Words: Naf Ali (they/them)
“Purist ideologies” frame women’s bodies as something to tolerate rather than clinically treat.
“Medical Misogyny” is the term that explains the insufficient healthcare delivered to women and girls. It is what’s behind longer waiting times for diagnosis, normalisation of intense period pain, and countless other injustices. It aims to weaponise women’s health against them. “Purist ideologies” frame women’s bodies as something to tolerate rather than clinically treat. To uproot this, we must first pick apart the language and the ideologies that sustain it.
Period pain is often described as “normal”, and treated as ordinary. So, conditions that cause painful or heavy periods are often dismissed as “bad” periods. This is one of the main driving forces behind 10-year-long wait times for diagnoses. The inconsistent treatment of women’s reproductive health is caused by gaps of knowledge and care. Women’s healthcare leans on misogynistic terms that aim to ridicule them (“hysteria”) and minimise their pain. The reaction to women seeking help is based on biased, gendered narratives that women tend to overreact, and are “faking it”. This is why GP appointments often feel like an exercise of proving credibility, instead of being listened to. The language and ideology behind this slows the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of medical conditions. Ultimately, this results in women suffering unnecessary pain, potentially leading to preventable complications in the future.
“Medical Misogyny” is worsened by racial bias. We see this take place in the medical mistreatment of BAME (Black Asian and minority ethnic) women. For example, the so-called “Mrs Begum” syndrome shows the intersection between medical racism and misogyny. This is where South Asian women (usually older women), are viewed as “exaggerating” their pain. The racial bias of “Mrs Begum” or “Mrs Bibi” uses popular ethnic second names “Begum and Bibi” to specifically target South Asian women. This act does not stop at ignoring their pain, but it also accounts for brown women having late-stage diagnosis overall for all 6 cancer sites, namely breast, ovary, uterine, NSCLC, and colon cancer. Their experience is shared by Caribbean and African women, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer, compared to white British women. This is also a major driver behind diagnostic delays of up to 10 years, with women’s symptoms often being questioned rather than clinically investigated.
This alarming racial inequality also affects maternity care. BAME women often face poorer care compared to white British women. This can result in women feeling “traumatised” and cause increased mortality rates. Black women, for example, are 3 times more likely to die during pregnancy, with women from Asian ethnic backgrounds being twice as likely. Racial bias stems from education and knowledge gaps, and the lack of training to monitor this racial bias renders care insufficient and poor. The statistics revealing the stark gap in quality of treatment amongst women calls for more intersectional thinking. I believe that this is necessary to unpack the layers of misogyny and racism within healthcare in the UK.
What is being done to reduce wait times for women? To prevent racial bias from impacting care? One recent step is the introduction of Jess’s Rule in England, a patient-safety initiative designed to prevent diagnostic delays. Jess’s Rule encourages GPs to ‘reflect, review, and rethink’. When a patient presents 3 times with the same unresolved symptoms, GPs are pushed to consult second opinions, and refer to specialists that can provide necessary diagnosis. It was introduced after the death of Jessica Brady, whose repeated attempts to access care were not acted upon in time. Its importance lies in challenging the culture of dismissal that disproportionately affects women, particularly when symptoms are labelled as hormonal or exaggerated, rather than taken seriously.
Still, while Jess’s Rule is promising, major hurdles still remain for women’s healthcare, namely systemic racism/racial bias. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists argues that reducing racial health inequality requires structural change. Their policy pushes for national targets to close maternity outcome gaps, better collection of ethnicity data, and genuine involvement of minority women in designing services. It also calls for anti-racist training for healthcare staff and more inclusive research. This ensures women are heard, believed, and treated equitably at every stage of care. Systemic “wake up calls” prompt anti racist policy reform and renew focus upon BAME women’s healthcare. I truly believe that this is a strong step in reducing the impact of racial bias within healthcare.
Together, “medical misogyny” and racial bias rely on stereotyped beliefs and language to maintain systemic dismissal and diagnostic delays. However, these behaviors can be changed through sustained advocacy, laws like Jess’s Rule, and collective calls for policy reform. These biases are not fixed, and they will not withstand sustained scrutiny and reform.
