The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the views of The University of Scranton.
Two and a half years ago, I developed a painful pimple-like spot on my back. It would hurt when I was on my period and would sometimes bleed. At a daily check-up, I brought it up to my doctor, who dismissed it as a pimple. Nevertheless, the pain continued. In December, I was in particularly bad pain, and my boyfriend noticed it was bleeding. He gave me a Band-Aid and suggested I see a doctor. A little exasperated, I explained that I already had, and that it had been dismissed by my doctor as nothing. The next day, I was hanging out with some female friends, and because I was once again wearing a crop top, they noticed the Band-Aid. I explained the situation, and my friend Alaina, who is studying nursing here at the U, asked to see the “pimple.” Within minutes, she proclaimed that it was not a pimple but likely a cyst that had become infected because it hadn’t been treated. When I expressed my disbelief that my doctor hadn’t caught such an error, she asked, “Is your doctor a man?”
I was overcome with a sense of déjà vu. Only four months earlier, I’d met my friend Ryan for some Wawa to catch up and hear about his internship at a cardiology office. He mentioned to me that they had some patients come into the office who’d had a heart attack and didn’t realize it until they felt off weeks later. The reason? The patients were women and didn’t think anything was wrong because they didn’t exhibit any commonly known symptoms of heart attacks.
It is men who often experience textbook symptoms like “chest pain which radiates to the left arm, shoulder, or back, shortness of breath, and dizziness or lightheadedness,” whereas women often experience different symptoms (Fields; Gardner). While women can also experience chest pain, they are more likely to experience fatigue, nausea, and shortness of breath or stress. However, since most medical research has been conducted on men, male symptoms are the ones commonly known—a problem that radiates far beyond cardiology.
The root cause of the gendered disparity in medical research about women seems evident. Since the 1970s, most medicine has been practiced and researched by men. Even today, the latest study by the Association of American Medical Colleges reports that only 38% of active doctors in the United States are women (Boyle). This matters because there is a general lack of research into women’s health problems, which are often overlooked in such a male-dominated field, creating potentially deadly results for women.
Arguably, the best example of this is the general lack of treatment for painful periods. Despite women suffering since the dawn of time from painful periods, no one has found a way to make them any less painful without serious side effects. While birth control is a start, the side effect listing seems longer than the twenty-page case brief I wrote for my law class last semester. While I understand that not every medical problem can be solved, I believe this lack of effective and efficient treatments is more so due to a lack of research; five times more research dollars go toward Erectile Dysfunction (ED)—a condition that affects 19% of men—over Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS), which affects up to 90% of women (England).
One area of medicine especially inadequate for women is pregnancy care, where even minor oversights—like administering an epidural incorrectly or ignoring a complaint of feeling cold—can lead to life-threatening consequences. I have heard a few too many friends talk about how, if their mothers had taken an epidural or hadn’t complained about feeling cold, they would have internally bled to death. I am terrified of having a baby, and that shouldn’t be the case in an age where robots can talk and AI can write an entire paper for me (I don’t condone using AI). In a country where, as of 2023, approximately 18.9 women for every 100,000 live births die of pregnancy-related complications, this is alarming. For women of color, the maternal mortality rate is even higher—50.3 deaths per 100,000, a 166.14% increase (Hoyert). The U.S. was also named the most dangerous developed country to give birth in, according to a report from Amnesty International. Yet, despite women’s concerns about this statistic, very little seems to be changing as a result. In fact, with the repeal of Roe v. Wade, I believe these numbers will only continue to rise, especially in states where abortion has been completely banned. In Texas, Amanda Zurawski was denied miscarriage care until she developed sepsis and nearly died, because doctors feared violating the state’s abortion ban.
Zurawski, however, is just one of many women across our nation whose lives are endangered by policies that restrict access to basic reproductive care. This demonstrates how the medical field is failing women by not having policies that ensure their health is protected, particularly during pregnancy and pregnancy complications.
Yet even before these regressions in health policy, women dying—or nearly dying—from pregnancy was not unheard of. Take the case of Kira Dixon Johnson, who died of internal bleeding in 2016 after a C-section. Despite her husband begging doctors for hours to take her back into surgery, her doctors felt she was being “dramatic” (“Hospital Sued for Racism”).
These are not rare stories, but systemic failures. If most doctors and medical researchers are male, it means we don’t have advancements or public medical knowledge about our bodies. Why does this matter? Because the medical field wasn’t designed to research or serve women—an issue rooted in the gendered stereotype that women are overly dramatic, which can lead some doctors to be dismissive of their pain or health concerns. In fact, a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) study found that 29% of women aged 18 to 64 said a healthcare provider had dismissed their concerns in the previous two years, resulting in a general distrust by women of the medical profession.
This erosion of trust isn’t harmless. If women feel their doctors refuse to listen to them, they are unlikely to return for care or speak up when something feels wrong. In a country where people pay thousands of dollars a year for insurance, that level of distrust is unacceptable.
We need to ensure that something is done to prioritize women’s health research in federal budgets and policymaking, including ensuring equity in research resources between the sexes, a seemingly tall order with the current presidential administration’s gutting of the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research, the National Institutes of Health, as they begin firing more than 1,000 federal employees.
More concerning is the administration’s screening of more than 100 words—such as “women,” “LGBTQ+,” and “fetus”— in research grants and proposals due to their connection to Diversity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Leaks from the National Science Foundation reported that the Trump administration had ordered that any proposals including these words be flagged for review.
Why does the word “women” need to be reviewed? Or “fetus”? Or “pregnant person”? It seems the prevailing thought of the current administration is that the word “women” relates to gender identity and is therefore potentially related to DEI initiatives. However, medical care is not—nor should it be—a DEI issue. All people deserve adequate medical care and research, especially underrepresented groups like women of color. Notably, the words “men” and “white” are not on the list of banned terms, even though the above list seems to block all other mentions of gender or race. I believe that men’s and white men’s medical concerns are relevant and should be studied, but why are they the only group people can propose studying without being flagged?
If we are truly striving for equal research that does not favor one gender or race, how can we do this if research policies continue to favor the gender that has always been prioritized in medical research?
In an article for KPBS, University of California San Diego public health scientist Rebecca Fielding-Miller asserts this list will hamper research for women, saying, “If I can’t say the word ‘women,’ I can’t tell you that an abortion ban is going to hurt women… If I can’t say race and ethnicity, I can’t tell you that Hispanic communities are experiencing this and that, or that there’s less vaccination happening in African American communities.”
I’d like to believe that this block on research is not simply to quiet the outcry about the abortion ban or other current policies; however, the effect of removing these words blocks any sort of research into these areas, preventing researchers from seeing the potential negative impacts of such policies. Fielding-Miller believes these bans will be so restrictive that researchers will be forced to shift their focus away from all these issues.
Her colleague, Dr. Natasha Martin, a professor of infectious disease and global public health, said banning words deprives scientists of the ability to describe the world accurately: “The terms on these lists are essential scientific terms, and they are critical for both clinical care and public health,” Martin said. “This is not a political issue” (Sharma).
Indeed, Martin is correct. Research is not a political or DEI issue despite attempts to make it so, and even though it is controlled by the federal government. What is political, however, is that flagging these words in research is meant to serve a particular political agenda. All the words above aren’t just words, they represent groups of people, particularly women, who have concerns that deserve to be researched, particularly to ensure that their health needs are met. It is not just the words that are being banned but the groups as a whole.
While Republicans argue that Trump isn’t banning women’s health research outright, flagging words related to women still leaves a lasting impact by reinforcing the notion that women are less important in research. This exacerbates the already-present disregard for women’s gender-specific medical problems. If the word “woman” cannot be used in research, this is not only censorship but the erasure of our identity. It ensures that women continue to receive inadequate research into medical concerns that particularly affect us.
If researchers are actively discouraged from studying women’s health—something that is already under-researched—we’ll never see meaningful improvements in medical issues faced predominantly by women, such as endometriosis, menopause, infectious diseases contracted during pregnancy, and pregnancy-related death.
This is not just bad policy, it’s a form of oppression, as women will be left to suffer without proper medical care or research.
Works Cited
Boyle, Patrick et al. “Women Are Changing the Face of Medicine in America.” Association of
American Medical Colleges, 28 May 2024, https://www.aamc.org/news/women-are-changing-face-medicine-america.
England, Charlotte. “Erectile Dysfunction Studies Outnumber PMS Research by Five to
One.” The Independent, 19 Aug. 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pms-erectile-dysfunction-studies-penis-problems-period-pre-menstrual-pains-science-disparity-a7198681.html.
Fields, Lisa. “6 Heart Attack Symptoms in Women: Chest Pain and Other Signs.” WebMD,
28 Dec. 2023, https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/womens-heart-attack-symptoms.
Gardner, Amanda. “Heart Attack Symptoms in Men – Know the Signs.” WebMD, 16 May
2023, https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/heart-attack-symptoms-in-men.
“Hospital Sued for Racism After Black Woman Dies Following C-Section.” Today, 15 Apr.
Hoyert, Donna L. “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2022.” Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2023/maternal-mortality-rates-2023.htm.
Katella, Kathy. “Maternal Mortality Is on the Rise: 8 Things To Know.” Yale Medicine, 22 May
2023, https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/maternal-mortality-on-the-rise.
Katz, Eric. “NIH Faces Renewed DOGE Directive to Cut Staff, Putting Thousands in Line for
RIFs.” Government Executive, 8 Mar. 2025, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/03/nih-faces-renewed-doge-directive-cut-staff-pre-covid-levels-putting-thousands-line-rifs/403593/.
Sharma, Amita. “Federal List of Forbidden Words May Jeopardize Research at UCSD.”
KPBS, 7 Feb. 2025, https://www.kpbs.org/news/economy/2025/02/07/federal-list-of-forbidden-words-may-jeopardize-research-at-ucsd.