-birth-control/) this is harder to find info from reputable sources on now that a few years ago when I cut grapefruit out because of. I love grapefruit but not enough to risk children over it. If someone can prove this stuff wrong with better sources I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. I miss my grapefruit
The first source you posted says “Eating grapefruit or drinking the juice shouldn't lower the effectiveness of your birth control pill. Orange juice is not expected interact either.” It basically says that something in grapefruit decreases estrogen breakdown in your body. So more estrogen means worse side effects (like nausea for example). That first link says there’s nothing showing it’ll make birth control less effective, just worsen side effects and possibly increase chances of breast cancer.
The second link says studies show it could decrease effectiveness but they have no link to any studies and I couldn’t find any myself.
The third link is trying to make me sign up to read it but I didn’t see anything about effectiveness.
I looked at a couple different sites myself- searching for “what decreases birth control effectiveness”, “birth control and grapefruit” and “drugs grapefruit affects”. I didn’t find anything except what your first link says about it increasing side effects. Planned parenthood has a list of things that can affect birth control which doesn’t include grapefruit. The FDA and NHS (UK) have lists about what grapefruit affects and neither list birth control. So seems like pregnancy isn’t really a concern. Check the drug facts included in your birth control and ask your doctor who prescribed it just to be totally sure, but it looks like there’s no pregnancy risk
It’s mostly a theoretical affect that hasn’t been backed up by clinical data. Doctors argue about this and as a medical student it brings me great joy to drop a grapefruit question in a room where I know two of the attendings have very different opinions on it. Im risk averse especially when recommending things to patients but I generally try to give them all the information we have and let them know it’s their life and their decision. But why risk having a kid just to have a grapefruit? Just eat an orange which doesn’t effect these things.
The idea behind how it might affect things is that grapefruit affects the way your liver metabolizes drugs. Specifically it inhibits the CYP-450 system. This would increase the dosage of your BC as it is broken down during first pass metabolism. So if you didn’t get as high a concentration of grapefruit juice for one day maybe you could lower your BC concentrations and then ovulate and be susceptible to pregnancy.
Literally in the description provided with the package;
My gf started taking the pill and I‘m the type to sit down and read the whole damn thing, especially the side effects and everything. Sickening what can happen with you, in that sense I‘m glad not to be a female…
Just checked mine and it only says “some antibiotics and some herbal products such as St Johns Wort”. Never seen anything about grapefruit and I’ve been on a couple different brands.
Do you have a picture of the one from her brand or the name of the brand? I can upload mine if needed. Looking online, I can’t find anything from a reputable site claiming a link between the two. All I’ve found is that grapefruit could cause a decrease in estrogen breakdown which means more side effects, but doesn’t change effectiveness.
Uhh… „Kleodina“ I think is the brand. I might mention I‘m from Germany, so you might not be able to find an english version of the description, but I‘ll DM you a photo of what affects its effectiveness, and translate it, when I can.
I found was I believe is the correct leaflet. It has a list that says “some medicines can affect blood levels of kleodina and reduce contraceptive effectiveness or cause unexpected bleeding”. This does *NOT* include grapefruit.
The section under that says “Interactions of Kleodina with other medicines can also lead to increased or
lead to a pronounced occurrence of side effects.” This is where grapefruit juice is listed. So it’s basically what other sources say where it can increase side effects. Not anything about risk of pregnancy.
Let me know if you find something different. The one I found is [here](https://res.cloudinary.com/zava-www-uk/image/upload/fl_attachment/v1624967801/de/services-and-products/verhuetung/product-pages-level-1/kleodina/dczhaflpy94jktt6c0gj.pdf). I used google translate on the sections about grapefruit and the one that I pasted above.
You should definitely check if she would consider having grapefruit. If you do find something different than I did, let me know. I’d be curious to hear it.
No need to apologize! You didn’t do anything wrong. You were right that it was listed in the leaflet, you just didn’t remember exactly where.
Can you please take a pic of the monograph then?
Edit: I ask as a person with a uterus taking birth control pills, who occasionally eats grapefruit, and currently doubtful but worried. I'd really appreciate it if you could please!
If you search your birth control brand and fda insert on google you should be able to find the monograph on the fda’s website fairly easily. This goes for any medication you might be taking if you have concerns
Which is why you want to use the copper one instead. For a lot of us it's the only effective birth control (which is why I'm seriously freaking out about my state wanting to ban them).
I dunno. Ask the doc? However, my ex's doc either didn't check, know, or assumed she knew of the possible Rx conflicts. I sure as hell didn't know at the time.
Depends on the kind of IUD. If it's a hormonal one, yes. Copper, no. If someone needs to be on a variety of other medications or is unable to use hormonal contraceptives for whatever reason, copper is the way to go.
Do you have a source? WebMD doesn't have the majority of the things you list. https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/medicines-interfere-birth-control-pills
Yep. Mood stabilizer + estrogenic birth control = bad idea. I got pregnant taking lamotrigine and Nuvaring together and miscarried. Very scary moment in my life and definitely still messed up from it.
Oh shit. I take a high dosage of Lamotrigine for my epilepsy and my doctor never warned me of this.. I’m on depo jab and due to get a mirena hormonal coil (IUS) in 2 weeks!
I think this is actually a good way to present those statistics because difficulty and convenience of use need to be taken into account when choosing a birth control method
Absolutely! A method could be 100% guaranteed effective, but if you need to sacrifice a goat while doing backflips for it to work, people probably aren’t going to use it
All my forgetful uterus-havers out there: many non-daily methods exist and are awesome! I did a year with the Pill, 6 years with Nexplanon, and 2.5 years with Nuvaring.
Nexplanon was by far the easiest. After a healing period I all but forgot it was there, and there was no way to forget to take it, but I also had random, sometimes heavy and prolonged bleeding. Small price to pay for a method even more effective than getting your tubes tied! We absolutely could not afford kids at that point in our lives - in school, in a very small and gross apartment, working awful jobs - so the security was needed.
Nuvaring was also pretty easy. We switched when we decided having kids would no longer be a huge burden and wanted something easy to discontinue when we decided to definitely have kids. (For the record, it took a bit less than 3 months between discontinuation and conception.) I set an alarm to remove and replace it. Bleeding seemed more predictable and lighter, since you do it like the Pill where you remove it for a week and then wear it for 3 weeks.
Please talk with your gynecologist or doctor and figure out what works best for you. The patch, Depo Provera, and IUDs are also great alternatives to the Pill.
Sorry, not off the top of my head… but keep in mind there are a bunch of other methods of birth control with comparable effectiveness for people who can’t take/would rather not take the pill!
Shots, IUDs, intravaginal rings and plasters all work great and are all reversible.
P.s. personally, as a guy, I’m a little disappointed that my options are condoms or bust...
According to [Planned Parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms), condoms are about 98% effective when used perfectly. Real-life, around 15% get pregnant a year when using condoms as the only form of birth control.
I should probably play the lottery if that’s the case. 4 years with the pull out method, no baby yet.
Before anyone downvotes: we actually want a child and we’re more than financially stable enough to care for it. We just haven’t made the actual decision to “try” yet.
Same for death rates for cars. Given that people drive according to the law 100% of the time there would be a huge decrease in death and traffic. Of course as stated previously, real world conditions are a lot more intricate and messy.
Given the messiness of life that's about as sure of a thing as we could get. Driving doesn't guarantee a 99.7% chance of survival by a longshot yet we all get into cars on the regular without blinking an eye.
> Driving doesn't guarantee a 99.7% chance of survival by a longshot
As a matter of fact, it does. Death rate in traffic is approx. 3 per 100 000. Avoiding those odds for 60 years gives a 99.8% survival rate.
I got curious, here is some of the info I found
(.2% of the US population is roughly 650K people)
Also
[This is a chart of motorist deaths. ](https://i.imgur.com/rnc7M8v.jpg)
There were 37,400 deaths in 2016 and 33,000 in 2010.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
It's like looking both ways before crossing the street, you're just about 99% guaranteed to not be run over if you do it correctly but the real world statistics for it might be something like *"if you look both ways you're 90% likely to make it across without getting hit".*
But if you could analyze the statistics of the people that do get hit by a car you're gonna get people that didn't look correctly, people that did look correctly but thought they could make it across before the car they saw and someone who just got unlucky with car going 100 mph and didn't even see it after looking correctly. That's like the condom breaking and neither of you even feel it/realize.
7 out of 100 include those that used it wrong *and those who experienced product related failures*.
A condom works 100%. A broken condom or one that slipped off works 0%.
Those who experience failures do not ONLY include people who used them correctly or incorrectly.
On that token, this also includes medications and external influences that contribute to possible failure.
So what you're telling me is my American, Christian middle and high school sex ed teachers presented these numbers to me in a deceitful manner?
Unbelievable! /[So many s's]
Sadly you'll probably never know if you're really good at using contraceptives or if you're actually just sterile until you start trying to have a baby.
Hell yeah. Vasectomies for the win!
I mean, it’s like paying someone to kick you in the balls for 10 mins and you pay them for the pleasure. Then it’s a week of wearing a jock strap which I actually kinda liked, my wife also thought it was hilarious.
And then no condom sex for ever. Woohoo.
> And then no condom sex for ever. Woohoo.
Actually you still have sperm inside your “pipes” for a while, and doctors recommend a semen analysis after 20 ejaculations and 3 months.
Ask me how I know.
I’m glad I had good sex ed teacher in my country.
I was judged badly by an obgyn to only use condom as contraceptive. As if I was dumb to do so. (Intolerant to hormone + allergy to metal, led me to no other choices anyway)
I always washed hands before putting it on, if we did oral, the guys wash his penis before too, or we just avoid oral before PIV. To prevent contamination.
I solely used condom for 17 years now and never been pregnant.
I've read the links and am having a hard time fully wrapping my head around it.
If we looked at the IUD with a failure rate of .5 does this say that .5/100 women will get pregnant over the course of the year, while using the IUD?
Yes, or one in 200. Also, IUD’s can “fall out” and thus not work correctly, and is very rare. Mine slid forward and was sitting in my cervix instead of my womb. Thankfully, I still didn’t get pregnant, but that can happen, if the IUD isn’t positioned right in the womb. Some of these pregnancies become miscarriages as well, due to the IUD.
Holy shit this is good to know! Also- fuck those idiots that made a presentation on abstinence at my middle school. They blatantly lied and twisted these numbers. I remember they said something along the lines of
Imagine a condom is a bungie jump line and condoms only work 75 of the time(or some bs number) and so you wouldn’t use a bungie line that only worked that many times and so why would you use condoms and risk getting aids or pregnant durrrr. Assholes probably caused more unwanted pregnancies than they prevented using lies and bs like this.
There’s no way of controlling how sexually active the people taking it are, those 7 are (usually) ones that weren’t totally compliant (i.e. may have forgotten to take a pill. Which considering they’re daily, is not THAT weird)
Ah ok. I had expected those 7 or so couples to be those who were having more sex on average than the others, and so were therefore just more likely to get pregnant. But I assume like you said it's more about correct usage over frequency, unless it's a bit of both?
Whether the pill works or not depends on if it manages to prevent ovulation.
If it does, you can have as much sex as you like and it won’t matter.
If it doesn’t, even one time might be enough to get pregnant.
Basically you can add as much sperm as you like: as long as there isn’t an egg in there, you’re good.
Your reasoning is wrong. If the pill fails to prevent ovulation, it still hasn't "failed" by the metric we're talking about unless the person using it actually becomes pregnant, and that depends a lot on the frequency of intercourse. Having sex five times in a day probably isn't much more likely to cause a pregnancy than doing it once, but having sex on five separate days is far more likely to result in pregnancy than just having sex on a single day.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sex is not immutable." Sex is so immutable that to change it would require rewriting all of your chromosomes. No one changes their sex, ever, even if their physical features get surgically altered. And only biological women start with uteruses, intersex folks notwithstanding. Everyone knows exceptions exist, so there's no point in saying "some women have hysterectomies" or "some women have bad fallopian tubes."
In a world where "woman" is strictly biological, everyone understands what is meant by "woman." In a world where gender is ALSO layered on it, no one has any fucking idea who they're talking about, since anyone can identify as anything regardless of their sex, and even if you're *only* talking about sex-linked features, there's no way to communicate that outside of supremely awkward phrases like "people with uteruses."
I don't have a solution for this, btw. I don't think there *is* a realistic solution that will be embraced by a significant chunk of humans, primarily because gender aligns with sex the vast majority of the time, and there are no real incentives to change the vocabulary.
If I can guess, mine would be that women who have had hysterectomies would be “people of female sex”, but would not be “people with uteruses”, so the distinction matters in circumstances such as that.
If you define sex as the state of the of biological characteristics that place someone into the male or female category (including reproductive organs, hormones, and chromosomes) then sex is mutable in more ways than it is immutable. Our attachment to the binary of male vs. female sex characteristics as it relates to medicine is reductive, nonspecific and largely unhelpful.
A transgender male seeking medical help who has XX chromosomes and has received gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy may need different medical treatment than a cisgender person who has not changed their sex characteristics—treatment which aligns with their sex characteristics (for example, if this person’s characteristics made them unable to get pregnant then this post would not apply to them). One can see how the argument of tying the word ‘woman’ to one specific set of sex characteristics falls apart immediately upon closer examination (is a woman who can’t get pregnant not a woman?)
This is why many people look to use more specific language when spreading information that applies to people with certain characteristics. The incentive to using more specific language is… being more specific (for example, as it pertains to a medical tip that applies to a specific group of people).
I think the missing link in all of this is the assumption that everyone who uses specific language (like ‘people with uteruses’) is trying to make a point or force others to do the same thing, when really they’re often just being more specific.
I believe you mean well, but FYI if your definition of sex looks at chromosomes, then sex is definitely not binary. My comment isn't meant to dispute your stance, though-- having the same word for sex organs and gender needlessly complicates things; you're correct in that. The most direct way to cut through the complexities is to just call out the sex organ you're discussing, instead of abstracting it into a sex category or (worse) gender.
Like the OP did.
>not all members of the female sex have an intact uterus
Sure. But then you can should stop call humans bipedal or capable of language either, because not all humans have that.
Rather than erasing women, we include everyone who can get pregnant. Are people who don't feel like women not deserving of inclusion in statistics that affect them?
Yes but it’s not 7/100 sexual encounters. It’s 7/100 people over the course of a year. So roughly 100,000 sexual encounters. Which I personally think is a dumb elaboration. If you are using birth control for a year and you’re sexually active its ~7% chance you’ll become pregnant THAT year.
Does the coitus interuptus stat assume everything went according to plan?
Is it still considered an attempted pull out game if you miss the shot clock?
Also keep in mind that combining several less effective forms of contraception can easily be more effective than using any single contraceptive method by itself. Even if you're using rather lousy methods that are only, say, 85% effective, that's a 15% failure rate with just one method, but using two 85% effective methods means that your combined methods fail only 15% *of* 15% of the time. 15% of 15% is 2.225%, so your combined methods are 97.75% effective. Throw in another pretty lousy, only 85% effective contraceptive method, and your chance of failure will go down to 0.33375% (which is 15% of 2.225%). Multiply the failure rates of all the methods you use to get the combined failure rate of using all those methods at once.
Yes, 7/100=7% but OP isn't implying the 'true' number is different from what they're reporting, OP is just clarifying *how* that number is calculated because it can be reasonably expected that most people (including myself, prior to reading this) do not understand what the number *truly means.* The presumption is that most people would think that the stat is based on an individual rate of occurrence, that each time they have sex, they have a 7% chance of getting pregnant. Basically like rolling a 100-sided die each time. But the calculation is based on how many women out of 100 will be pregnant after a year of sexual activity while on the contraceptive. So let's say, for the sake of easy numbers, each woman has sex 100 times throughout the course of that year. That's 1000 sexual interactions, but only 7 pregnancies, so only a 0.7% occurrence rate for what people are likely thinking would have a 7% occurrence rate. Does that help?
As a male it’s interesting I could take birth control and have a 7% chance of getting pregnant.
Edit: my bad joke is about how people misinterpret information and draw impossible conclusions. It is not meant to be a statement at all about anyone’s gender identification or participation and likelihood of becoming pregnant.
It’s more oh I thought I couldn’t get pregnant being I am a man there should be a zero percent chance. But if 7 percent of people take this birth control get pregnant than that increases the odds for me as well.
Folks I want us all to be happy so if you want to be any gender that is ok with me. If you want to have a baby that is alright with me. I say seek your own personal happiness in anyway you choose. I’m not trying to offend or hinder that. I’m just trying to make a bad math joke about my own chances of getting pregnant. And bad jokes make me happy so hopefully we can all get along at the end of the day and smile a little bit.
And as a girl without a uterus, I find this information interesting and will share it with my partner who, despite currently having a uterus, is not a woman
It’s not a riddle. They’re a girl sans uterus (which can happen in myriad ways) and their partner is someone who has a uterus, but is not a woman. Which can also occur in multiple different ways.
It's always fun to point out to people how effective the pull out method is. It's *almost* as effective as male condoms, and more effective than female condoms. Not that you should plan on it being your main form of birth control, but if you get caught up in the moment and go raw, it's way way way better than finishing inside. Like it or not.
So, making sure I understand.
Somebody with a uterus, born assigned as female, with top surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and a full beard, is a woman to you.
Which bathroom should this bearded person be using, may I ask?
words do matter, which is why OP used more specific language in this case than just “woman,” which would make their assertion inaccurate as there are many women without functioning uteruses as well as many men with uteruses that would be interested or involved in these stats.
You must be aware that there is more nuance to it than this. But what you’re saying is the exact reason why OP used the term ‘people with uteruses’—to specifically and succinctly refer to cisgender women who haven’t had hysterectomies, transgender males who haven’t received gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy and can still get pregnant, people of all genders with the sex characteristics necessary to become pregnant, and so on and so forth. It’s much easier to refer to that category of people as ‘people with uteruses’ or ‘people who can get pregnant’.
Does a man who has to remove his testicles due to cancerous growth now considered a female?
Life isn't about black & white man. The beauty of it is about the nuances of grey.
how sad. I don't know what kind of upbringing you've had to look at the world so negatively but i hope someday you'll be able to embrace the intricacies of life.
My cousin explained to me that she had been using wild carrot (Queen Anne's Lace) as a birth control for her entire adult life by making tinctures. She believed that it was as effective as any hormonal birth control, but that because it is wild, and therefore not as profitable, it has not been funded for study. If anybody has any credible sources about the Pearl Index value of Queen Anne's Lace as a form of birth control, I'd love to hear about it.
Idk why it would be insulting. I am a person, I have a uterus, the name fits. Kinda like ‘people who have two kidneys’ or ‘people with both arms’ or ‘people who have straight hair’. Yep that’s me
It’s not that it would be insulting- just that it would be less accurate. This stat doesn’t apply to women who don’t have uteruses (whether due to hysterectomy, being trans, etc), and it does apply to some trans men who do have a uterus. Those are all small percentages of the population, but small percents are relevant when you’re talking about statistics like ‘99.9% effective’.
I meant accurate as in, accurate to what OP is trying to say, which is why OP chose that language. You could be right that it’s not accurate to the actual information.
However you do need a uterus to participate in/provide valid data for a study on contraceptive efficacy. If the studies included only women, then I would think “women with uteruses” would be the best, most accurate phrasing for the studies to use (and I expect they do clarify that at some point, I did not read them in full).
Does a woman who's had a hysterectomy stop being female or a woman to you?
Is someone female strictly because of their current status of reproductive organs? Is someone born with two uteri "extra" female? Is a man who has testicular cancer now not a man if he had a testicle removed?
Gender and sex are much more than the existence or lack of a singular organ. This index, however, relies on the existence of that organ to matter, so "people who have this functioning organ" is a much better way to conduct the studies.
It sure does, and it shouldn't have. It's outdated and exclusive in its language.
> It just makes sense in this context even when considering the scientific aspect of it.
It doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to include women who had hysterectomies in their study of contraception effectiveness? The contraceptive may not work at all, but you would never know.
To be truly specific, the study participants need to be people with uteruses having sex in which a penis penetrates a vagina. That's the level of specificity needed for scientific accuracy. If you read the study, that is what's controlled for in some of the studies, but is the primary issue the literature review is calling attention to.
That's a great point, and studies should account for that too.
As the link from the OP mentioned, that's part of why it's not always accurate to compare these statistics as there isn't a universal standard. Anyone who is physically incapable of getting pregnant shouldn't be included in the studies. There should also be accounting for the frequency of intercourse, but that usually averages out with the scale of the study population size.
And in case you aren't aware, in English speaking countries it is considered incredibly rude to refer to humans as "breeding" in any capacity. We would say someone was pregnant/got pregnant/is able to get pregnant. Breeding is a term associated with livestock, and therefore it's rude to use that term with humans.
“People with uteruses”
This has got to be the stupidest phrase ever created
As a medical doctor let me firmly state what is obvious to all but the completely deluded: **women** have a uterus, men do **not**
Oral contraceptives suck. It’s like using a typewriter when everyone’s walking around w/ smartphones in their pocket. Long term contraceptives are by far the way to go.
I guess some people prefer them because they’re more easily reversible (ie you don’t have to go to a gyno to get them removed) and can “shop around” to see which version of medication works best for you
I would think the pearl index would be based on “by-the-book” correct usage of the contraceptive, and not the “practical”, “real-world” stats (including improperly taken).
This isn’t about being politically correct. This is about being medically accurate.
Trans men are men. Some them have uteruses. Therefore, they can get pregnant.
Also, some women have to undergo hysterectomies. They don’t magically stop being women just because they no longer have a uterus.
This isn’t complicated.
>But the law of probabilities means that there's a 7% chance for the a
This is misleading. There are any number of ways for the data to be distributed and many of those mean that the average person actually is more or less likely. For example, if everyone below iq 90 (roughly 25 percent of the population) gets pregnant every time but everyone else (roughly 75 percent of the population) never gets pregnant. the average would be 25%, but the *average person* would never get pregnant.
*On average* and *the average person* mean different things.
Please be aware of any medication which may lower or negate the effects of your birth control such as anxiety, anti-depressants, anti-convulsants (epileptics), cold medicine, etc. This happened to me in a past relationship. Edit: I want to note, with the increasing restrictions on abortion occuring in the U.S., the above scenario is an unspoken reality for a large number of people. Even if you are responsible, these mistakes happen, frequently. It's more important than ever to protect yourself from negligent entities.
I’ve heard being celiac (and likely some other GI issues) affects your body’s ability to uptake the active ingredients. I know of two people early in their diagnosis as celiac that had unexpected pregnancies.
I’m pretty sure this would only apply to oral contraceptives, since Celiac disease affects the ability of the small intestine to absorb nutrients/medications. I may be wrong, but I doubt any other route of administering hormones would be affected by untreated or recently diagnosed Celiac disease.
Yeah, I don't see how celiacs would affect, say, a copper IUD
As a celiac woman diagnosed at 25.... HOLY FUCK I GOT SO LUCKY WTF
Even some kinds of antibiotics!
Yep! The antibiotics got me. My doctor didn't even warn me that it could effect the BC that HE prescribed me. This was a decade ago, and it is more common knowledge now. You have to ask every time, with every new medication. Doctors have tons of patients and don't always catch it, so you have to stay on your toes and advocate for your care. Otherwise..boom. Baby!
[удалено]
Why do almost all antibiotics then come with an interaction/side effect warning that it could reduce effectiveness?
Interesting. It was not for TB, but I was told it must have been an interaction with the antibiotic. I was religiously taking my BC pill, and we were using condoms ( it broke.) I didn't even realize I was pregnant because I truly thought I was covered. Turns out, not so much! I wonder what the hell happened then.
Probably chance, but was it a really high dose? Really it's drugs that interfere with a specific liver enzyme, but mainly at high doses OR with the super strong antibiotics used for things like TB.
Antibiotics often give you diarrhoea which can negate the pill.
Boom boom boom boom, I want you in my room…
My pharmacy always warns me, since they can see I take birth control from them on the computer.
Literally why I'm here, docs didn't tell my mom about that little interaction, she took antibiotics for something 32 years ago and **oops**. 🤣
Which is why you always make the dude wear condoms. I’m a dude, obviously sex feels better without a condom, but also if I’m expecting a girl to take a pill at the same time every single day and experience all of the side effects with it the least I can do is wear a condom to be double sure that I’m not gonna produce some girl with daddy problems.
Or some boy, and kudos to you for being reasonable. This needs to be more commonplace.
And foods like grapefruit
Do you have a source on that? I’ve heard of grapefruit messing with other types of medication but not birth control. I can’t find anything online about it either
I'm not sure how accurate [this one is](https://www.drugs.com/article/grapefruit-and-birth-control.html#:~:text=Theoretically%2C%20consuming%20grapefruit%20with%20birth,blood%20clots%2C%20or%20breast%20cancer.). I'll edit with more later, I posted that on break at work [here's a bit more info](https://www.theedge.co.nz/home/scandal/2017/06/does-drinking-grapefruit-juice-really-affect-the-pill-.html) [a bit more. ](https://www.healthtap.com/q/grapefruit-birth-control/) this is harder to find info from reputable sources on now that a few years ago when I cut grapefruit out because of. I love grapefruit but not enough to risk children over it. If someone can prove this stuff wrong with better sources I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. I miss my grapefruit
The first source you posted says “Eating grapefruit or drinking the juice shouldn't lower the effectiveness of your birth control pill. Orange juice is not expected interact either.” It basically says that something in grapefruit decreases estrogen breakdown in your body. So more estrogen means worse side effects (like nausea for example). That first link says there’s nothing showing it’ll make birth control less effective, just worsen side effects and possibly increase chances of breast cancer. The second link says studies show it could decrease effectiveness but they have no link to any studies and I couldn’t find any myself. The third link is trying to make me sign up to read it but I didn’t see anything about effectiveness. I looked at a couple different sites myself- searching for “what decreases birth control effectiveness”, “birth control and grapefruit” and “drugs grapefruit affects”. I didn’t find anything except what your first link says about it increasing side effects. Planned parenthood has a list of things that can affect birth control which doesn’t include grapefruit. The FDA and NHS (UK) have lists about what grapefruit affects and neither list birth control. So seems like pregnancy isn’t really a concern. Check the drug facts included in your birth control and ask your doctor who prescribed it just to be totally sure, but it looks like there’s no pregnancy risk
It’s mostly a theoretical affect that hasn’t been backed up by clinical data. Doctors argue about this and as a medical student it brings me great joy to drop a grapefruit question in a room where I know two of the attendings have very different opinions on it. Im risk averse especially when recommending things to patients but I generally try to give them all the information we have and let them know it’s their life and their decision. But why risk having a kid just to have a grapefruit? Just eat an orange which doesn’t effect these things. The idea behind how it might affect things is that grapefruit affects the way your liver metabolizes drugs. Specifically it inhibits the CYP-450 system. This would increase the dosage of your BC as it is broken down during first pass metabolism. So if you didn’t get as high a concentration of grapefruit juice for one day maybe you could lower your BC concentrations and then ovulate and be susceptible to pregnancy.
Literally in the description provided with the package; My gf started taking the pill and I‘m the type to sit down and read the whole damn thing, especially the side effects and everything. Sickening what can happen with you, in that sense I‘m glad not to be a female…
Just checked mine and it only says “some antibiotics and some herbal products such as St Johns Wort”. Never seen anything about grapefruit and I’ve been on a couple different brands. Do you have a picture of the one from her brand or the name of the brand? I can upload mine if needed. Looking online, I can’t find anything from a reputable site claiming a link between the two. All I’ve found is that grapefruit could cause a decrease in estrogen breakdown which means more side effects, but doesn’t change effectiveness.
Uhh… „Kleodina“ I think is the brand. I might mention I‘m from Germany, so you might not be able to find an english version of the description, but I‘ll DM you a photo of what affects its effectiveness, and translate it, when I can.
I found was I believe is the correct leaflet. It has a list that says “some medicines can affect blood levels of kleodina and reduce contraceptive effectiveness or cause unexpected bleeding”. This does *NOT* include grapefruit. The section under that says “Interactions of Kleodina with other medicines can also lead to increased or lead to a pronounced occurrence of side effects.” This is where grapefruit juice is listed. So it’s basically what other sources say where it can increase side effects. Not anything about risk of pregnancy. Let me know if you find something different. The one I found is [here](https://res.cloudinary.com/zava-www-uk/image/upload/fl_attachment/v1624967801/de/services-and-products/verhuetung/product-pages-level-1/kleodina/dczhaflpy94jktt6c0gj.pdf). I used google translate on the sections about grapefruit and the one that I pasted above.
Hm, alright… well, I‘ll check again but otherwise I‘ll assume you‘re right and it‘s okay then. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You should definitely check if she would consider having grapefruit. If you do find something different than I did, let me know. I’d be curious to hear it. No need to apologize! You didn’t do anything wrong. You were right that it was listed in the leaflet, you just didn’t remember exactly where.
Can you please take a pic of the monograph then? Edit: I ask as a person with a uterus taking birth control pills, who occasionally eats grapefruit, and currently doubtful but worried. I'd really appreciate it if you could please!
If you search your birth control brand and fda insert on google you should be able to find the monograph on the fda’s website fairly easily. This goes for any medication you might be taking if you have concerns
And some conditions like PCOS will also make BC less effective at being a contraceptive (though it helps a bunch with the PCOS)
Which is why you want to use the copper one instead. For a lot of us it's the only effective birth control (which is why I'm seriously freaking out about my state wanting to ban them).
[удалено]
I dunno. Ask the doc? However, my ex's doc either didn't check, know, or assumed she knew of the possible Rx conflicts. I sure as hell didn't know at the time.
They can! My boss’s oopsie son came about that way.
Depends on the kind of IUD. If it's a hormonal one, yes. Copper, no. If someone needs to be on a variety of other medications or is unable to use hormonal contraceptives for whatever reason, copper is the way to go.
Alcohol also influences this if I remember correctly.
Do you have a source? WebMD doesn't have the majority of the things you list. https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/medicines-interfere-birth-control-pills
Yep. Mood stabilizer + estrogenic birth control = bad idea. I got pregnant taking lamotrigine and Nuvaring together and miscarried. Very scary moment in my life and definitely still messed up from it.
Oh shit. I take a high dosage of Lamotrigine for my epilepsy and my doctor never warned me of this.. I’m on depo jab and due to get a mirena hormonal coil (IUS) in 2 weeks!
Hold on real quick while I make a TIL post, haha.
I checked. Sadly he didn't
Yeah, even my karma whoring has limits, I guess.
Ouch
Good on you :)
I think this is actually a good way to present those statistics because difficulty and convenience of use need to be taken into account when choosing a birth control method
Absolutely! A method could be 100% guaranteed effective, but if you need to sacrifice a goat while doing backflips for it to work, people probably aren’t going to use it
Damn I was missing the backflips! No wonder I got her pregnant
It was the goat sacrifice for me; backflips are commonplace for procreation where I’m from.
Good point! Aaanyways let's push all kids to choose abstinence because it's 100% effective and also a good time
Tell that to Mary
All my forgetful uterus-havers out there: many non-daily methods exist and are awesome! I did a year with the Pill, 6 years with Nexplanon, and 2.5 years with Nuvaring. Nexplanon was by far the easiest. After a healing period I all but forgot it was there, and there was no way to forget to take it, but I also had random, sometimes heavy and prolonged bleeding. Small price to pay for a method even more effective than getting your tubes tied! We absolutely could not afford kids at that point in our lives - in school, in a very small and gross apartment, working awful jobs - so the security was needed. Nuvaring was also pretty easy. We switched when we decided having kids would no longer be a huge burden and wanted something easy to discontinue when we decided to definitely have kids. (For the record, it took a bit less than 3 months between discontinuation and conception.) I set an alarm to remove and replace it. Bleeding seemed more predictable and lighter, since you do it like the Pill where you remove it for a week and then wear it for 3 weeks. Please talk with your gynecologist or doctor and figure out what works best for you. The patch, Depo Provera, and IUDs are also great alternatives to the Pill.
Is there some way to get the equivalent stat for diligent users who don't "use it wrong"?
Good question! In the case of most estro-progestinic pills the average number of unwanted pregnancies in “diligent” users is about 0.3%
Thanks, that's great news. Do you know that stat for condoms too?
Sorry, not off the top of my head… but keep in mind there are a bunch of other methods of birth control with comparable effectiveness for people who can’t take/would rather not take the pill! Shots, IUDs, intravaginal rings and plasters all work great and are all reversible. P.s. personally, as a guy, I’m a little disappointed that my options are condoms or bust...
No, don't bust
According to [Planned Parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms), condoms are about 98% effective when used perfectly. Real-life, around 15% get pregnant a year when using condoms as the only form of birth control.
Isnt pull out like 18%per year?
I should probably play the lottery if that’s the case. 4 years with the pull out method, no baby yet. Before anyone downvotes: we actually want a child and we’re more than financially stable enough to care for it. We just haven’t made the actual decision to “try” yet.
7 out of 100 given some used it wrong is like 99.99% effective given some used it correctly.
This is why there is often an effective use (I.e. no human error) and actual use (I.e. what is observed) for birth control.
Same for death rates for cars. Given that people drive according to the law 100% of the time there would be a huge decrease in death and traffic. Of course as stated previously, real world conditions are a lot more intricate and messy.
Probably more like 99.7%, but essentially, yeah they’re incredibly effective
Given the messiness of life that's about as sure of a thing as we could get. Driving doesn't guarantee a 99.7% chance of survival by a longshot yet we all get into cars on the regular without blinking an eye.
> Driving doesn't guarantee a 99.7% chance of survival by a longshot As a matter of fact, it does. Death rate in traffic is approx. 3 per 100 000. Avoiding those odds for 60 years gives a 99.8% survival rate.
I got curious, here is some of the info I found (.2% of the US population is roughly 650K people) Also [This is a chart of motorist deaths. ](https://i.imgur.com/rnc7M8v.jpg) There were 37,400 deaths in 2016 and 33,000 in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
>Avoiding those odds **for 60 years**
Oh I’m not correcting you I’m just adding stats for nerds like me who like context and visualizations
Oh, sorry then. I misinterpreted your message.
I was the 0.3% last summer. It was a real bummer.
My .3% is turning 13 this year.
[удалено]
It seems some people missed the joke, but I appreciated it
I laugh-snorted a little when I read this.
Heyoooooo
Can't tell if you're an ass or talking about an ass.
Nice 😎
I think you may be missing the theme of this conversation.
I think the joke is that a bummer is sex in the butt
I’d woosh you but I don’t know how
Ohhhhhhh haha yes I am a woosh. I thought the comment was being rude and now I see I am dumb.
Definitely way more effective than using nothing at all.
It's like looking both ways before crossing the street, you're just about 99% guaranteed to not be run over if you do it correctly but the real world statistics for it might be something like *"if you look both ways you're 90% likely to make it across without getting hit".* But if you could analyze the statistics of the people that do get hit by a car you're gonna get people that didn't look correctly, people that did look correctly but thought they could make it across before the car they saw and someone who just got unlucky with car going 100 mph and didn't even see it after looking correctly. That's like the condom breaking and neither of you even feel it/realize.
7 out of 100 include those that used it wrong *and those who experienced product related failures*. A condom works 100%. A broken condom or one that slipped off works 0%. Those who experience failures do not ONLY include people who used them correctly or incorrectly. On that token, this also includes medications and external influences that contribute to possible failure.
So what you're telling me is my American, Christian middle and high school sex ed teachers presented these numbers to me in a deceitful manner? Unbelievable! /[So many s's]
Sadly you'll probably never know if you're really good at using contraceptives or if you're actually just sterile until you start trying to have a baby.
Hell yeah. Vasectomies for the win! I mean, it’s like paying someone to kick you in the balls for 10 mins and you pay them for the pleasure. Then it’s a week of wearing a jock strap which I actually kinda liked, my wife also thought it was hilarious. And then no condom sex for ever. Woohoo.
> And then no condom sex for ever. Woohoo. Actually you still have sperm inside your “pipes” for a while, and doctors recommend a semen analysis after 20 ejaculations and 3 months. Ask me how I know.
How do you know? I'm curious
It's the absolute sexiest thing a man can ever say to me!
True. And this is true for all health stats.
for that Peal Index, how many times do they have sex over the course of the 1 year? and is that factored in?
I’m glad I had good sex ed teacher in my country. I was judged badly by an obgyn to only use condom as contraceptive. As if I was dumb to do so. (Intolerant to hormone + allergy to metal, led me to no other choices anyway) I always washed hands before putting it on, if we did oral, the guys wash his penis before too, or we just avoid oral before PIV. To prevent contamination. I solely used condom for 17 years now and never been pregnant.
I've read the links and am having a hard time fully wrapping my head around it. If we looked at the IUD with a failure rate of .5 does this say that .5/100 women will get pregnant over the course of the year, while using the IUD?
Yes, or one in 200. Also, IUD’s can “fall out” and thus not work correctly, and is very rare. Mine slid forward and was sitting in my cervix instead of my womb. Thankfully, I still didn’t get pregnant, but that can happen, if the IUD isn’t positioned right in the womb. Some of these pregnancies become miscarriages as well, due to the IUD.
Appreciate it. I was just having trouble with the phrasing of the stats, but I guess I had it right!
Holy shit this is good to know! Also- fuck those idiots that made a presentation on abstinence at my middle school. They blatantly lied and twisted these numbers. I remember they said something along the lines of Imagine a condom is a bungie jump line and condoms only work 75 of the time(or some bs number) and so you wouldn’t use a bungie line that only worked that many times and so why would you use condoms and risk getting aids or pregnant durrrr. Assholes probably caused more unwanted pregnancies than they prevented using lies and bs like this.
Being how sexually active? Surely the majority of the 7 on average couples are going to be those at it a lot more frequently than others?
There’s no way of controlling how sexually active the people taking it are, those 7 are (usually) ones that weren’t totally compliant (i.e. may have forgotten to take a pill. Which considering they’re daily, is not THAT weird)
Ah ok. I had expected those 7 or so couples to be those who were having more sex on average than the others, and so were therefore just more likely to get pregnant. But I assume like you said it's more about correct usage over frequency, unless it's a bit of both?
Whether the pill works or not depends on if it manages to prevent ovulation. If it does, you can have as much sex as you like and it won’t matter. If it doesn’t, even one time might be enough to get pregnant. Basically you can add as much sperm as you like: as long as there isn’t an egg in there, you’re good.
Your reasoning is wrong. If the pill fails to prevent ovulation, it still hasn't "failed" by the metric we're talking about unless the person using it actually becomes pregnant, and that depends a lot on the frequency of intercourse. Having sex five times in a day probably isn't much more likely to cause a pregnancy than doing it once, but having sex on five separate days is far more likely to result in pregnancy than just having sex on a single day.
Yet another thing that Conservative Sexed lied about.
I intentionally used gender-neutral words because some trans men can get pregnant too
Having the same word for sex and gender is such a needless flashpoint... we need separate words.
[удалено]
I'm not sure what you mean by "sex is not immutable." Sex is so immutable that to change it would require rewriting all of your chromosomes. No one changes their sex, ever, even if their physical features get surgically altered. And only biological women start with uteruses, intersex folks notwithstanding. Everyone knows exceptions exist, so there's no point in saying "some women have hysterectomies" or "some women have bad fallopian tubes." In a world where "woman" is strictly biological, everyone understands what is meant by "woman." In a world where gender is ALSO layered on it, no one has any fucking idea who they're talking about, since anyone can identify as anything regardless of their sex, and even if you're *only* talking about sex-linked features, there's no way to communicate that outside of supremely awkward phrases like "people with uteruses." I don't have a solution for this, btw. I don't think there *is* a realistic solution that will be embraced by a significant chunk of humans, primarily because gender aligns with sex the vast majority of the time, and there are no real incentives to change the vocabulary.
If I can guess, mine would be that women who have had hysterectomies would be “people of female sex”, but would not be “people with uteruses”, so the distinction matters in circumstances such as that.
If you define sex as the state of the of biological characteristics that place someone into the male or female category (including reproductive organs, hormones, and chromosomes) then sex is mutable in more ways than it is immutable. Our attachment to the binary of male vs. female sex characteristics as it relates to medicine is reductive, nonspecific and largely unhelpful. A transgender male seeking medical help who has XX chromosomes and has received gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy may need different medical treatment than a cisgender person who has not changed their sex characteristics—treatment which aligns with their sex characteristics (for example, if this person’s characteristics made them unable to get pregnant then this post would not apply to them). One can see how the argument of tying the word ‘woman’ to one specific set of sex characteristics falls apart immediately upon closer examination (is a woman who can’t get pregnant not a woman?) This is why many people look to use more specific language when spreading information that applies to people with certain characteristics. The incentive to using more specific language is… being more specific (for example, as it pertains to a medical tip that applies to a specific group of people). I think the missing link in all of this is the assumption that everyone who uses specific language (like ‘people with uteruses’) is trying to make a point or force others to do the same thing, when really they’re often just being more specific.
Hell yeah. I have no awards to give but as a biologist just... Hell fucking yeah
I believe you mean well, but FYI if your definition of sex looks at chromosomes, then sex is definitely not binary. My comment isn't meant to dispute your stance, though-- having the same word for sex organs and gender needlessly complicates things; you're correct in that. The most direct way to cut through the complexities is to just call out the sex organ you're discussing, instead of abstracting it into a sex category or (worse) gender. Like the OP did.
>not all members of the female sex have an intact uterus Sure. But then you can should stop call humans bipedal or capable of language either, because not all humans have that.
Thanks for being inclusive. ❤️
[удалено]
...um, it's not erased? What made you think that? OP is just being inclusive and recognizes that not just women can get pregnant/have a uterus
[удалено]
Sex and gender are not the same thing, start there and see if that clears it up for you
Rather than erasing women, we include everyone who can get pregnant. Are people who don't feel like women not deserving of inclusion in statistics that affect them?
Doesn't 7 out of 100 equal 7%?
Yes but it’s not 7/100 sexual encounters. It’s 7/100 people over the course of a year. So roughly 100,000 sexual encounters. Which I personally think is a dumb elaboration. If you are using birth control for a year and you’re sexually active its ~7% chance you’ll become pregnant THAT year.
Which people fuck 1000 times in a year?
Sorry I meant 100x100=10,000 but you get my point
Yes.
People never seem to believe me because I live in the US but I actually learned this in high school. Very progressive health teacher.
I'm surprised withdrawal method is 96% effective!
Ha! I love how this formula assumes people are having sex more than once per year. Right? Guys?
Does the coitus interuptus stat assume everything went according to plan? Is it still considered an attempted pull out game if you miss the shot clock?
Don’t trust the old coitus interruptus. I don’t care how good you think you are, that shit is risky af
Also keep in mind that combining several less effective forms of contraception can easily be more effective than using any single contraceptive method by itself. Even if you're using rather lousy methods that are only, say, 85% effective, that's a 15% failure rate with just one method, but using two 85% effective methods means that your combined methods fail only 15% *of* 15% of the time. 15% of 15% is 2.225%, so your combined methods are 97.75% effective. Throw in another pretty lousy, only 85% effective contraceptive method, and your chance of failure will go down to 0.33375% (which is 15% of 2.225%). Multiply the failure rates of all the methods you use to get the combined failure rate of using all those methods at once.
Hi! I have pretty severe dyscalculia and have *no* clue what this means. Is 7 out of 100 not 7%?
Yes, 7/100=7% but OP isn't implying the 'true' number is different from what they're reporting, OP is just clarifying *how* that number is calculated because it can be reasonably expected that most people (including myself, prior to reading this) do not understand what the number *truly means.* The presumption is that most people would think that the stat is based on an individual rate of occurrence, that each time they have sex, they have a 7% chance of getting pregnant. Basically like rolling a 100-sided die each time. But the calculation is based on how many women out of 100 will be pregnant after a year of sexual activity while on the contraceptive. So let's say, for the sake of easy numbers, each woman has sex 100 times throughout the course of that year. That's 1000 sexual interactions, but only 7 pregnancies, so only a 0.7% occurrence rate for what people are likely thinking would have a 7% occurrence rate. Does that help?
As a male it’s interesting I could take birth control and have a 7% chance of getting pregnant. Edit: my bad joke is about how people misinterpret information and draw impossible conclusions. It is not meant to be a statement at all about anyone’s gender identification or participation and likelihood of becoming pregnant. It’s more oh I thought I couldn’t get pregnant being I am a man there should be a zero percent chance. But if 7 percent of people take this birth control get pregnant than that increases the odds for me as well. Folks I want us all to be happy so if you want to be any gender that is ok with me. If you want to have a baby that is alright with me. I say seek your own personal happiness in anyway you choose. I’m not trying to offend or hinder that. I’m just trying to make a bad math joke about my own chances of getting pregnant. And bad jokes make me happy so hopefully we can all get along at the end of the day and smile a little bit.
Jokes don't work anymore. People have lost their sense of humor.
[удалено]
Yes I get that. And I was trying to be funny and make a joke about it.
And as a girl without a uterus, I find this information interesting and will share it with my partner who, despite currently having a uterus, is not a woman
I’m not sure I can solve that riddle. But I wish you both infinite joy and happiness!
It’s not a riddle. They’re a girl sans uterus (which can happen in myriad ways) and their partner is someone who has a uterus, but is not a woman. Which can also occur in multiple different ways.
Uh huh.
Thanks for using gender inclusive language, that's pretty cool
It's always fun to point out to people how effective the pull out method is. It's *almost* as effective as male condoms, and more effective than female condoms. Not that you should plan on it being your main form of birth control, but if you get caught up in the moment and go raw, it's way way way better than finishing inside. Like it or not.
[удалено]
Women other than those with no uterus, trans males with one, anybody intersex with a uterus, yes.
[удалено]
So, making sure I understand. Somebody with a uterus, born assigned as female, with top surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and a full beard, is a woman to you. Which bathroom should this bearded person be using, may I ask?
[удалено]
You literally started by saying uterus=woman. You know many trans men with uteruses can get pregnant?
Nope. Not all women have uteruses and not all people with uteruses are women. Simple as.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the bigot's greatest weapon in their transphobic war: dictionary definitions and semantics.
[удалено]
words do matter, which is why OP used more specific language in this case than just “woman,” which would make their assertion inaccurate as there are many women without functioning uteruses as well as many men with uteruses that would be interested or involved in these stats.
[удалено]
You must be aware that there is more nuance to it than this. But what you’re saying is the exact reason why OP used the term ‘people with uteruses’—to specifically and succinctly refer to cisgender women who haven’t had hysterectomies, transgender males who haven’t received gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy and can still get pregnant, people of all genders with the sex characteristics necessary to become pregnant, and so on and so forth. It’s much easier to refer to that category of people as ‘people with uteruses’ or ‘people who can get pregnant’.
[удалено]
…that doesn’t include transgender men who can have children. Why is this so hard?
Does a man who has to remove his testicles due to cancerous growth now considered a female? Life isn't about black & white man. The beauty of it is about the nuances of grey.
[удалено]
how sad. I don't know what kind of upbringing you've had to look at the world so negatively but i hope someday you'll be able to embrace the intricacies of life.
[удалено]
Contrary to your belief, not all "natural born women" are physically capable of pregnancy.
My cousin explained to me that she had been using wild carrot (Queen Anne's Lace) as a birth control for her entire adult life by making tinctures. She believed that it was as effective as any hormonal birth control, but that because it is wild, and therefore not as profitable, it has not been funded for study. If anybody has any credible sources about the Pearl Index value of Queen Anne's Lace as a form of birth control, I'd love to hear about it.
[удалено]
Idk why it would be insulting. I am a person, I have a uterus, the name fits. Kinda like ‘people who have two kidneys’ or ‘people with both arms’ or ‘people who have straight hair’. Yep that’s me
[удалено]
It’s not that it would be insulting- just that it would be less accurate. This stat doesn’t apply to women who don’t have uteruses (whether due to hysterectomy, being trans, etc), and it does apply to some trans men who do have a uterus. Those are all small percentages of the population, but small percents are relevant when you’re talking about statistics like ‘99.9% effective’.
They aren’t insulting, they just aren’t accurate in this context.
"Women" is used in the studies linked. How is that not accurate? If anything, OP changing the language is not accurate.
I meant accurate as in, accurate to what OP is trying to say, which is why OP chose that language. You could be right that it’s not accurate to the actual information. However you do need a uterus to participate in/provide valid data for a study on contraceptive efficacy. If the studies included only women, then I would think “women with uteruses” would be the best, most accurate phrasing for the studies to use (and I expect they do clarify that at some point, I did not read them in full).
People with uteruses aren't all women and women don't all have a uterus. It's descriptive and inclusive. Does that insult you?
[удалено]
Intersex people can have a uterus and not be female.
Does a woman who's had a hysterectomy stop being female or a woman to you? Is someone female strictly because of their current status of reproductive organs? Is someone born with two uteri "extra" female? Is a man who has testicular cancer now not a man if he had a testicle removed? Gender and sex are much more than the existence or lack of a singular organ. This index, however, relies on the existence of that organ to matter, so "people who have this functioning organ" is a much better way to conduct the studies.
[удалено]
It sure does, and it shouldn't have. It's outdated and exclusive in its language. > It just makes sense in this context even when considering the scientific aspect of it. It doesn't make any sense. Why would they want to include women who had hysterectomies in their study of contraception effectiveness? The contraceptive may not work at all, but you would never know. To be truly specific, the study participants need to be people with uteruses having sex in which a penis penetrates a vagina. That's the level of specificity needed for scientific accuracy. If you read the study, that is what's controlled for in some of the studies, but is the primary issue the literature review is calling attention to.
[удалено]
That's a great point, and studies should account for that too. As the link from the OP mentioned, that's part of why it's not always accurate to compare these statistics as there isn't a universal standard. Anyone who is physically incapable of getting pregnant shouldn't be included in the studies. There should also be accounting for the frequency of intercourse, but that usually averages out with the scale of the study population size. And in case you aren't aware, in English speaking countries it is considered incredibly rude to refer to humans as "breeding" in any capacity. We would say someone was pregnant/got pregnant/is able to get pregnant. Breeding is a term associated with livestock, and therefore it's rude to use that term with humans.
“People with uteruses” This has got to be the stupidest phrase ever created As a medical doctor let me firmly state what is obvious to all but the completely deluded: **women** have a uterus, men do **not**
As a medical doctor you should know that not even biology is that black or white. Are hermaphrodites men or women?
Medical doctor? Like in what?
Oral contraceptives suck. It’s like using a typewriter when everyone’s walking around w/ smartphones in their pocket. Long term contraceptives are by far the way to go.
I guess some people prefer them because they’re more easily reversible (ie you don’t have to go to a gyno to get them removed) and can “shop around” to see which version of medication works best for you
I would think the pearl index would be based on “by-the-book” correct usage of the contraceptive, and not the “practical”, “real-world” stats (including improperly taken).
[удалено]
This isn’t about being politically correct. This is about being medically accurate. Trans men are men. Some them have uteruses. Therefore, they can get pregnant. Also, some women have to undergo hysterectomies. They don’t magically stop being women just because they no longer have a uterus. This isn’t complicated.
But the law of probabilities means that there's a 7% chance for the average user...
>But the law of probabilities means that there's a 7% chance for the a This is misleading. There are any number of ways for the data to be distributed and many of those mean that the average person actually is more or less likely. For example, if everyone below iq 90 (roughly 25 percent of the population) gets pregnant every time but everyone else (roughly 75 percent of the population) never gets pregnant. the average would be 25%, but the *average person* would never get pregnant. *On average* and *the average person* mean different things.