22
8 Shocking Facts About Women in Medical Research That Will Make You Say, ‘Seriously?’
(www.theflowspace.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
22 points (84.4% liked)
Feminism
1624 readers
251 users here now
Welcome to the feminism community on Lemmy.World!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
- 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.
- Follow site-wide rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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.
How is it unclear? Women's health should be studied more than it is currently.
Those aren't mutually exclusive claims.
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?
Our bodies are not gender agnostic though. That research is predicated on male bodies.
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.
I can't hold your hand through this anymore. You're being willfully obtuse about this.
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.