Friendly reminder of the core problem: medical treatments are all balanced against the risk of what it counteracts.
Undergoing physical and chemical changes to grow another creature inside you and have it damage everything on the way out is pretty risky. Female birth control only has to be less risky than that.
A male has zero physiological risk from impregnating someone. Therefore, anything except a miracle drug with high efficacy and almost zero side effects is going to stall at the trial stage.
On another note, that speaks to how safe and effective vasectomies are.
Written by someone who has never had to pay child support.
Yeah zero psychological risk is a bit of an overstatement. Zero physical maybe, but there’s definitely psychological risks, and I’m not even thinking about child support
Edit: I can’t read, it says physiological and I’m just deficient in the reading
They said Physiological not Psychological. There’s a considerable difference between those two words.
The letters I and C?
I meant their meanings, rather than their spellings lol.
Safe, cheap, permanent but trivially reversible male birth control was invented in 1979 and has yet to be approved for US sale.
Can you share more info?
I will never ever trust this. Not with how gender/maleness is treated these days. What ‘they’ consider safe can be entirely political and ideology-based, rather than a biological fact.
Found the incel
Original article:
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl2688Awesome!
