# feminist biology, factually...what is it **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 22, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681 "2014-04-22T13:58:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/21 "2014-04-22T23:35:04Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This will be a one-day kerfluffle among the Neanderthal pundits because of the word. > [@Jragon](#): > > She also has a good paleoanthropology adviser (that’s her field), he has a Wikipedia page and everything. Making him a Neanderthal pundit. I’m confused as to why he would raise a kerfluffle of any duration, given that he probably agrees with what Hyde says. Except the term “feminist,” because that’s far too loaded to get Hyde a fair hearing from old farts whose knees still work well enough to jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/22 "2014-04-23T05:08:43Z")
Well I have heard that many times they have given drugs to women on doses set aside for males but now that more women are getting things like heart disease they have had to re-consider. So yes, I can see this. Womens biology and the role of their specific hormones is very complex. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/23 "2014-04-23T14:55:44Z")
Women have always been getting things like heart disease-- The only thing that’s changed now is that people are now paying more attention to it. And women’s biology is complex, yes, but so is men’s biology: Both sexes have a variety of specific hormones and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/24 "2014-04-23T15:24:46Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Right, but there isn’t a special branch of “Black Geology”, or “Muslim Chemistry” tucked away across campus from the rest of the scientists in the Gender Studies department. What makes “Feminist Biology” different? Because no one has yet floated an argument that white geologists or christian chemists have missed or misidentified aspects of their field due to their cultural biases that has swayed people with the money to fund such a venture. And please note that the feminist researcher under discussion is examining skeletal remains. Scientists have drawn inferences about the lifestyle of the people who left those skeletons and it has apparently been demonstrated that some of those inferences assumed too many premises. I do not think feminist biologists are interested in re-examining the Krebs cycle for male bias, for example. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/25 "2014-04-23T15:49:55Z")
they are looking at Glycosylation because mannose is involved. biological science from some people’s perspective produces ID. science is a philosophy looking for truth, it needs nothing more. overlaying other philosophies is just a interfering bias. science has the means for self correction when needed. science tries to use the simplest systems and models first. if hormones can add complexity in pharmacological research then the simplest system should be looked at first. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/26 "2014-04-23T23:34:34Z")
You’re proposing that we start by looking at people without hormones? And just which people would that be? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/27 "2014-04-23T23:43:56Z")
More preposterously, he’s proposing that we look for science without people. I wish that his utopian statement that “science is a philosophy looking for truth” were more than simply a slogan. The entire history of science denies that. People are people, no matter whether they do science or not. People-style failings are inevitable. The strength of science is exactly that it allows for alternate views to correct biases more easily than many other disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/28 "2014-04-24T00:20:56Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > How does male cultural bias differ significantly from the myriad biases that every scientist in every field should be aware of and look out for on a daily basis? Why is this a special case? Most biases are either common cognitive mistakes, which can be pointed out by other people, or they’re personal or group related, which can be argued against by other people and groups. It’s always easier to see someone else’s mistakes. The biases are in competition. The bias that male is primary and female is secondary and/or unimportant, has been studied and found to cross cultures and times. For most of the history of science, the vast majority of scientists have been male, and it’s harder to notice someone making the same mistake you always make, yourself. Why is she deliberately labeling her endeavor as feminist and looking to correct male bias? Why doesn’t she just quietly find an individual instance of error and prove it wrong? And then another instance, without stirring things up? It’s in order to prod other people into noticing the bias themselves. Best case, they’ll look for it in their own, ongoing work. She’s crowdsourcing the corrections. * * * Old instance of bias follows. (Or maybe an old feminist’s tale. Feel free to correct.) The behavior of wild horses was once described as a herd of females and their young, who followed a dominant male. The male protected the herd and decided which direction they would travel. There was also, by the way, a heirarchy among the females. Favorites and so on. This was very much considered to show that it was unnatural for a female to not be subservient to her male. Women entered the field. They start turning in data showing that the dominant male chooses directions to travel. But there is also a core group of alpha females. If the stallion picks a direction and the alphas don’t follow, the herd doesn’t move. The stallion loops back. This was later verified, although I would guess that there’s variation between herds and between events. Male scientists were able to verify the behavior, once it was pointed out. But they had missed the influence of the alpha females because of the unchallenged assumption that females do not make decisions for groups. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/29 "2014-04-24T00:27:56Z")
BTW, it isn’t necessarily male research that needs to be corrected, but male bias in research. Women are just as likely to make the same assumptions. That’s why it’s being called feminist instead of feminine. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/30 "2014-04-24T01:29:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You’re proposing that we start by looking at people without hormones? And just which people would that be? steady state hormones are not the complication the fluctuating hormones are. ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/31 "2014-04-24T01:34:09Z")
I love how John is helping us feminists out here, and doesn’t even realize he’s doing it. Thanks, man, but we got this. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/32 "2014-04-24T02:42:18Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > steady state hormones are not the complication the fluctuating hormones are. They are certainly simpler than big bang hormones. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/33 "2014-04-24T11:03:34Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > “Feminist” = “of, or pertaining to, the political perspective that analyzes the world and its social structures in terms of how they impact upon or are specifically shaped by patriarchy” > > A feminist perspective differs from, let’s say, an exchange-theory perspective or a structuralist-functionlist perspective according to the kinds of questions that it asks as starting points for the analysis. And therein lies the problem I see. It’s a political perspective, which inherently means bias. It seems odd to say you are all about removing bias while using a title that says you have another form of bias. I don’t think you need to be a Neanderthal to be dismissive of science that, by its name, appears to be subservient to a political ideology. It seems odd to give yourself an uphill battle. Especially if the name was coined 30 years ago, when feminism was even more contentious. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/34 "2014-04-24T15:48:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You’re proposing that we start by looking at people without hormones? And just which people would that be? > [@johnpost](#): > > steady state hormones are not the complication the fluctuating hormones are. It’s been a complaint for at least a decade or two that many drugs are only tested on men, because the menstrual cycle, and later several years of hormone changes with menopause - those associated hormonal changes and physical effects may interfere with accurately determining, for example, side effects of drugs. Testing a mood-altering drug will be more difficult if someone has a mood cycle; testing a pain-relief drug will be more difficult if someone has cycles where pain is a regular occurrence, and so on. Then there’s the risk of pregnancy if the tests are in any way dangerous to an embryo. It is easier to test on just men, than to pre-filter your samples for minimal hormone cycle interference. It’s not so much deliberate bias or sexism, but that scientists like to take the simplest path with the least number of external variables. When I first saw this discussed in science literature about 10 to 20 years ago, one of the complaints, for example, was that women’s heart attacks are different than men’s. The chest pain symptom, for example, from what I’ve read is more common in men. Less was known about these sort of issues because most of the research, and hence the knowledge of symptoms and treatment, came from studying men. So it’s not that things are incorrect, as that the knowledge already found may be more applicable to male than female. It’s an opportunity to learn more. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/35 "2014-04-24T15:57:37Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And therein lies the problem I see. It’s a political perspective, which inherently means bias. It seems odd to say you are all about removing bias while using a title that says you have another form of bias. > > I don’t think you need to be a Neanderthal to be dismissive of science that, by its name, appears to be subservient to a political ideology. It seems odd to give yourself an uphill battle. Especially if the name was coined 30 years ago, when feminism was even more contentious. The issue is, however, that the “unbiased” version isn’t actually unbiased. That’s what the whole thing is about. ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/36 "2014-04-24T18:51:12Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Every single red flag I have available when it comes to unbiased scientific inquiry just shot up at that sentence. We have no need to filter scientific inquiry through feminism any more than we have need to filter it through Christianity. By all means, be critical of gender roles, but we don’t need feminist biology. We need _scientific_ biology. Well, yes. That means studying diseases that women suffer from by studying women. Example: heart disease effects as many women as it does men. Until very recently, all of the heart disease models were based solely on male samples. It’s becoming clear that those studies don’t translate to female patients. We have different kinds of heart attacks, with vastly different symptoms. Because of the gender bias, it took until 2011 to find that out. I agree that calling it “feminist biology” is provocative. There’s little reason to square off, as though better healthcare is a prize only one side can win. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/37 "2014-05-15T17:12:41Z")
From today’s New York Times, [Labs Are Told to Start Including a Neglected Variable: Females](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/health/nih-tells-researchers-to-end-sex-bias-in-early-studies.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry652%23%2Ffemale%2520mice%2520research&_r=0): > [@](#): > > For decades, scientists have embarked on the long journey toward a medical breakthrough by first experimenting on laboratory animals. Mice or rats, pigs or dogs, they were usually male: Researchers avoided using female animals for fear that their reproductive cycles and hormone fluctuations would confound the results of delicately calibrated experiments. > > That laboratory tradition has had enormous consequences for women. Name a new drug or treatment, and odds are researchers know far more about its effect on men than on women. From sleeping pills to statins, women have been blindsided by side effects and dosage miscalculations that were not discovered until after the product hit the market. > > Now the National Institutes of Health says that this routine gender bias in basic research must end. This may be slightly apart from the focus of VanSickle’s work, but it’s close enough to show the utter importance of what she’s doing as well as the history that she’s fighting. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/38 "2014-05-15T17:53:12Z")
> [@picunurse](#): > > Well, yes. That means studying diseases that women suffer from by studying women. > Example: heart disease effects as many women as it does men. > Until very recently, all of the heart disease models were based solely on male samples. > It’s becoming clear that those studies don’t translate to female patients. We have different kinds of heart attacks, with vastly different symptoms. > Because of the gender bias, it took until 2011 to find that out. > > I agree that calling it “feminist biology” is provocative. > There’s little reason to square off, as though better healthcare is a prize only one side can win. Huh? I recall hearing more than 20 years ago that women’s heart attacks were different; warning signs and symptoms were not the same as men’s, the biggest difference being that women often did not usually experience chest pain while men often did, which also confounded and confused diagnoses since the symptom were so different. this stuff is nothing new. It’s been known and identified for 20 years or more. The problem also is that, having done male-based simpler tests to prove a drug is safe and effective, for example, where’s the incentive and financial advantage to repeating the tests with women? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/39 "2014-05-15T18:46:16Z")
To find out if it’s safe and effective for women, too, of course. ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681/40 "2014-05-15T20:08:58Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Huh? I recall hearing more than 20 years ago that women’s heart attacks were different; warning signs and symptoms were not the same as men’s, the biggest difference being that women often did not usually experience chest pain while men often did, which also confounded and confused diagnoses since the symptom were so different. > > this stuff is nothing new. It’s been known and identified for 20 years or more. The problem also is that, having done male-based simpler tests to prove a drug is safe and effective, for example, where’s the incentive and financial advantage to repeating the tests with women? That is absolutely true. Unfortunely, many doctors just didn’t believe it. As far as retesting drugs, now it’s done as after-market studies, which are very unreliable. The way it works is, both doctors and patients should report side effects to the FDA. Few doctors report side effects. They just switch to another therapy. Even fewer patients even know they can report side effects to anyone other than their doctor. And, people lie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminist-biology-factually-what-is-it/686681.md?page=1)