Medical misogyny is defined as the systematic bias against women within healthcare, resulting in the dismissal of women’s health concerns as ‘normal’ or ‘just stress.’ This leads to delays in a diagnosis and treatment, causing years of pain, uncertainty and anxiety. Painful, chronic conditions that have no cures and disproportionally affect women such as migraines and fibromyalgia are examples of medical misogyny we see today, with recommendations for treatment including common painkillers. Migraines affect 15% of the adult population in the UK, and women are three times more likely to suffer with them, have longer attacks more frequently and requiring more time to recover from them. Symptoms may include aura, followed by an intense headache on one side of the head (that can leave sufferers bedridden for the duration of the migraine) and vomiting. Secondly, it is estimated that 75% to 90% of those diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a condition that causes widespread pain and fatigue, are women. Yet despite how common it is, getting a diagnosis can take years. The same pattern appears with other conditions that only affect women, such as endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). On average, it takes around 8-10 years for endometriosis to be diagnosed, whilst PCOS typically takes between 2 and 4 years. What’s striking is that these conditions either mainly affect women or exclusively affect women, yet they have no cure and many involve long and frustrating diagnostic journeys. For many women, this means years of trying to understand what is happening to their bodies while continuing to live with persistent symptoms.

Furthermore, progress in understanding these conditions and developing better treatments have been slow. As a result, many women spend years managing symptoms such as chronic pain, fatigue, and hormonal disruption, which can significantly impact both their social lives and ability to work. Between 2023 and 2024, only £1.33 million was spent on endometriosis research, bringing the total funding for the condition between 2019 and 2024 to approximately £7.7 million. While this funding supports a range of research projects, some studies have focussed on topics such as the impact endometriosis had on male partners and perceptions of attractiveness among women with the condition, rather than prioritising the development of improved treatments or a cure. These research outputs further perpetuate the idea that women’s pain is not important, and that a women’s worth comes from how attractive she is. PCOS faces a similar situation; despite affecting roughly 1 in 10 women, research funding has amounted to a total of a few million pounds despite the healthcare cost being estimated to be £237 million a year in the UK. Although over £1 million a year in funding may seem like a lot, compared to other major health conditions it becomes a relatively small amount. For example, cancer research receives a significantly greater investment with approximately £133 million for research. It is in this context that £1 million is a mere drop in the research ocean.

Medical misogyny can also be seen in the way research itself is designed and conducted. In many areas of biomedical research, male rats are often used as the default test subjects leading to female animals being excluded due to financial concerns and variability introduced by hormone cycles. This imbalance can continue down the research pipeline, where participants in human clinical trials have historically been, and in many cases still are, mainly men. There seems to be an ingrained idea that females present a greater hormonal variation as their hormonal cycle is, on average, 28 days whilst men have a hormonal cycle of 24 hours. This means that men have a more consistent cycle with fewer variations… but because of this difference in cycles between the sexes, research conducted on males cannot, and should not, be applied to women as this can lead to greater negative effects later. An insightful 2024 review by Becegato and Silva published in Physiology and Behaviour [1] explained how damaging it can be not to include females in research and how hormones should not be used as an excuse to exclude women. The review highlighted that, in 2019, 7% of papers did not clearly report the sex of the animals used in their studies, and in cases where the disease being investigated predominantly affected women, most of the animal studies were conducted using male rodents… and one reason given by scientists for this was that hormonal variations resulted in data variability, even though research suggests that variabilities between genders are comparable in over 140 traits. The review also highlighted that hormonal variation exists within male mice themselves. For example, some male mice may have five times more testosterone than others, which can impact the central nervous system, but this is rarely considered when studying hormonal fluctuations in experimental design.

A Nature article that was published in 2025 found that fewer than 30% of the participants in the early phase of industrial trials were women [2]. Furthermore, only 4% of covid-19 clinical trials included women, despite there being different infection rates, drug responses and mortality rates between males and females. Bias in clinical trials may date back to 1962, when the thalidomide controversary led to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banning women (even if they were not pregnant) from clinical trials in 1977. The ban was finally lifted 16 years later, but medical research continues to ignore women even though we have different metabolic rates, immune responses and fat distribution. This affects how drugs are absorbed and used within the body, and if not prescribed properly, can have disastrous consequences for women. For example, 88% of commonly used drugs including aspirin, antihistamines and SSRIs, were found to exhibit sex-based pharmacokinetic modes of action, but dose recommendations have failed to account for this difference. As a result, women experience adverse drug reactions at approximately twice the rate of men.

Excluding women from research studies and clinical trials is not only medical misogyny but may lead to an example of a dangerous research practice known as confirmation bias. This refers to when researchers only analyse data in ways which reinforce their existing beliefs, while evidence that contradicts their own hypothesis is excluded intentionally. This can lead to distorted research design (e.g. only including male rodents in in vivo studies) and misleading conclusions which in turn can contribute to the development of ineffective treatment and increase the likelihood of unpleasant side effects.

In 2010, the role of including females in research was reinforced by the National Institute of Health (NIH) by stating that inclusion enhances validity and reliability. However, more still needs to be done to ensure that women are fairly represented in medical research, so our health is not overlooked. This includes continuing to change the long-standing narrative that women’s hormones are simply a complication in research, or that women are ‘just smaller men’ in medical studies. Encouraging more open conversations about women’s health, alongside training medical professionals and researchers about sex-specific symptoms and how hormonal differences influence diseases and drug responses, would represent an important step forward.

Medical misogyny can be challenged further by ensuring women are equally represented in clinical trials, by directing greater research funding towards conditions that primarily affect women and by prioritising studies that seek to better understand female health. At the same time, patients should feel empowered to advocate for their own health by seeking additional medical opinions, requesting referrals or returning to their doctor when their concerns have not been fully addressed. Ultimately, women’s pain and symptoms should not be dismissed as ‘normal’ or ‘psychological’ but instead be taken seriously and investigated from the outset. The steps here outline just a few ways how medical misogyny can begin to be addressed. With continued awareness, improved research practices, and greater attention to women’s health, there is hope that with time, women’s symptoms, experiences and hormones are taken seriously in both research and clinical care rather than overlooked or dismissed.

1. M. Becegato and R. M. Silva, Physiology and Behaviour, 2024, 284 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938424001938

2. K. Singh and R. Swarup, Nature, 2025 https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-025-00036-y#ref-CR1

Related Blogs

• 

  STEMMing the Leaky Pipeline: A place to belong in physics – how CUWiP+ and PGWiP+ helped me

• 

  STEMMing the Leaky Pipeline: In conversation with the Commonwealth Fellows

• 

  STEMMing the Leaky Pipeline: a discussion on living with PCOS as a woman in STEM

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.