“Today things have changed, women are excelling men in medicine both as naturopathic and medical doctors. It certainly took a long time but I truly believe there will be no turning back at this point.”
Women as scientists and doctors
It has always been a man’s world. In many countries women are still not given the opportunity of making a name for themselves. It was not that long ago either, on August 18, 1920, when the denial of the right to vote “on account of sex” was prohibited in the USA. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, outlawing many of the discriminatory practices (like literacy tests) that had kept black and other minority women from exercising their rights. In Canada, many women gained the vote in 1918 but several groups remained excluded for decades based on race. These rights were eventually enshrined for all citizens in 1982 under Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a male dominated culture women were to be housewives: cook, clean, bake and take care of the kids; independent women were frowned upon. If women had the talent, the best they could do was to support their husbands. In the science world the example that stands out the most was Mileva Marić, Albert Einstein’s first wife, who was one of the most debated examples of potential historical erasure in science. Mileva faced obstacles Albert did not: she was failed twice in her diploma exams by male professors and was eventually forced into domesticity following an unplanned pregnancy. Back in those days scientific papers were rarely published under a woman’s name, which may have led to publish jointly-conceived work under the man’s name alone to aid his job search. This phenomenon is often referred to as the Matilda Effect, a term coined by historian Margaret Rossiter in 1993 to describe the bias where the achievements of female scientists are attributed to their male colleagues.
This started many centuries ago with the witch hunts between the 14th and 17th centuries, when the church and medical authorities branded many “wise women” and herbalists as witches, effectively criminalizing their medical knowledge to protect the emerging male medical monopoly.
In the 1800s, almost all medical schools in the US and Canada refused to admit women. For example, Johns Hopkins[1] founders only admitted women in 1893 because they needed the funding provided by a group of women who made it a condition of their donation.
“Scientific” sexism has also existed for a long time; some male doctors argued that medical education would make women “monstrous” or that menstruation caused “temporary insanity,” making women them unfit for the field.
Today things have changed, women are excelling men in medicine both as naturopathic and medical doctors. It certainly took a long time but I truly believe there will be no turning back at this point. What will be the costs is another question: can they still raise a family and have a medical career? I am sure they could have both but they will have to carry an added burden that men do not have to. After all, and no matter what they claim, women are the only biological sex capable of bringing forth life.
For the first time in history, the “pipeline” into the medical profession is predominantly female.
- United States: As of the 2024–2025 academic year, women represent 54.9% of all enrolled medical students in the US. This marks the sixth consecutive year that women have comprised the majority of total enrollment since first surpassing men in 2019.
- Canada: Canadian medical schools reached gender parity in graduating classes much earlier, in 1996. For the past two decades, classes have hovered between 55% and 60% female.
- Naturopathy: The shift is even more pronounced in alternative medicine: women currently make up approximately 77% of naturopathic medical students in North America.
Have these trends brought positive aspects to patient treatment? According to a cross-sectional census survey of both male and female family physicians (FPs) in active practice in Ontario, “[f]emale FPs in Ontario reported spending more time per patient than their male colleagues across a range of services, with the association attenuated for those with non-Canadian medical degrees or residencies. (…) Gender differences were less pronounced among international medical graduates and those who completed their residency outside of Canada, suggesting that training background influences service time.”[2] This means that a different location might bring different results.
Women are also less likely to engage in misconduct when publishing biomedical research, according to a recent analysis. “Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions.”[3]
Women as consumers and patients
The changes do not only involve women in the position of doctors and scientists. More and more focus has now be given to women’s health in general as well. “CHFA’s newly launched Women’s Health and NOW report reveals how interconnected women’s health needs are and where natural health products can better support them. While most Canadian women consider themselves in good health, nearly seven in ten are managing ongoing and often overlapping challenges, including menopause, mental health concerns, anemia, skin issues, thyroid disorders, and hormonal conditions such as PCOS and PMS.”[4] The market is slowly understanding that women consumers might need a different approach and marketing, so companies should focus on more affordable and accessible products while staying evidence-based. Education and professional guidance have also proven to be important for women when managing their health with confidence.
In the scientific community, the need to invest in menopause science, its symptoms, and its implications for aging women’s health has also becoming more and more important. According to the article The Swinging Pendulum of Menopausal Hormone Therapy “few medications have captured the imagination—and provoked such ire—as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). For decades, MHT has served as a lightning rod for medical and cultural debate about management of menopause, aging, and women’s health. In the mid to late 20th century, MHT was widely touted as an elixir enabling women to stave off the health effects of aging, remain “feminine forever,” and prevent such diverse health issues as vasomotor symptoms (VMS), weight gain, skin aging, cardiovascular disease, and dementia. Many regarded MHT as a panacea for all that ailed midlife and older women—a belief that existed in the absence of any large-scale MHT trials for primary disease prevention, particularly trials using clinical disease end points.”[5]
So what should be the correct approach regarding MHT or hormone therapy in general? The answer might be in the comment for the article, showing a different and very human attitude to the question by saying that “the best care is individualized and based on comprehensive risk assessment—not routine hormonal intervention. Menopause is not a disease, and most women will find relief through non-pharmacologic means, patience, and support. The aim should be to empower women to embrace this transition safely, with honest communication about benefits and risks.”[6]
The comment above is also relevant in regards of the recent findings of the Women’s Health Initiative. “Approximately 55 million people in the US and approximately 1.1 billion people worldwide are postmenopausal women. To inform clinical practice about the health effects of menopausal hormone therapy, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, and a low-fat dietary pattern, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) enrolled 161 808 postmenopausal US women (N = 68 132 in the clinical trials) aged 50 to 79 years at baseline from 1993 to 1998, and followed them up for up to 20 years.”[7] What were their findings? The studies found that combined estrogen–progestin therapy increased risks of breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, and coronary heart disease, while reducing fractures and colorectal cancer; overall, risks outweighed benefits when used for chronic disease prevention. Estrogen-alone therapy did not increase breast cancer risk but did raise stroke risk and also was not appropriate for preventing cardiovascular disease. According to these results, hormone therapy should not be used to prevent heart disease or other chronic conditions.
Life Choice Women’s Program
References:
- CHFA Consumer Reports, 2026. Women’s Health & NOW. https://chfa.ca/resources-post/womens-health-now/
- Kralj, Boris et al. 2026. Association between family physician gender and patient service time. Evidence from Ontario. https://www.cfp.ca/content/72/1/e17
- Manson, JoAnn E. et al. 2024. The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trials and Clinical Practice A Review. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2818206
- Natarajan, Pandiyan. 2025. Menopausal Hormone Therapy – The Remedy is worse than malady. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2840561
- Sebo, Paul. 2025. Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0335059
- Thurston, Rebecca C. and Huang, Alison J. 2025. The Swinging Pendulum of Menopausal Hormone Therapy. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2840561
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/history/women-med-ed
[2] Kralj, Boris et al. 2026.
[3] Sebo, Paul. 2025.
[4] CHFA Consumer Reports, 2026.
[5] Thurston, Rebecca C. and Huang, Alison J. 2025.
[6] Natarajan, Pandiyan. 2025.
[7] Manson, JoAnn E. et al. 2024.