Nandhini Parthasarathy ‘ 26
It starts as a mild discomfort—nothing alarming, just lingering nausea that persists through the day. Rachel, a 52-year-old mother of two, decides to visit her physician after weeks of symptoms disrupting her routine. Sitting in the sterile examination room, she lists her concerns: persistent nausea, occasional palpitations, and fatigue. The doctor listens, nods, and writes her a prescription for anti-nausea medication. He assures her it’s likely stress or a stomach bug and sends her on her way. No tests are run, no further questions are asked, and Rachel leaves feeling like she’s overreacted. Days later, she experiences severe chest pain and collapses. It’s a heart attack—a condition that might have been caught earlier if her symptoms had been taken seriously.
Rachel’s story is far from unique. Women’s experiences with healthcare are often marked by dismissal and subjugation. A common thread in their encounters with physicians is the trivialization of their pain, frequently attributed to menstrual issues or emotional stress rather than investigated as legitimate medical concerns. Research confirms that women must report higher levels of pain than men to be taken seriously, highlighting a profound “pain gap.” More troublingly, this gap extends to a credibility gap, where women’s accounts of their symptoms are doubted, leaving many to feel gaslit and unheard.
Gendered illness experiences vividly demonstrate disparities in healthcare. Men and women with the same disease frequently encounter different diagnostic and treatment pathways. These differences stem from biases that compromise the quality of care women receive. Such disparities have grave consequences, resulting in higher mortality rates and diminished quality of life for women. Historical male-centric frameworks in biomedicine perpetuate this inequality by prioritizing male experiences and excluding women from research and education, thereby endangering their health.
One prominent example of this bias is seen in the diagnosis and treatment of heart attacks. Heart attacks, caused by reduced blood flow leading to heart muscle damage, are often mischaracterized as a male health issue. This misconception is starkly contradicted by data: more women than men die from heart disease. However, the male-centered understanding of heart attack symptoms significantly skews the recognition of women’s experiences. While chest pain is a common symptom for both genders, women often experience additional symptoms, such as pain in the jaw, neck, or arms, and epigastric symptoms like nausea or indigestion. These “silent” symptoms are frequently attributed to stress or menstrual issues, delaying diagnosis and treatment.
The consequences of this dismissal are severe. Women experiencing the most critical type of heart attack, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), are at a higher risk of death due to delayed intervention. Studies reveal that women are more likely to be misdiagnosed, as physicians often compare their symptoms to a male-centric checklist. For example, Judith H. Lichtman et al. (2018) found that 53% of women reported that their providers dismissed their symptoms as unrelated to heart issues, compared to 37% of men. Such biases leave women powerless, exacerbating the already significant gender gap in healthcare outcomes.
For women of color, these disparities are even more pronounced. Black women, in particular, face systemic barriers in healthcare that lead to worse outcomes. Cardiovascular disease remains disproportionately high in this demographic, yet their symptoms and concerns are consistently downplayed or ignored. Studies highlight that Black women are less likely to receive timely and accurate diagnoses for heart conditions and often have fewer opportunities to access life-saving treatments. This disparity isn’t just about implicit bias; it’s about the systemic undervaluation of Black women’s health needs in a healthcare system designed without them in mind.
This dismissal extends beyond physical ailments to conditions like autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The standardized diagnostic tools for autism largely reflect male presentations, neglecting gendered differences in symptoms. Women with ASD often employ “camouflaging” behaviors, using strategies to mask their symptoms in social situations. These behaviors, coupled with gendered differences in emotional vocabulary and perfectionist tendencies, complicate diagnosis. As a result, women are frequently misdiagnosed with mood or eating disorders, leaving them without the resources they need to understand and manage their condition.
Addressing these disparities requires a fundamental shift in how biomedicine approaches symptomology. Current diagnostic practices prioritize observable symptoms over a holistic understanding of patient well-being, reinforcing cultural biases that invalidate women’s experiences. Physicians must acknowledge that the dominant diagnostic frameworks are often gendered and exclude women’s embodied experiences of illness. For women of color, this means taking an even more active stance against the compounded impact of gender and racial bias in diagnosis and treatment.
To bridge the gap, biomedicine must prioritize research and education that includes female-specific presentations of diseases. Women need to be informed about their “silent” symptoms and empowered to advocate for themselves. Likewise, research on conditions like ASD must expand to capture the nuanced differences in female presentations. Without such efforts, the power imbalance between patients and providers will persist, leaving women—especially women of color—disproportionately vulnerable within a male-centered healthcare system.
Edited by Namitha Alluri ’25
Leave a Reply