Babies. 8% of the patients under that category are Age 0
Edit: the full billing code is "Obstetric and gynaecological devices associated with adverse incidents" Billing code Y76 "describes the circumstance causing an injury, not the nature of the injury."
So injuring a baby during delivery with forceps would result in this code.
That's also my guess, and specifically: if you're a trans man with a uterus, odds are high that you'd like to get it removed. Therefore hysterectomy, therefore hospital.
In the future, maybe a hundred years from now, when we're able to do whole head or brain transplants on top of monoclonal bodies we grow in a lab - to regain our youth, our health; to trivially be rid of cancer - do you think people will really give a damn about any of that?
We'll have people swapping genders and races and even species (I'm certain someone will pay to have cat ears or a tail). This will happen left and right because there will be no societal stigma anymore. People will embrace the full spectrum of possibility. We won't hate on a superficial basis. (Just for all the others, like pride and jealousy.)
You might even find yourself wanting to become a transgenic "trigender pyrofox from the forest planet". And I wouldn't judge. Who am I to tell you how to live your life? I'm not taking your Bible, guns, privacy, or religion away either. I just want you to ease up on hating others.
One day science fiction will be reality. And when it is, can you possibly harbor this same primitive hate?
Btw, my wife is trans. She's a fashion model. She's 100% passing and men steal glances at her and try to get her number constantly. You have probably met trans people you're attracted to and don't even know it.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody knew it, did you commit the sin of lusting after "the wrong chromosomes?" Is someone going to damn you to eternal hell for it?
Live and let live. You're being the "far left progressive people" you claim to hate when you try to interfere in the lives of others. They want to take your guns and your god? Well, why are you trying to take people's dignity and tell them how to live? Two way street. It's horseshoe shaped and you have more in common than you think. Blind hatred for a way of life you're unfamiliar with is chief most. You have leftist allies who hate Christianity and other groups. You have so much in common. The only thing is that you're playing for a different team with a different jersey and a different brand of prejudice.
Jesus told you to love. Do it. Don't follow the antichrists teaching messages of hate.
Love is what brings us together and makes us stronger. If you don't have love to give or nice things to say, just keep it to yourself and stop adding negativity to the world.
> Your guns-and-god remarks are way off the mark, by the way. I'm atheist, feminist, and probably more to the left than you. There's nothing progressive about trans-activist beliefs, fundamentally it's all about encouraging sexism and attacking women for not complying with male demands.
I don't understand how TERFs are a thing. That's somehow worse than religious hatred, because you actually did do some independent thinking on this and still arrived at this hateful conclusion. The cold dark universe cares nothing about us, even if the light of our civilization is what ultimately brings meaning.
You think sex is sovereign. I think everything in our genes is a set of shackles and limitations that show how beautiful, yet how cruelly inadequate evolution is in optimizing for happiness - it's just an algorithm for reproductive fitness. Mote of dust, infinite universe. No sanctified meaning in our abiotic origin or our ape body plans.
You deny our brain's sovereignty and freedoms - the most majestic phenomenon in the universe - when you cling to genetics as a dogma.
> fundamentally it's all about encouraging sexism and attacking women for not complying with male demands.
Do you think women can't become men? That they shouldn't be allowed to? Don't deserve to be?
Do you think being a woman is an exclusive identity and a right and a privilege? Better than male? A club now denied to oppressive brutes as a form of generational restitution to the matriarchy?
Does this stem from a hatred of one gender over another? Or perhaps just a preference? A disgust for men wanting something they should never be allowed to have?
What do you think about being born disabled?
Being born short?
Being born disfigured?
Ugly?
Being born poor?
Balding?
Getting atherosclerosis or cancer because of genetic predisposition?
Our neanderthal skin and sex marker profiling is flawed. It was built as a survival mechanism and is no longer needed to help us kill rival tribes and produce dozens of offspring.
But it's not just our reactions to bodies, it's our bodies themselves.
Our birthright is a set of shackles. We are more than our biology. We didn't choose it - we exist in spite of it. We are our hopes and our dreams and our love. Our actions and our deeds. The things our bodies could never be for us.
Our bodies are just dust.
They impose frail limitations on our dreams.
Do not ascribe value to these weak little prisons that destine us to death.
I am not the me that you see. I am how I spend my limited time here. I am the ripples of my actions throughout society. I am who I touch and act throughout. The ideas that I spread, which will outlive my skin and bones.
I utterly denounce your labels as primitive and anachronistic and harmful.
Where we're going we won't even have bodies or sexes or hatred. Your kind of prejudice can't exist there.
This is a pretty stunning statistic to me. I suppose if you were to ask me to guess which gender is hospitalized the most frequently for mental health reasons, I'd probably guess women... but I wouldn't expect the distribution to be that extremely skewed.
“In which some stereotypes are resoundingly confirmed” - so the post is confirming stereotypes of differences between women and men by highlighting the extremes in difference (not the actual counts)? It’s misleading. The gender differences are less stark if you use better charts and don’t include activities that men literally can’t do (that’s not a “stereotype” that’s human anatomy).
No. As the author tries to make clear, these are not the most common causes to go to a hospital. They are the causes, however unlikely, that show the most gender bias. That is, if the sample had one single data point of some very uncommon cause, it would show up on the list as either 100% male or 100% female.
I interpreted that as "a procedure that does not treat a medical condition". So, possibly various non-doctor-ordered weight-loss-related procedures, cosmetic surgery, etc.
At least in my neck of the woods, road cyclists skew heavily male, I'd guesstimate 90%. Probably even higher for occupations like UberEats/Doordash, which spend all day biking and are thus more at risk of ending up in the hospital.
Update: looked up some stats/surveys, apparently cycling skews 75-80% male.
In the United States, males are known to be as stupid as a box of rocks when it comes to any sort of moving vehicle.
Male cyclists are much more prone to be doing 40mph wheelies down a blind hill in the middle of the road than woman.
Don't get me started on motorcycles, PA is just next store (we are over the border in NJ). PA doesn't require helmets for motorcycle riders, and many male riders happily throw helmets to the wind. The level of stupidity there is astronomical.
The article is careful to point out that these are not the most common reasons men/women wind up in the hospital. They are the reasons that have a very gendered split as to who experiences them. So even if men stopped riding motorcycles, there would not necessarily be a noticeable decrease in male hospitalization rates.
The OP didn’t say all of the reasons for male related injuries were needless, but if you look at the list, it’s dominated by activities that are inherently voluntary and risky.
aren't you being a little naive by calling dangerous activities men have to take to survive "inherently voluntary"? go to a 3° world country or works as an immigrant somewhere rich to check your options. transportation included. it's easy to say one shouldn't use a cheap motorcycle and go for the one way sardine packed 2 hours bus ride across the city to reach work, everyday
Only 3 out of 18 reasons on that list are work-related, 2 maybe can be work related (lawnmowing and powered tools/household machinery?). I think cycling accidents (5 positions on the list) are in part normal cycling (like when riding to work) without rider's fault, and in a larger part taking unnecessary risks while riding, or riding for sport. And I'd guess motorcycle accidents (4 on the list) are mostly taking risks and riding too fast. 3 reasons are "assault". And that leaves only 1 reason from the list, sports equipment.
So out of 18 reasons on the list, only a small part is "activities men have to take to survive", but many of the others aren't "inherently voluntary and risky" or cannot be blamed on the hospitalized person. The list is too short to be really interesting, when half of that list is the same thing with small variations (cycling/motorcycling), and the same for women (mostly pregnancy).
This data reflects the UK, not a 3rd world country and my comments are restricted to this dataset.
Included in that same dataset are assaults and sports related injuries, which are additional risky activities.
You might argue assaults aren’t voluntary. My personal experience suggests most assaults are the result of voluntary activity rather than involuntary activity, YMMV.
I’m not being naive. I have lived in a 3rd world country where it wasn’t uncommon to see a family of 5 on a motorcycle.
I would note that you will tend to see, proportionately speaking, more women on motorcycles in those countries for the reasons you suggested.
Also worth noting that it is only looking at percentages. If you rendered the size of the blue and red bars based on total admissions, all you'd see is a bunch of red until you zoomed in very closely.
>I’m having to choose my words carefully, because I need to stress one thing: these are not the most common reasons for men and women to be admitted to hospital. They are the most typically male and typically female.
The pregnancy numbers are a policy and not related to accidents. It would be similar to say that children at age 3, 5 and 12 months are much more likely to end up in the hospital than other age groups, since those are the ages when they get vaccinations.
As with all statistics, there is some apple to oranges comparisons and some contexts that get lost.
>> So while men are taking risks, women take one for the team
I know you're joking but three of the top four are basically 'work related'. Men taking one for the team doing all the dangerous jobs.
And maybe if the men stop riding motorcycles the women will stop getting plastic surgery which is also shockingly high as a reason to end up in hospital.
This is probably the wrong chart for the comparison. The entire top section involves fewer total people than 3 separate 100% women related items on the bottom.
The follow-up article sorted by absolute numbers is a bit better suited, and predictably a bit more bland. Births is nearly in the top 10 though.
I'm a little bit confused about what that is. If you are admitted to hospital for pregnancy and its not delivery (thats a different category that is far larger in absolute numbers) then something has gone wrong.
And herein lies the joys of medical coding :). Likely more than 235k normal pregnancy checkups happening in hospitals over 3 years in the UK, these "Z34" codes will likely get coded as admissions if someone is admitted for concerns around the pregnancy and the net result is everything with the pregnancy ended up fine. Maybe some other oddball scenarios I'm not thinking of too, but if you just go in for a planned pregnancy checkup and it comes out fine it (shouldn't) be coded as an admission just because it was done in a hospital location. Unless the NHS just has really odd coding practices, which is possible, but the other chart isn't drowning in 10s and 10s of millions of vaccinations of each type either.
For similar reasons you may find a ton of other things which aren't normally an admission in the data, but at numbers less than one might expect because that alone isn't usually reason to admit.
Who on earth are those 1.7% men who go for "obstetric and gynaecological devices"?
Are they accompanying their wives, end up fainting during the procedures, hit their heads and have to be patched up?
Babies. 8% of the patients under that category are Age 0
Edit: the full billing code is "Obstetric and gynaecological devices associated with adverse incidents" Billing code Y76 "describes the circumstance causing an injury, not the nature of the injury."
So injuring a baby during delivery with forceps would result in this code.
They might be trans.
That's also my guess, and specifically: if you're a trans man with a uterus, odds are high that you'd like to get it removed. Therefore hysterectomy, therefore hospital.
Who the hell flagged my comment?
Trans people exist and are people too.
[flagged]
In the future, maybe a hundred years from now, when we're able to do whole head or brain transplants on top of monoclonal bodies we grow in a lab - to regain our youth, our health; to trivially be rid of cancer - do you think people will really give a damn about any of that?
We'll have people swapping genders and races and even species (I'm certain someone will pay to have cat ears or a tail). This will happen left and right because there will be no societal stigma anymore. People will embrace the full spectrum of possibility. We won't hate on a superficial basis. (Just for all the others, like pride and jealousy.)
You might even find yourself wanting to become a transgenic "trigender pyrofox from the forest planet". And I wouldn't judge. Who am I to tell you how to live your life? I'm not taking your Bible, guns, privacy, or religion away either. I just want you to ease up on hating others.
One day science fiction will be reality. And when it is, can you possibly harbor this same primitive hate?
Btw, my wife is trans. She's a fashion model. She's 100% passing and men steal glances at her and try to get her number constantly. You have probably met trans people you're attracted to and don't even know it.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody knew it, did you commit the sin of lusting after "the wrong chromosomes?" Is someone going to damn you to eternal hell for it?
Live and let live. You're being the "far left progressive people" you claim to hate when you try to interfere in the lives of others. They want to take your guns and your god? Well, why are you trying to take people's dignity and tell them how to live? Two way street. It's horseshoe shaped and you have more in common than you think. Blind hatred for a way of life you're unfamiliar with is chief most. You have leftist allies who hate Christianity and other groups. You have so much in common. The only thing is that you're playing for a different team with a different jersey and a different brand of prejudice.
Jesus told you to love. Do it. Don't follow the antichrists teaching messages of hate.
Love is what brings us together and makes us stronger. If you don't have love to give or nice things to say, just keep it to yourself and stop adding negativity to the world.
[flagged]
> Your guns-and-god remarks are way off the mark, by the way. I'm atheist, feminist, and probably more to the left than you. There's nothing progressive about trans-activist beliefs, fundamentally it's all about encouraging sexism and attacking women for not complying with male demands.
I don't understand how TERFs are a thing. That's somehow worse than religious hatred, because you actually did do some independent thinking on this and still arrived at this hateful conclusion. The cold dark universe cares nothing about us, even if the light of our civilization is what ultimately brings meaning.
You think sex is sovereign. I think everything in our genes is a set of shackles and limitations that show how beautiful, yet how cruelly inadequate evolution is in optimizing for happiness - it's just an algorithm for reproductive fitness. Mote of dust, infinite universe. No sanctified meaning in our abiotic origin or our ape body plans.
You deny our brain's sovereignty and freedoms - the most majestic phenomenon in the universe - when you cling to genetics as a dogma.
> fundamentally it's all about encouraging sexism and attacking women for not complying with male demands.
Do you think women can't become men? That they shouldn't be allowed to? Don't deserve to be?
Do you think being a woman is an exclusive identity and a right and a privilege? Better than male? A club now denied to oppressive brutes as a form of generational restitution to the matriarchy?
Does this stem from a hatred of one gender over another? Or perhaps just a preference? A disgust for men wanting something they should never be allowed to have?
What do you think about being born disabled?
Being born short?
Being born disfigured?
Ugly?
Being born poor?
Balding?
Getting atherosclerosis or cancer because of genetic predisposition?
Our neanderthal skin and sex marker profiling is flawed. It was built as a survival mechanism and is no longer needed to help us kill rival tribes and produce dozens of offspring.
But it's not just our reactions to bodies, it's our bodies themselves.
Our birthright is a set of shackles. We are more than our biology. We didn't choose it - we exist in spite of it. We are our hopes and our dreams and our love. Our actions and our deeds. The things our bodies could never be for us.
Our bodies are just dust.
They impose frail limitations on our dreams.
Do not ascribe value to these weak little prisons that destine us to death.
I am not the me that you see. I am how I spend my limited time here. I am the ripples of my actions throughout society. I am who I touch and act throughout. The ideas that I spread, which will outlive my skin and bones.
I utterly denounce your labels as primitive and anachronistic and harmful.
Where we're going we won't even have bodies or sexes or hatred. Your kind of prejudice can't exist there.
[flagged]
There's also a follow up that has full data in a spreadsheet like thing:
https://leobenedictus.substack.com/p/that-hospital-admission...
> 89.5% Psychological problems [for women]
This is a pretty stunning statistic to me. I suppose if you were to ask me to guess which gender is hospitalized the most frequently for mental health reasons, I'd probably guess women... but I wouldn't expect the distribution to be that extremely skewed.
Is there a simple explanation for this?
They are more likely to seek help?
Men are over represented in prisons and the homeless population. Maybe they don’t seek help.
“In which some stereotypes are resoundingly confirmed” - so the post is confirming stereotypes of differences between women and men by highlighting the extremes in difference (not the actual counts)? It’s misleading. The gender differences are less stark if you use better charts and don’t include activities that men literally can’t do (that’s not a “stereotype” that’s human anatomy).
Don’t plot rates and volumes in the same chart . A single entry is larger than nearly the remnants
Men, asymptotic to 100% factors, women absolute 100% factors.
Wondering if this is point author is trying to make?
The author actually addresses that - he hadn't even considered that pregnancy related issues would top the list.
I think this was just a fun exercise for a curious mind. I don't think it needs to have a point - it's not an essay.
who are these 2% of men who were hospitalized due to obstetrics or gynaecological devices?
Babies?
Penis implant?
Trans people exist
AFAIK the terms "male" and "female" are used to refer to sex, not gender identity by the NHS.
2% seems like too much for that.
[flagged]
Sooo does this mean that pregnant women definitely should not be doing roofing work or riding motorcycles?
Would that make them the humans most likely to go to a hospital?
No. As the author tries to make clear, these are not the most common causes to go to a hospital. They are the causes, however unlikely, that show the most gender bias. That is, if the sample had one single data point of some very uncommon cause, it would show up on the list as either 100% male or 100% female.
Also, probabilities don't work like that.
No, the list is of the most gender biased causes, others are much more common.
others pointed out the flaw in your interpretation but at the same time, being pregnant while roofing or riding does seem like a bad idea
What an interesting article, I'm sure the comment section isn't absolutely filled to the brim with overt sexism.
[flagged]
Some of these categories are awfully vague. "Non-treatment procedures"??
I interpreted that as "a procedure that does not treat a medical condition". So, possibly various non-doctor-ordered weight-loss-related procedures, cosmetic surgery, etc.
Dear Females, are males riding bicycles wrong?
Thanks
PS: Female and male riders had this year nasty crashes in our club :(
At least in my neck of the woods, road cyclists skew heavily male, I'd guesstimate 90%. Probably even higher for occupations like UberEats/Doordash, which spend all day biking and are thus more at risk of ending up in the hospital.
Update: looked up some stats/surveys, apparently cycling skews 75-80% male.
In the United States, males are known to be as stupid as a box of rocks when it comes to any sort of moving vehicle.
Male cyclists are much more prone to be doing 40mph wheelies down a blind hill in the middle of the road than woman.
Don't get me started on motorcycles, PA is just next store (we are over the border in NJ). PA doesn't require helmets for motorcycle riders, and many male riders happily throw helmets to the wind. The level of stupidity there is astronomical.
The helmet less riders are less likely to go the hospital, because if anything happens they are dead.
I assume more men mountain bike than women.
So basically never ride a motorcycle or a bike on the road.
So to summarize...
Men, stop riding motorcycles Women, stop having kids
That last one might have some detrimental effects long term though.
So while men are taking risks, women take one for the team
The article is careful to point out that these are not the most common reasons men/women wind up in the hospital. They are the reasons that have a very gendered split as to who experiences them. So even if men stopped riding motorcycles, there would not necessarily be a noticeable decrease in male hospitalization rates.
or conversely, if women would get up on that scaffolding and help out their man, that would disappear from the list.
What a ridiculously sexist thing to even dare say out loud. The most male-dominated category is "fall from scaffolding." Men aren't up there for fun.
They built the roof that shelters you and your family when it storms.
Aren’t we being a little sensitive?
The OP didn’t say all of the reasons for male related injuries were needless, but if you look at the list, it’s dominated by activities that are inherently voluntary and risky.
aren't you being a little naive by calling dangerous activities men have to take to survive "inherently voluntary"? go to a 3° world country or works as an immigrant somewhere rich to check your options. transportation included. it's easy to say one shouldn't use a cheap motorcycle and go for the one way sardine packed 2 hours bus ride across the city to reach work, everyday
Only 3 out of 18 reasons on that list are work-related, 2 maybe can be work related (lawnmowing and powered tools/household machinery?). I think cycling accidents (5 positions on the list) are in part normal cycling (like when riding to work) without rider's fault, and in a larger part taking unnecessary risks while riding, or riding for sport. And I'd guess motorcycle accidents (4 on the list) are mostly taking risks and riding too fast. 3 reasons are "assault". And that leaves only 1 reason from the list, sports equipment.
So out of 18 reasons on the list, only a small part is "activities men have to take to survive", but many of the others aren't "inherently voluntary and risky" or cannot be blamed on the hospitalized person. The list is too short to be really interesting, when half of that list is the same thing with small variations (cycling/motorcycling), and the same for women (mostly pregnancy).
This data reflects the UK, not a 3rd world country and my comments are restricted to this dataset.
Included in that same dataset are assaults and sports related injuries, which are additional risky activities.
You might argue assaults aren’t voluntary. My personal experience suggests most assaults are the result of voluntary activity rather than involuntary activity, YMMV.
I’m not being naive. I have lived in a 3rd world country where it wasn’t uncommon to see a family of 5 on a motorcycle.
I would note that you will tend to see, proportionately speaking, more women on motorcycles in those countries for the reasons you suggested.
Also worth noting that it is only looking at percentages. If you rendered the size of the blue and red bars based on total admissions, all you'd see is a bunch of red until you zoomed in very closely.
Quoting the article:
>I’m having to choose my words carefully, because I need to stress one thing: these are not the most common reasons for men and women to be admitted to hospital. They are the most typically male and typically female.
If you go to https://leobenedictus.substack.com/p/that-hospital-admission... and sort by number of admissions, you get stuff like:
- Personal history of certain other diseases
- Personal history of medical treatment
- Personal history of allergy to drugs, medicaments and biological substances
- Personal history of other diseases and conditions
The pregnancy numbers are a policy and not related to accidents. It would be similar to say that children at age 3, 5 and 12 months are much more likely to end up in the hospital than other age groups, since those are the ages when they get vaccinations.
As with all statistics, there is some apple to oranges comparisons and some contexts that get lost.
Surely "admissions" does not include scheduled doctor's appointments?
Based on the data it seem it does.
"HES contains records of all admissions, appointments and attendances at NHS-commissioned hospital services in England."
One could limit the data to accidents and illnesses. Outcome of pregnancy would then not qualify unless there were complications.
>> So while men are taking risks, women take one for the team
I know you're joking but three of the top four are basically 'work related'. Men taking one for the team doing all the dangerous jobs.
And maybe if the men stop riding motorcycles the women will stop getting plastic surgery which is also shockingly high as a reason to end up in hospital.
This is probably the wrong chart for the comparison. The entire top section involves fewer total people than 3 separate 100% women related items on the bottom.
The follow-up article sorted by absolute numbers is a bit better suited, and predictably a bit more bland. Births is nearly in the top 10 though.
another thing: this article seems to presume "it's bad to be in hospital"
...but that's really going to mess up with general health policy (vaccination, checkup-visits, etc)
These things wouldn't be classified as hospital admissions.
There are other regular checkup stuff that does end up there depending on how it's filed. Heart imaging, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.
"Supervision of normal pregnancy" seems to fall into this category, doesn't it?
I'm a little bit confused about what that is. If you are admitted to hospital for pregnancy and its not delivery (thats a different category that is far larger in absolute numbers) then something has gone wrong.
And herein lies the joys of medical coding :). Likely more than 235k normal pregnancy checkups happening in hospitals over 3 years in the UK, these "Z34" codes will likely get coded as admissions if someone is admitted for concerns around the pregnancy and the net result is everything with the pregnancy ended up fine. Maybe some other oddball scenarios I'm not thinking of too, but if you just go in for a planned pregnancy checkup and it comes out fine it (shouldn't) be coded as an admission just because it was done in a hospital location. Unless the NHS just has really odd coding practices, which is possible, but the other chart isn't drowning in 10s and 10s of millions of vaccinations of each type either.
For similar reasons you may find a ton of other things which aren't normally an admission in the data, but at numbers less than one might expect because that alone isn't usually reason to admit.
I'm glad I got out of healthcare IT!
WTF is "Procreative Management" ?
IVF-adjacent treatments, most likely.
Edit: I didn't mean any offense. I just didn't know what it meant!
IVF / Fertility services
Women: surgery to extract eggs
Men: wanking into a tube
A Dixie cup probably
I'm starting to think the person who handed me a bread bowl for this wasn't a doctor.
Wouldn't men show up a little bit more on the chart? I wonder if it's something more specific to women than just IVF.
This is so sexist.
How can raw statistics be sexist?