this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
22 points (84.4% liked)

Feminism

1627 readers
22 users here now

Welcome to the feminism community on Lemmy.World!

Rules:

  1. This is a feminist community, meant for discussing issues around equality and gender. Disagreement is acceptable but anti-feminist statements are not. Similarly, TERF-aligned comments, including anti-trans or other anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments are not allowed. This does not preclude debunking anti-feminist talking points.
  2. Posts must be related to feminism, gender issues, or related content. Topics can include current issues/news, historical topics, personal questions/thoughts, or discussion threads. If you are unsure if your post is on-topic, feel free to message the mods before posting.
  3. Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
  4. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.
  5. Follow site-wide rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
jeffw@lemmy.world
22
8 Shocking Facts About Women in Medical Research That Will Make You Say, ‘Seriously?’ (www.theflowspace.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by stenAanden@feddit.dk to c/feminism@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I wonder about some of the facts. Whilst I do not dispute that there are differences, there are some points here that seem dishonest. For example there is a number cited that roughly 9% of resources or whatever is directed at women, despite them making up half the population. This number is women-only, right? But there is a point earlier that specifies that, at least in the US, research should in general include both men and women.

Does anyone have any numbers percentages that relate to shared research as well as mamen-only? I asked chatgpt and all it could find was some UK study between 2000 and 2013 on cancer research:

  • Women-specific: 8.4%
  • Men-specific: 6.0%
  • Gender-agnostic/non-sex-specific: 85.6%

On the one hand there seems to arguments about a more equal distribution of resources, which I agree with, but on the other hand the numbers seem to compare women-only investments to everything else. That such numbers are small does not mean that the men-only percentages are large. It would be more interesting to compare these numbers. Showing only one of them, feels a little disingenuous.

It feels I little unclear whether the author thinks the distribution should be equal or whether or not it should reflect problem groups. What's more we do not see any numbers showing whether or not one of them is being favoured over the other.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What’s more we do not see any numbers showing whether or not one of them is being favoured over the other.

Women's health has been neglected for a long time and it is well documented. Thoroughly documented.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes that was the claim, but the number 8.8% did not mean that the remaining gap was funding that excluded women. But reading this article made it seem that way.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are many reasons for the gaps in what is known about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of conditions in women, the report says, including past exclusion of women from clinical trials and the long-standing focus on male physiology and anatomy in animal and human health research. A lack of baseline understanding of sex-based differences in physiology, as well as gender-based discriminatory practices, have resulted in a failure to prioritize and fund research into conditions that are female specific, more common among women and girls, or that affect them differently. While inclusion of women in clinical trials has improved in recent years, biomedical research that involves both men and women still often misses opportunities to analyze sex differences. The intentional investigation of underlying differences would lead not only to stronger science but also to interventions that will benefit the health of the whole population, the report argues.

An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research, and funding for women’s health research has decreased as a share of overall NIH funding, despite steady increases in the agency’s budget. The NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health remains underfunded, and breakthroughs to improve women’s health have lagged across the research enterprise.

Did you click through to read the National Academies analysis that's linked in the article?

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn't. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That's why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It does not mean ober 90% is male focused.

Oh my god, dude. That is what it means if you read further. Most research is based on male bodies and is then applied to women's bodies as if they are the same.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Where does it say that? It says

An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research

A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.

According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.

Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Historically, medical research has been male-dominated in terms of subjects as well as researchers, even though women make up half of the world’s population. As a result of this gender bias, insights into various diseases and findings about medications have often been extrapolated from men and applied to women. But women aren’t just smaller men. Women’s bodies are decidedly different from men’s, with unique organs, genes, hormones, and other key differences.

It’s not surprising, then, that men and women experience many of the same diseases but develop different symptoms. With heart attacks, for example, the most common symptom is chest pain for men and women—but women may be more likely to experience other symptoms, such as shortness of breath, nausea or vomiting, or jaw pain. Women and men also metabolize and respond to many drugs differently. And there are gender-based variations in the physiological mechanisms underlying pain.

Some of these differences have been revealed through research that features gender parity. But many basic questions remain about how different health conditions and responses to drugs, vaccines, and other interventions are influenced by biological sex. “Within the last 10 years, there has been major progress on sex-informed research,” says Dr. Hadine Joffe, executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of psychiatry in the field of women’s health at Harvard Medical School. But “it’s a mixed story because there’s still such a long way to go.”

Go forth and read more.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the part that should tell me that 90% of the finding between 2013-2023 excludes women?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's the part that tells you how medical research has approached the differences between genders and how everything has been based on male anatomy.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I asked chatgpt

Excuse me?

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I asked it for references. I do not see what the problem is.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

You are very capable of pulling references yourself, y'know.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The article is littered with references, you just need to click and read them.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

You're right, and I did. To me the 8.8% cited in the reference used in this article seems pretty vague. This number relates to women's health defined as "[...] includ[ing] diseases and conditions that are sex specific or affect women and men differently or disproportionately, [...]". So this particular work does not really say that men are particularly favoured here. However, they do cite another article by Arthur Mirin (DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1029.8682) which stated as of 2021:

Not only are there almost three times as many male-favoured diseases as female-favoured diseases, but the the degree of funding disparity for the male-favoured diseases (extent to which male-dominant diseases are overfunded and female-dominant diseases are underfunded) is nearly twice as large as that for female-favoured diseases.

To me, these numbers give ordinary people a much better view of the problem, I would say. The 8.8% likely makes much more sense to experts within the field and I never meant to oppose that. It was simply difficult to make sense of within the scope of the article.

Also, whether or not there are references in the article is completely irrelevant to my criticism about the author being unclear as of what point they were trying to make with their piece. They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs. It reads like rage-bait.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Also, whether or not there are references in the article is completely irrelevant to my criticism about the author being unclear as of what point they were trying to make with their piece.

How is it unclear? Women's health should be studied more than it is currently.

They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs.

Those aren't mutually exclusive claims.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No they aren't mutually exclusive, that's true. But if women-only research funding is below 10%, this says nothing about male-only funding. From what I could find that majority of funding goes to research that is gender agnostic. The problem seems to be that when gender specific funding is warranted, male-specific conditions seemed to get more attention than made sense. If the goal is to have equality in healthcare, is this not promising?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

From what I could find that majority of funding goes to research that is gender agnostic.

Our bodies are not gender agnostic though. That research is predicated on male bodies.

[–] Mardukas@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No not really. Whilst it may not be gender agnostic, including both men and women does not make research for male bodies. Sure, historically this has been a problem and this is why it became a requirement to include women in the 90's, who h is mentioned in the article.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

I can't hold your hand through this anymore. You're being willfully obtuse about this.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago

Just because you're enraged doesn't make it bait. As a number of the references and the article makes clear, it's about allocating resources equitably. Equitable!=Equal.