I was interested in learning more about gender inequities in healthcare and chose this book because it seemed to be inclusive of more than cis women compared to other popular books on the same topic. The introduction especially addresses this, although there's not much more in the rest of the book, likely due to limited data.

I liked the book but I think it's longer than it needs to be and does get repetitive. I would recommend reading the introduction and select chapters based on your interest rather than the whole book. ( )

Very informative and eye opening on the gender bias in medicine and honestly so frustrating that medicine can be so egocentric and sexist . Being a medical student myself , I usually heard professors discrediting women's symptoms and saying that they are doing it for attention , after reading this book I think that a medicine curriculum revolution is really needed for professors that have sexism ingrained in them . I also learned a lot from it and honestly am grateful for having the chance to read it and hopefully I can become a good physician who actually LISTENS
Why the three stars then ?!
The writing .
It was so repetitive , you can delete certain paragraphs and it won't make a difference .. Sometimes I became so bored that I contemplated just reading a summary of the book or just dnfing it . Only the critical information presented in the book kept me reading . I think it needs a new edition and some good editing. ( )

An essential read for those in the medical profession, women, and anyone really. The biases and misunderstandings of women in medicine are so much deeper than you'd believe.

I know, I know. I've been on a bit of a medical kick lately.

Things I liked: It addressed some very real issues in medicine today.

1. There are many studies (code: medical experiments) that do not specify sex. Given the already proven differences between male and female physiology(heart attack symptoms, etc) there should be some way to note/measure that and separate the two. Also, did you know that studies older than the 1950s (and possibly later) didn't allow women to participate? Always look for your sources and prove that they're primary ones. Read [b:Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions|34921573|Lost Connections Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions|Johann Hari|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1500785858s/34921573.jpg|56184854] for more interesting info regarding studies. *

2. Women do tend to not be taken seriously. I've seen it. Possibly because physicians tend to not know that much about female problems. Case in point: I had PCOS when I was young. Dr. said that I should get better, the pain should just be for the one cycle, etc. 20 years of monthly pain later, a female DC (what would she know?) says go off sugar, white bread, and other starches. Brilliant. Now cramps are an abnormal occurrence.

Things I thought could have used more explanations:

1. Physicians are not perfect. At one point there is a complaint that it is the attitude of the physician that is the problem. Not quite. It might be the fact that we don't see a specialist, but instead see a GP. GP that know their stuff are quite rare (possibly for monetary reasons). True- they should be open to letting people see specialists and take pain seriously but they should not be completely to blame for not knowing the answers.

2. Sometimes the problem is anxiety/depression. Just thought I should point that out. While it definitely doesn't cause intestinal pain, it can cause symptoms similar to a heart attack. And, for what it's worth, I think Freud was right when he said that Trauma can cause physical manifestations of pain. Just ask any sexual abuse victim.

3. Just reading the history of medicine really can damage your belief in men as physicians. If you look at it, it was men doctors who poisoned people with mercury, men doctors who bled people to death, and men who didn't wash their hands. It was women who used herbs, gave largely free services, and compiled and shared knowledge with each other. And, for the most part, that knowledge is gone because the male counterparts that took over medicine (largely except for birth) for 200 years didn't ever have that information because they never trusted it (which is why it is largely gone except, again, with midwifes who have somehow stuck it out). Like it or not, trust plays a huge role in medicine.

4. This book struggles in matters of tone- trying to not seem whining, but also trying to present serious issues. It has good points, though.

*Also, if this is true, what does this mean for people who want to transition? I think it means more research should be done before just jumping into a mix of things we don't completely understand yet. If the problem is that women are only seen for their reproductive system shouldn't that say that there is much more to being female than having a reproductive system (at least, outwardly)? And I think Dusenbery should maybe have covered that inasmuch as there was a section pointing out the unavailability of adequate trans care. But maybe I read her wrong. ( )