{"id":13745,"date":"2025-03-24T16:21:16","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T09:21:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/?p=13745"},"modified":"2025-03-24T16:21:16","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T09:21:16","slug":"words-matter-the-dangerous-impact-of-restricted-words-on-womens-health-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/?p=13745","title":{"rendered":"Words Matter: The Dangerous Impact of Restricted Words on Women\u2019s Health Research"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script><br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-316539 aligncenter lazyload\" src=\"https:\/\/sp-ao.shortpixel.ai\/client\/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_729,h_486\/https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Blur image of scientist working in a modern laboratory setting, vintage tone\" width=\"729\" height=\"486\"\/><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-316539 aligncenter lazyload\" src=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Blur image of scientist working in a modern laboratory setting, vintage tone\" width=\"729\" height=\"486\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-scaled.jpg 2560w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shutterstock_2529898169-150x100.jpg 150w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 729px) 100vw, 729px\"\/><\/p>\n<p>In 1967, two women illegally ran the Boston Marathon. At the time, women were barred from participating in marathons. In fact, it wasn\u2019t until 1960 that women were even allowed to compete in the Olympic 800m (\u00bd-mile) event\u2014from which women had been banned since 1928 due to false reports that they collapsed after competing.<\/p>\n<p>The reasoning? It was widely believed that running could harm a woman\u2019s health. Scientists and doctors, all male of course, believed that running could cause <a href=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/2015\/04\/infertility-the-private-struggle\/\">infertility<\/a> in a woman. Others believed that women running would actually result in a prolapsed uterus, which honestly makes me question their medical degrees. Most simply believed that women\u2019s bodies were too fragile for the endurance required of <a href=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/2017\/10\/13-things-know-training-first-ultramarathon\/\">running a marathon<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>All ridiculous assumptions that were perpetuated by a total and complete lack of scientific research on women.<\/p>\n<p>Thankfully, pioneers like Bobbi Gibb and Kathrine Switzer, the two women who ran the 1967 Boston marathon, proved otherwise, paving the way for women\u2019s participation in sports. However, in the end, it was scientific studies on women\u2019s bodies that ultimately solidified the inclusion of women in <a href=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/2018\/03\/86-awesome-facts-about-runners-and-the-sport-of-running\/\">endurance sports<\/a> and beyond.<\/p>\n<h2>The Importance of Women\u2019s Health Research<\/h2>\n<p>Scientific studies that focus on women\u2019s health are essential and go way beyond proving that women will not drop their uterus straight out of their bodies if they run anything longer than a city block.<\/p>\n<p>Despite its importance, women\u2019s health research was neglected for many decades.<\/p>\n<p>For a brief period, women were included in health studies\u2014though still far less than men. Then came the\u00a0<strong data-start=\"1887\" data-end=\"1910\">thalidomide tragedy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Thalidomide, a drug prescribed for morning sickness in the late 1950s and early 1960s, caused devastating birth defects and miscarriages in Europe and Australia. The U.S. largely avoided the crisis thanks to a female pharmacologist and medical officer at the FDA based, <a class=\"css-yywogo external\" title=\"\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/09\/14\/health\/14kelsey.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey<\/a>, who refused to approve it citing a lack of rigorous scientific research.<\/p>\n<p>However, the aftermath led to disastrous consequences for women\u2019s health research. In response, the FDA established guidelines excluding \u201cpremenopausal women\u201d from clinical trials in Phase 1 and 2 for clinical research. The result? For decades, women of childbearing age were categorically excluded from clinical research due to fear of another large-scale catastrophe.<\/p>\n<p>It wasn\u2019t until 1993, when Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act, that scientists were officially required to include women and minorities in their studies, as well as requiring that Phase III clinical trials be analyzed for sex differences.<\/p>\n<p>Even today, women\u2019s health research remains underfunded and underrepresented. But that was changing, until very recently.<\/p>\n<h2>The Dangers of Treating Women as \u201cSmaller Men\u201d in Medicine<\/h2>\n<p>Historically, male bodies have been considered the \u201cdefault\u201d in scientific research which meant that men\u2019s bodies were studied in scientific research while women\u2019s bodies were not. From a scientific standpoint, male bodies were then and are still simply considered \u201cnormal\u201d while women\u2019s bodies are considered \u201catypical.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Rather than studying the differences in female physiology, women were often treated as\u00a0<em data-start=\"2992\" data-end=\"3017\">smaller versions of men<\/em>\u2014a dangerous assumption with life-threatening consequences.<\/p>\n<p>A 2020 study showed that women are twice as likely as men to experience adverse reactions to medications largely because drug dosages were based on clinical trials conducted exclusively on men. This \u201cdrug dose gender gap\u201d exists for 86 medications approved by the FDA including\u00a0antidepressants, cardiovascular and anti-seizure drugs, pain relievers, and several others.<\/p>\n<p>This is one example of many. Women\u2019s bodies are not just smaller male bodies. They function differently\u2014yet research has consistently failed to account for these differences.<\/p>\n<p>Including women in research studies is absolutely critical for the health and safety of women, as well as for the increased understanding of physical issues that are more specific to a female body.<\/p>\n<p>You don\u2019t have to think very hard about why health events like menstruation, pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause, and menopause were not historically studied and in fact continue to be understudied and underfunded. Men don\u2019t experience any of these.<\/p>\n<p>Take menstruation, as an example. There was little understanding of the hormonal menstrual cycle until the mid- 20th century. Before that, people did understand that menstruation had to do with fertility, but they also believed that menstrual blood was unclean and in some cases, a reflection on a woman\u2019s morality.<\/p>\n<p>And while our understanding of menstruation has come a long way from the days of believing that a menstruating woman could kill plants just by touching them\u00a0<em>(seriously, that was a thing people believed)<\/em>, there\u2019s still a lot we don\u2019t know because we failed to study it for so long.<\/p>\n<h2>The New Threat to Women\u2019s Health Research: Restricted Words<\/h2>\n<p>Despite the long-overdue inclusion of women in clinical trials, research on women\u2019s health is once again in jeopardy now in 2025.<\/p>\n<p>In an effort to dismantle what he calls \u201cwoke\u201d ideology, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting \u201cradical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.\u201d Soon after, the National Science Foundation created a list of words that would be flagged for possible rejection if they appear in a research proposal. The list was shared by <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/darbysaxbe\/status\/1886584910967922973\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">Dr. Darby Saxbe<\/a>,\u00a0a professor at the University of Southern California.<\/p>\n<p>The list of words includes \u201cfemale,\u201d \u201cethnicity,\u201d \u201cdiversity,\u201d \u201cbias,\u201d \u201chistorically,\u201d \u201cdisabilities,\u201d \u201cBlack and Latinx\u201d, and \u201cwoman,\u201d among others.<\/p>\n<p>While using these terms doesn\u2019t automatically disqualify a research proposal,\u00a0many scientists have noted that possible rejection is enough to have them think twice about submitting work using these terms\u2014discouraging researchers from even submitting studies that address women\u2019s health.<\/p>\n<p>But let\u2019s be clear: this policy doesn\u2019t just limit the way scientists talk about women\u2019s health\u2014it\u00a0<strong data-start=\"4716\" data-end=\"4764\">limits the kind of research that can be done<\/strong>. So while the Trump Administration is not outright saying, \u201cwe will no longer study women\u2019s health,\u201d they are limiting how women\u2019s health can be studied.<\/p>\n<p>Think about it: how can you conduct research about cervical cancer without using the words \u201cfemale\u201d or \u201cwoman?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And if you want to try and figure out why a particular health issue disproportionately impacts black or indigenous women, you\u2019re doubly screwed. How can researchers explore racial disparities in maternal health if\u00a0<em data-start=\"4587\" data-end=\"4594\">Black<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0<em data-start=\"4599\" data-end=\"4607\">Latinx<\/em>\u00a0are flagged for scrutiny?<\/p>\n<h3>The Importance of Acknowledging Bias<\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"4821\" data-end=\"4937\">Bias is inherent to scientific studies. Recognizing and addressing bias is\u00a0<strong data-start=\"5019\" data-end=\"5032\">essential<\/strong>\u00a0to designing well-structured research. The is why flagging the word \u201cbias\u201d is particularly bonkers.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"4821\" data-end=\"4937\">Part of the point of science is to continue to learn how the world works through a methodical approach of study, exploration, experimentation, and analysis. Bias is a huge part of this.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"5161\" data-end=\"5315\">If researchers can\u2019t acknowledge\u00a0<em data-start=\"5194\" data-end=\"5200\">bias<\/em>, how can they correct it? How can science evolve if researchers aren\u2019t allowed to question existing assumptions?<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/p\/DFsvTNRPVGB\/\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">this post<\/a>\u00a0on Instagram,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/arghavansallesmd\/?hl=en\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">Dr. Arghavan Salles<\/a>\u00a0explains how ridiculous it is to remove the idea of bias from a research grant proposal, mostly because recognizing bias is fundamental to ensure that a study is well designed. \u201cPeople talk about statistical bias all the time and people talk about bias in study design. So we\u2019re no longer allowed to talk about that and what makes a study optimally designed and what the best statistical approaches are?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Further, Dr. Salles talks about how restricting words like \u201csex\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d has an impact far beyond just the intention to shut down what might be labeled as \u201cwoke\u201d ideology in science. \u201cHow do we even study animals if we can\u2019t talk about the sex of the animals we study,\u201d she asks. \u201cOr are we just not supposed to include female animals or female people in studies anymore?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Scientists are understandably worried. When you limit the words you can use when you are researching a topic, you limit the type of research that can be done.<\/p>\n<p>And, of course, the fact that you might have to limit who is allowed to be studied is particularly disturbing. An idea that would literally set women\u2019s health research back by more than 50 years.<\/p>\n<h3>A Real-World Example: The Flawed Science of BMI<\/h3>\n<p>When we presume male bodies are the norm and scientists only study men or only study health conditions that impact male bodies, science can only advance so far. It can also lead to inaccurate understanding of certain conditions.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s look at BMI, as an example. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was created in 1832 by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian statistician\u2014not a medical doctor. It was initially called the Quetelet Index and was intended to find the \u201caverage man\u201d based on their weight divided by their height, squared.\u00a0Note that Quetelet was interested in discovering the \u201caverage man.\u201d\u00a0<em><strong>Not the average woman.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0It should also be super clear that he was likely only interested in studying white men, as well.<\/p>\n<p>In 1972, Ancel Keys (also\u00a0<em>not a medical doctor<\/em>) did his own study again \u2013 only including men in his study \u2013 which resulted in renaming of the Quetelet Index as the Body Mass Index. It also began the medical use of the BMI to assess \u201chealth,\u201d despite the fact that Keys did not seem to intend for BMI to be used in that way.<\/p>\n<p>Over time, and further influenced by capitalism and insurance policies, it transformed into the BMI we know and hate today.<\/p>\n<p>Its fatal flaws are that the BMI does not distinguish between weight from muscle tissue and body weight from fat tissues or provide data on any actual health metrics. It\u2019s a very basic mathematical equation\u00a0<em>designed for statistical analysis of white men<\/em>. Now it\u2019s being used to determine whether people of all races and gender identities are \u201cobese\u201d which can dramatically impact a person\u2019s health insurance, not to mention how they are treated by doctors.<\/p>\n<p>In an article that analyzes the impacts of the BMI on health policy, the authors note, \u201cThe current BMI scale is likely an inaccurate representation of women\u2019s health status and disease risks, as various factors contribute to substantial differences in CVD risk and mortality between men and women. There is considerable evidence for sex differences in cardiac autonomic modulation, sex hormones, cytokines, and lipid and glucose metabolism.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The BMI is an absolutely inaccurate tool for measuring health broadly and it was never designed to be such \u2026 and yet, it\u2019s still widely used and misapplied.<\/p>\n<p>This is exactly why diversity in research matters.\u00a0<strong data-start=\"6218\" data-end=\"6304\">If you only study one group, you get a biased, incomplete understanding of health.<\/strong><\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"6308\" data-end=\"6369\"><strong data-start=\"6313\" data-end=\"6367\">The Profit-Driven Attack on Public Health Research<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"6371\" data-end=\"6482\">Beyond government restrictions, there\u2019s another major threat to scientific research:\u00a0<strong data-start=\"6456\" data-end=\"6479\">corporate influence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"6371\" data-end=\"6482\">At the heart of the rampant spread of flawed science is capitalism and profit. The misclassification of people based on BMI in terms of \u201chealth\u201d status aside, there implications are vast\u2014such as the vice president of an insurance company who noticed that an increasing number of policyholders who were making insurance claims were folks with higher weights. For him, having a tool to measure body weight, categorize someone as \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad,\u201d and then use that to able to charge more to those deemed \u201cbad\u201d was good for the insurance business.<\/p>\n<p>As\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/p\/DGWPfLtvF0w\/\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">Dr. Jessica Knurick<\/a>\u00a0points out, when financial gain becomes a part of the equation, research sponsored by for-profit companies can impact the type of science that is even studied.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThis is not about fixing science. This is about dismantling public research so they can privatize it. They\u2019ll say it makes things more efficient or reduces waste. But it also increases inequality and prioritizes profit over public well being, increases corporate influence over what gets researched and what doesn\u2019t, and shifts priorities from public well being to profit driven topics.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>She continues, explaining why for-profit science is so destructive:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cHere\u2019s the problem: when science is dictated by profit, it stops serving the public good. Diseases that aren\u2019t profitable, get ignored. Maternal health, rare disease, environmental risks \u2013 no money in those, no research. Medical breakthroughs become even more exclusive and the best treatments will go to those who can afford them, not those who need them. And misinformation and pseudoscience gets legitimized.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2>Why This Matters for the Future of Women\u2019s Health<\/h2>\n<p>Science advances when <strong data-start=\"7478\" data-end=\"7525\">we study the full range of human experience<\/strong>\u2014not just white, male bodies.<\/p>\n<p>If scientists are applying for research grants that cover topics that are related to women\u2019s health, like postpartum depression, they are also likely less profitable and will be ignored in a privatized scientific landscape.<\/p>\n<p>Something like erectile dysfunction will continue to be funded because limp dicks are important to men and as a result, very profitable, while postpartum women are unable to access the care they need and continue to be thoroughly dismissed by the medical establishment.<\/p>\n<p>When we stop presuming that white, male bodies are the norm, scientific research improves. This is evident in the advances in science over the past 30 years since women were once again allowed in clinical trials, but also with increased study of the differences between women and men\u2019s physiology and an increased focus on women\u2019s health, specifically.<\/p>\n<p>An excellent example of this is the research that revealed symptoms for heart attacks present differently in women than they do in men.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Science that excludes the word \u201cwoman\u201d is limited science.<\/strong> If you can\u2019t be specific about certain topics because particular words are off limits, you\u2019re not able to design studies that lead to scientific breakthroughs that can improve the quality of life for so many people\u2014which, history has shown, will ultimately lead to negative health outcomes for women.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, black women, hispanic women, asian women, and indigenous women are studied significantly less than white women.\u00a0When words like \u201cwoman\u201d or \u201cdiversity\u201d or \u201cbipoc\u201d are excluded from scientific research, we\u2019ll end up with more inadequate BMI-type science that serves the wealthy and harms those who are already marginalized.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps these are the outcomes this administration wants.<\/p>\n<p>By restricting the words scientists can use, we risk reverting back to outdated, harmful medical practices\u2014like the days when doctors believed a woman couldn\u2019t run far without losing her uterus.<\/p>\n<p><strong data-start=\"8176\" data-end=\"8212\">Health is not one-size-fits-all.<\/strong> Science needs diversity to move us forward. And that starts with allowing researchers to ask the right questions. <em>\u2014Naomi<\/em><\/p>\n<p>_______________<\/p>\n<p>Sources:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10693914\/\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10693914\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.aamc.org\/news\/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">https:\/\/www.aamc.org\/news\/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2020\/08\/200812161318.htm\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">https:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2020\/08\/200812161318.htm<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/grantwritingandfunding.com\/banned-and-trigger-words-in-federal-grant-writing-in-the-trump-administration-2-0\/\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">https:\/\/grantwritingandfunding.com\/banned-and-trigger-words-in-federal-grant-writing-in-the-trump-administration-2-0\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/www.instagram.com\/embed.js\"><\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/fitbottomedgirls.com\/2025\/03\/restricted-words-womens-health-research\/\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In 1967, two women illegally ran the Boston Marathon. At the time, women were barred from participating in marathons. In fact, it wasn\u2019t until 1960 that women were even allowed to compete in the Olympic 800m (\u00bd-mile) event\u2014from which women had been banned since 1928 due to false reports that they collapsed after competing. The &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fitness"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loudhdtv.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}