this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
149 points (78.5% liked)

childfree

2277 readers
336 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source for the 7% statistic

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Prontomomo@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The thought “but how much research is dedicated to just men?” isn’t a salient retort.

Women are 50% of the population, and 100% of the humans alive today grew inside body systems that are exclusive to that population. Why would only 7% of research being about women be ok with that reality?

One great source for the gender gap in science is the book Invisible Women. It shows the dire need for data that studies women specifically, as well as having gender-aggregated data in research that studies both sexes. The current body of science, which is based on hundreds of years of research, mostly studied only men or studied both sexes and didn’t separate the results by sex, so women are mostly invisible in research.

[–] Tungsten5@lemm.ee 0 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

This coming from x? Yeah I’m not trusting shit that comes from that fuckhole of a website. Not a stat nor one of its retarded users

Edit: my bad broskis, I’m just feeling a lil aggressive this morning and I am not sure why

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee 30 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I won't pretend to see the whole picture here but it sounds like we're talking about 7% female specific data vs everything else. Most of the remaining data may be non gender specific.

To present this as 7% female and 93% male is disingenuous.

As a counterpoint, breast cancer research (an issue predominantly affecting women) recieves far more funding than prostate cancer research.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Then again, is breast cancer here counted as female or non gender specific?

They really do make it sound as if 93% goes to male only research, but I highly doubt that's he case

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 2 points 46 minutes ago

I'm a casual observer, so take this as the understanding of some dumbass on lemmy rather than anybody who's actually been in the medical field. My understanding is that the majority of "non-gendered" medical research done through history has actually been male only, given discrimination and women being hidden inside the home for a lot of history. I've also heard that young male cadavers were WAY more available in like industrial revolution england than young female cadavers (affecting both medical research and training) just given who was more likely to get a dangerous job and die young. I know modern medicine understands how to sample a population a bit better than that, but the absolute vast majority of medical research still happened in places/eras that considered women property.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago

Not true. Most studies nowadays include male & female participants - and more research focuses on exclusively female than exclusively male issues

The real bias is against normal human beings. Nursing/medical students and medical professionals are vastly overrepresented amongst study participants - and young people. These groups of people are much healthier than the average human being. Steps have been taken to address this too, but it is slow going.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

more than likely medical professionals are more likely to ignore women, when they present symptoms of a disease, they are often balked, or dismissed as attention seeking behaviour. heart disease tends to be ignored in women in some cases.

medical science is less clear on biasing against woman or men. they might focus on certain gender groups for different diseases, like MS is more likely to occur in women, but in men its more severe. some cancers are more likely in men than woman. like P.Dermatitis is more common in women than in men, but some diseases are equally affecting both genders.

also for cancers, they might ignore both genders if you're "too young" for it.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 23 points 12 hours ago

the standard baseline is almost always a typical male body

luckily this is not really true anymore.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biomedical-research-sex-male-female-animal-human-studies

[–] Owlboi@lemm.ee 17 points 12 hours ago

incredibly misleading. piss off with your bullshit

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

Couldn't open the source link, unfortunately. So what's the percentage of women specific health issues? And what % of funding goes to health issues that only impact men?

[–] kevlar21@lemm.ee 44 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (4 children)

I don’t doubt that women are underrepresented in medical research, but at the same time I suspect most medical research targets issues that affect both men and women, since that is true of most medical issues. The 7% statistic would be more impactful if we could compare it to the percentage of medical research focused on medical issues specific to men.

Edit: after further consideration, my initial take here isn’t great either, because women face more medical issues specific to their gender. I still think the 7% statistic is a little misleading.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 12 hours ago

Yep, that 7% doesn't mean the rest is going to research on men specific health, it means that 7% is for women health, an unknown % is for men health and the rest is for human health in general (which is logically the biggest %).

[–] destructdisc@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Issues that affect both women and men still often tend to affect both in different ways -- but the majority of medical research tends to just take what works for the standard male body and apply that to everyone regardless of sex instead of investigating sex-specific effects and tailoring solutions around that

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you have sources for this claim? Every non-gender specific (i.e. gynecology, prostates, etc.) medical study I have ever read has made it clear that they try to sample as close to an even number of men and women as possible.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I'm making this claim from an American standpoint: A famous example is that fewer girls and women are diagnosed with autism, and those that have been are either profoundly autistic or have had to educate their doctors. Girls are usually socialized differently than boys, so some of the criteria for autism just aren't a good fit

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

that’s a clinical bias, the person above was asking about a research bias.

edit:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biomedical-research-sex-male-female-animal-human-studies

as of 2019:

Behavioral research was the most inclusive, with both sexes in 81 percent of studies.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I want to know where you think clinical criteria come from

Edit: your article describes a study that found research to be dominated by male biology when it was published 2011. This article found a nine year average delay in updating clinical guidelines. People who were in university to be a doctor within the last ten years are likely still operating on older research, unless they have taken the time to stay up to date.

I have a year left on my BS in Biology. There is so much new research coming out that I read, that I know my classmates don't have the time for. So what we are taught from textbooks is what they learn, and this is a large part of where they get their biases from

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

clinical bias is not necessarily from the criteria. often the clinician is the one introducing the bias all on their own.

That's fair! From the same perspective, there are significant issues with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders like ADHD and Autism, especially in relation to gender.

But research into that is actively happening, and those issues are specifically recognized and being tackled. Autism in particular was heavily impacted by genuine differences in presentation that naturally reduce the likelihood of social recognition (and therefore reduce the social pressure toward diagnosis):

Studies show that autistic women and female-presenting people have better social awareness, are more likely to engage in reciprocal conversation, have more social motivation for friendships, participate in more group activities, use more nonverbal gestures and pragmatic language, have fewer repetitive/restrictive behaviors, and have more friends than autistic men and male-presenting individuals (Hsiao et al., 2013; Hiller et al., 2014; Rynkiewicz et al., 2016; Parish-Morris et al., 2017; Sedgewick et al., 2016; Dean et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2016).

https://autism.org/women-in-autism/#gender-bias

Don't get me wrong, historical research was terrible. And, to this day misdiagnosis and undertreatment is rampant. Women are less likely to receive adequate treatment for pain and are more likely to face delays in various diagnoses, due to almost entirely social influences like male doctors just not believing their patients. Mental health and psychiatric disorders in particular are obviously heavily impacted by that.

But we also only know those things because of modern research. Studies need representational sampling to get through any IRB, and so the majority of medical research starts with men and women from the beginning, reports any differences in the results, and generally keeps trying until it reaches positive clinical outcomes for both.

In the case of Autism, it was recognized that there was a 4:1 men:women diagnostic ratio, and they kept looking at that number until they found possible explanations why.

At the very least I think that the much larger issue is currently on the other end of the equation - if we could get those positive clinical outcomes actually delivered clinically, rather than theoretically.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

"In 2020, only 1% of funding for healthcare research and innovation (beyond oncology) was invested in women's health."

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

That 7% is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. You don’t even need specific numbers to see how wacky the logic is: who here really believes that 93% of gynecological research is conducted on men? Research into ovarian cancer? Development into drugs for preeclampsia?

If you were I’m going with this… yes, women are massively under represented in medical research that applies to both men and women, and there are problems with that too, such as major differences between cardiovascular issues in men and women. Most people, including doctors and nurses, would not recognize the symptoms of a heart attack in a woman unless they were specifically looking for them.

[–] destructdisc@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

93% of gynecological research is conducted on men? Research into ovarian cancer? Development into drugs for preeclampsia?

That's not what that means at all. It means gynecological research + research into other issues that only affect female physiology only accounts of 7% of all medical research. The other 93% is either focused on general or male-specific issues (and conducted mostly on men).

[–] JackDark@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Is it just medical research? It just says research in general. I'm not making a claim either way, but agree it's worded very poorly.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, I know what it means. That’s why the headline is bit misleading.

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

The headline is of course misleading, but not really for the reasons you pointed out. Nobody is going to read that headline and think it means 93% of gynecological research is conducted on men. Some people might read it and think it means 93% of medical research overall is conducted on men, though.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If you read the linked source, it says 7% is research that is aimed at issues that EXCLUSIVELY affect women.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 12 hours ago

Yep so people need to understand that it doesn't mean that 93% goes to men specific issues.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That sounds fine. How much funding should go to exclusively womens issues?

How much funding is on male only health issues? We need something to compare because that stat alone is useless.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It honestly strikes me as high.

I would expect that women-exclusive or male-exclusive issues would be less than 7% of all issues.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Buddy, you have no idea how many medical issues happen doing to pregnancy and child birth alone. It's staggering.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I understand it's a lot. I'd be willing to bet women-exclusive issues dwarf men-exclusive issues for the reason you said.

But still, if you were to catalogue every medical condition known to exist, that women exclusive conditions exceed 7% of the total?

I'm worried that people think I'm diminishing the number of things that can go haywire in pregnancy, I'm not. I'm saying that you're underestimating the TOTAL number of things that can go haywire in the entire human body.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 2 points 7 hours ago

Enlighten us then, how many issue happen between pregnancy and child birth?

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

I think medical research is also biased against healthier people. The "standard baseline... male body" isn't particularly healthy, especially in older ages. People just don't take very good care of themselves, they eat crappy food, and don't exercise. I'm thinking specifically of high LDL cholesterol, and statins being universally shoved at us to bring it down. But, recent research shows that high LDL cholesterol alone, in an otherwise quite healthy person, may not be the risk to plaque build up it's assumed to be. Because, most of the research is done on less healthy, "standard baseline... males."

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

That's wild considering most men never go to the doctors willingly

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

As many have pointed out, this did not mean 93% is focused on men, it means that 7% is exclusively about women's health. I strongly suspect the vast majority is not gender specific (men's issues I would hope are smaller than 7% by a wide margin, since there's not much that goes too wrong that is inherent to men's physiology and much of it is more cosmetic in nature, while women specific health issues tend to be more dire.

So, to make up a number, it could be that 90% is generic across general human biology. So that the results could be applied to everyone so they catch the women going to the doctor as well as the men, if your assumption were true

[–] plzExplainNdetail@slrpnk.net 5 points 13 hours ago

Yes, but consider that there was likely a financial incentive to be part of the trials.