Disentangling gender and racial myths from clinical descriptions of female prevalent symptoms

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

My PhD research found that the myth of the hysterical female unintentionally influences the way in whichdoctors, researchers, and the public discuss, categorise, and treat female-prevalent symptoms.I compared expert (medical and academic) and patient accounts of PMS (Premenstrual Syndrome) with theavailable scientific data regarding cyclical symptoms. The main finding was that persistent gender mythsassociated with 'hysteria' were affecting participant descriptions. In particular, the untrue but surprisinglycommon belief that the healthy female body (first the womb, now the female sex hormones) causes seriousmental health issues was strongly reflected in the way in which PMS was described. Unfortunately, thisassumption wrongly positions 'all women' as biologically prone to irrational beliefs and behaviours (includingthe exaggeration, invention, or imagination of symptoms and other distressing experiences) (King, 2020).This gender myth appears to have contributed to the unscientific separation and prioritisation of typically mildpremenstrual mood changes, and the dismissal and de-prioritisation of far more common and severeexperiences of (cyclical) pain. Black and other racialised ethnicity patient participants appeared to be subject toeven higher levels of disbelief in their symptoms than White cisgender women, demonstrating how gender andrace myths may combine to worsen discriminatory beliefs and practices.Another major finding was that educational resources (from high school biology to specialist gynaecologytextbooks) reduce the menstrual cycle to just 'hormonal changes'. By omitting key information about thefemale reproductive system, a more likely cause of cyclical symptoms (inflammation) has been overlooked forthe past 100 years. This gap in education unintentionally reproduces the myth of the hormonal/ hystericalfemale and has led to 'bad science'- in that researchers have mistakenly assumed that the timing of symptomsmeans that they must be caused by hormonal changes (rather than the inflammation associated withovulation, thickening of the womb lining, and menstruation).Many clinical PMS studies have tried but failed to prove a causal relationship between the female sexhormones and cyclical symptoms. Tellingly, these consistently negative study findings were positioned by themedical PMS experts as evidence of the 'mysterious' nature of the female reproductive body rather thansuggestive of alternative scientific explanations. In fact, it appears that the pairing of 'women' and 'hormones'in medicine (and wider society) has severely limited the ability of researchers and clinicians to account forfemale-prevalent symptoms and conditions in any other terms.My PhD thesis concluded with a proposal for redefining problematic cyclical symptoms as PMI (PerimenstrualInflammation) to help steer societal and medical discourses away from persistent gender/ race myths andmetaphors towards more accurate explanations. It is hoped that this will help to account for, and attend to, theneeds of individual patients without accidentally stigmatising an entire gender and/ or racialised ethnicpopulation. I already have a contract with Bristol University Press to write a popular science book for academic and publicaudiences. I now need to publish my work in some influential medical and academic journals to gain greaterprofessional credibility. This will be needed if I am to secure further research funding and persuade thepublishers of school and medical textbooks to integrate more comprehensive information about the purposeand function of the healthy menstrual cycle. Ultimately, I hope to help boost patient and medical knowledge ofmenstrual health (and female-prevalent symptoms), improve treatment options and patient outcomes, andexpose the way in which societal myths have prevented this information from being taught before.