Talk:Equestrian perniosis
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Article categorization
This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Women equestrians
Myoglobin had removed the gender specifier from the description of the condition, with the edit summary: not sure how gender would modulate this; WP:being bold and removing until someone can explain why/if there is a difference
. While I have no explanation to offer, the description is right from the cited source, Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology, which even in the current edition (12th, 2015) states (page 22):
Chilblains occur chiefly on the hands, feet, ears, and face, especially in children; onset is enhanced by dampness. [...] The lateral thighs are involved in women equestrians who ride on cold, damp days and the hips in those wearing tight-fitting jeans with a low waistband.
Perhaps the upcoming 13th edition will revisit that passage, but for now that's what we have to go on. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that they don't explain any hypothetical mechanism of action for a sex-based effect, I assume the author is just referring to a greater prevalence of equestrians who are women. For example, consider that some men may also wear tight-fitting jeans, and could conceivably develop the same condition if they went riding. Unless a MoA is explained I think we can't just assume this only affects one sex. As for this appearing in the current text, that's probably just copy/paste on their part :) Myoglobin (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Myoglobin: Fair enough, I certainly don't feel that the text needs to invoke gender. My only concern was avoiding potential WP:OR, given that we're deviating from the (only) cited source. It'd certainly be preferable to have a second source which describes the condition without invoking gender. But even absent that, it seems reasonable to read the Andrews' mention of "women" as merely an anecdotal/editorial flourish, rather than something integral to the definition. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that they don't explain any hypothetical mechanism of action for a sex-based effect, I assume the author is just referring to a greater prevalence of equestrians who are women. For example, consider that some men may also wear tight-fitting jeans, and could conceivably develop the same condition if they went riding. Unless a MoA is explained I think we can't just assume this only affects one sex. As for this appearing in the current text, that's probably just copy/paste on their part :) Myoglobin (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)