Did they consider women at all? 
(And yes, they REALLY didn’t consider women who can’t stand).
It does seem to be in question.
People who don’t identify as female in the context of breast health aren’t going to be getting regular breast screening, so it’s not very helpful to include them in a study of the best schedule for breast screening. Seems reasonable to me. They could have just said “are female”, but that would lead to questions. This makes it clear whom they accept – anyone willing to click the “I am female” button on a form.
fwiw, I looked into this, and the study looks very legit. I’m glad they are doing it, and I’m looking up info (when WAS my last mammogram? Right before the pandemic shutdown, or did I skip it?) to enroll.
Why not? They should be, if they’re transitioning from cis-female to male after the age of 40 and haven’t yet had breast removal (or don’t plan to). Or if they identify as non-binary and have had no surgery but were born female they’d be at risk. They’d still have breasts so they’d still be at risk.
I’d have thought that “identify as women or female, or were classified female at birth and have not undergone breast removal” would be more inclusive.
I would guess that some people who identify as male socially also identify as female in certain medical contexts.
My guess is that they don’t want people on testosterone in the study, though, because that would be likely to impact the outcome, and they are unlikely to have enough such volunteers to have good statistics on the subgroup, so it would just be data they’d end up removing.
I’d have thought it’d be better to ask about testosterone in the medical section. because I’m certain there will be a lot of medications that prohibit you from taking part.
I signed up There don’t seem to be a lot of medications that exclude you. And they don’t ask about testosterone.
I signed up also. Good going, @nelliebly!!
Oh, thanks for the thanks :), but it was pudytat72 who linked to the study. I’d sign up if I hadn’t had breast cancer.
Are you in a wheelchair, or do you have an extreme form of dwarfism? The machine at the place I had my last one could adjust down to about 2 feet off the floor.
In my case, the armpit angles pinched a bit, but it wasn’t terribly painful. The one I had 2017 was emotionally painful, because it caught “something” and I’m very grateful I had that scan and the followup treatment.
This is the baseline they’re looking for.
Nope, I’m five feet tall - which is short but not that short. No idea why the places I’ve been don’t have machines that adjust lower- but now that I know they exist, I’ll look for a new provider.
I’d be surprised if every single imaging place had exactly the same machines. But yeah, switching to a place that offers options for short people, people in wheelchairs, and people who can’t stand for long sounds like a good idea to me. And if they ask you why you’re leaving them, tell them. This is important for them to know (IMHO).
I’ve always been excluded due to taking steroids for asthma - that’s not an uncommon medication. There was one I looked into that accepted me at first then rejected me by phone, due to my medications.
I’d have thought that taking testosterone would rule you out of being part of a general study, but not all people IAFAB are on testosterone.
Just seemed an odd thing to miss, really - it looks like a good study and I’ve posted it for US friends who might be interested.
They asked about a lot of medical conditions. Maybe they ask more questions if you say you have some conditions I don’t have. 
But the only hormones they asked me about were estrogens and progesterones. And… I’m pretty sure that’s the only medications they asked me about.
They must filter out more people in follow-up phone calls or emails. Otherwise they could also end up with a few people AMAB who identify as female, and although their risks should be studied too - actually it would probably be a really useful study - it would skew the results to include them as part of a general study.
Not really. I’m sure they will report the results both including and excluding anyone AMAB. They may not get enough such people to have solid statistics on that subset, but it won’t prevent them from analyzing the AFAB data.
And it’s possible they will get enough AMAB participants for the data to be meaningful. That would be quite valuable. Even if they can’t meaningfully compare the two monitoring schemes, and only generate data on the incidence of breast cancer among transwomen, I think they’d be adding useful medical data.
I spit into a test tube today, as part of this study. And when I activated the test kit, it asked me what sex I was assigned at birth (and had a text field if I wanted to say more about that.) This was a custom process for people in the wisdom study. I’m sure, because I used a laptop for part of the process, and my phone for part, and at some point it got confused and asked me if I was signing up through the wisdom study, and if so, told me I had to use their custom activation script.
So … It certainly looks like they are expecting to get data from some transwomen.
Or maybe disqualify them on that basis.
I seriously doubt it.
I assume they will segregate the data from transwomen. Like the vaccine trials in South Africa reported separately how the vaccines performed in people with and without HIV, but they didn’t exclude immune compromised people from the trials.