Male Anatomy is Not All Anatomy
- marketingc8
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Here on the blog, we recently mentioned the work being done by scientists to understand the aging process (and other differences) between men and women.
Well, there are centuries-old problems in the analysis of human anatomy.
It’s a centuries-old bias.
This article—“Why male anatomy became the default in medicine—and why that’s a problem”—grabbed our attention. It’s posted on a website called The Conversation.
“From textbooks to medical devices, the female form has often been an afterthought, leading to treatments that don’t fit, symptoms that go unnoticed, and lives put at risk. How did anatomical science come to overlook half the population? And what are the consequences of this oversight today?”
It’s a familiar story.
The roots of male dominance go back. Way back.
Male control likely began because of physical strength. Plowing and hunting, for instance, required more strength which led to more control over resources and food production, yielding political and social power. What followed was the rise of patriarchal structures. In other words, men took the position of authority. Religious teachings reinforced these notions, limiting the female role. (Did you notice any female cardinals in the recent conclave that selected a new pope? You get the picture.)
In short, men consolidated power. And early anatomical texts reflected this point of view about the world—specifically, anatomy. The work of Andreas Vesalius in the 16th century was based almost exclusively on the male form.
As The Conversation article points out, “female anatomy was included only when it differed in obvious reproductive ways, often cloaked in language that presented the female form as a deviation or inversion of the male norm … The male body was perceived as universal, rational, and worthy of study, while the female body was seen as variable, emotional, and biologically preoccupied with reproduction.”
Well, that’s a big problem. Consider this data from an article on Winx (“Medical Misogyny: the default male body”).
A 2013 study of 59 medical textbooks found that the anatomy vulva was either inadequately, incompletely, or incorrectly described in all the studied texts. And as of 2019 medical textbooks still inaccurately represent the nerves and vasculature of the clitoris.
In 2013, about 70% of medical schools in the U.S. and Canada still had virtually no curriculum regarding sex differences.
In 2015 (only a decade ago), the Government Accounting Office recommended increased FDA oversight of the inclusion of women in clinical trials of medicines. After all, why should dosage amounts be the same for men (who are generally larger) than for women?
As the Winx article notes, there is a difference!
For instance, female bodies don’t respond to general anesthesia the same way male bodies do.
And, no surprise, the menstrual cycle affects immune response, vaccination side effects, reactions to pharmaceuticals, and the risk of heart disease.
In addition, hormone concentrations affect the risk of ACL injury and asthma presents differently in female bodies.
Notes the article (and we could not have said it any better), “perhaps we’re realizing that including women isn’t just about having a female research participant in your study—it’s about understanding the implications of physiological and hormonal differences in the range of human bodies. It’s about recognizing that all human beings should have access to quality medical care. It’s about realizing that the ‘default male’ body is an oxymoron. It’s about acknowledging that women are people, too.”
.
.
.
.
Comments