One-Size-Fits-All-Men: Male Universality and its Deathly Consequences for Women EXEMPLAR
Topic: Gender
by Georgette, 2021 Cohort
What is the issue?#
The male body is seen as the standard human being, while a female body is viewed as anomalous. This can be seen from as early as 372BC, when Aristotle referred to the female form as a mutilated male body. In the medical field, measures and indicators are used to identify if a treatment is working efficiently, to recognise the warning signs of a potential impending health emergency through symptom thresholds, and to calculate the ideal conditions to promote the human body’s optimal functional state. However, the gender biased data collected by these measures and indicators are typically centred around men’s bodies, biology, and experiences, and either dismisses or ignores the female biology entirely.
The lacuna of female-centric measures and indicators perpetuates a medical field that systemically discriminates against women, resulting in mistreatment and misdiagnoses. There is no national Australian policy requiring medical research to consider sex as a biological variable, and, therefore, many universally acknowledged medical truths have been founded upon research that used predominantly (or only) male cells, animals, and clinical trial participants. When measures and indicators are only tuned to half of the world’s population, the conclusions that can be drawn from this data are only half-truths, even if the measures and indicators are performing with 100% accuracy.
Are there examples?#
A benign example of this data discrepancy can be found in most office buildings: the formula that has been historically used in offices to determine the air conditioner temperature that optimises productivity and comfort of those working in the space was developed based on the basal metabolic rate of a 40-year-old man - this temperature is, on average, five degrees too cold for women due to their slower metabolic rate. More sinister consequences of this data gap can be seen in women who are 50% more likely than men to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack due to the commonly known indicators of heart failure being male-centric. Further, a commonly prescribed medication that is used to prevent heart attacks is more likely to trigger a heart attack than inhibit one during a particular time in a woman’s menstrual cycle. This was only discovered when the drug became publicly available, as the health effects on women at differing stages of their menstrual cycle was not explored in the clinical trial process - it was allegedly claimed to have been ‘too complicated’, and therefore a dispensable measure and indicator.
What can be done?#
The medical field is not ignorant of the gender data gap, and yet very few steps are being taken, either politically or within academia, to change this. We need enforceable national policies that regulate gender-specific medical clinical trials. We need the training of medical professionals to include gender-focused measures and indicators. Most of all, we need to close the gender representation gap in leadership, academia, and policymakers. Neglecting this issue is no longer passive inaction, but a deliberate and systemic effort to exclude women - sometimes costing them their lives.
Additional Resources#
Perez, C.C., 2019. Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Random House.
Disclaimer#
This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au