Category: Commentary

  • The Controversial History of Somatic Therapy: From Fringe to Mainstream

    The Controversial History of Somatic Therapy: From Fringe to Mainstream

    During the last months of pregnancy with my son, it was becoming very clear to me what doctors meant by “geriatric pregnancy.” Being pregnant at 36 was much more challenging than being pregnant at 26. I was exhausted most days and unreasonably stressed. I worried that this new baby would destroy the close relationship I had with my daughter (an only child for ten years). I was remorseful about extending the possibility of an empty nest for another decade. And nothing swirling in my mind compared to what I felt physically. My body was a wreck.

    I had heart palpitations that woke me up at night. Even after my son was born, I suffered from anxiety so debilitating that I started to avoid certain situations in the fear that something would trigger a panic attack.

    Documentaries made me physically ill. I’ve never been one to say I’m empathic, but I would watch depressing stories and immediately feel overcome by heaviness and worry.

    All over social media, I saw mid-life women, like myself, find relief in somatic therapy. But I was also reading skeptical stories about the research. Unfortunately, this prevented me from seeking care more quickly.

    Over a year or so, it was becoming clear to me that trauma from my past was resurfacing. At this point, I was desperate to find a solution. My anxiety was making me so irritable that I couldn’t enjoy daily life. I would hate going on vacation, I bristled at the touch of my husband, and I started to fear sleep (because that’s when my heart palpitations would take over).

    It took me a while, but I finally saw a therapist who specialized in anxiety and EMDR. I sought out this type of therapy specifically because I felt so closed off from my body, almost as if I were unable to control it. I’d never suffered from panic attacks before. And these were coming out of nowhere. I had one so bad that I went to the ER.

    Now, a year after weekly therapy sessions, I am a different woman. I exercise regularly, I enjoy trips with my family, I’ve become my cuddly self with my husband and kids. I do still have the occasional anxiety attack, and yes, even with the palpitations. But now, I have the tools to walk myself back from the ledge.

    So I can honestly say, somatic therapy saved me.

    But I still see articles popping up about somatic therapy’s controversial history, as if the figures that have brought this to prominence have somehow stained its efficacy.

    I decided to investigate the controversial history of somatic therapy myself. Although I will say, my bias as someone who has completed this work successfully may warp the reality of what Somatic Therapy promises. So while I will try to remain objective, it’s hard because at least for me, it completely changed my life for the better.

    Where does “Somatic Therapy” come from?

    Somatic therapy is a term for many therapeutic modalities that address the mind-body connection, with the understanding that physical sensations can be the gateway to emotional healing. This is why I sought it out. My physical problems had become a detriment to my life, but deep down, I knew that what I was feeling in my body was more of a manifestation of what was tormenting my mind.

    Unlike traditional talk therapy which seeks to explore the mind exclusively, somatic therapy focuses on how trauma, stress, and anxiety express themselves in the body.

    The term somatics was coined by Thomas Hanna, a professor and movement theorist, who had a particular interest in how experiences were held within the body. Having studied philosophy and divinity, Hanna was introduced to Moshé Feldenkrais while living in San Francisco in the 1970s. This relationship led him to establish the Novato Institute for Somatic Research and Training, an educational institution that studies the integration of the body and mind and that integration’s impact on overall health.

    Moshe Feldenkrais

    Feldenkrais was an Israeli engineer who founded a method, the Feldenkrais Method, which proposes that bodily movement has the power to positively influence the mind. Prioritizing gentle exercise and awareness, the method, which is based on Feldenkrais’ understanding of physics, can relieve chronic pain and promote healthy aging. The Method is still used today, with countless videos on YouTube teaching accessible, at-home practice.

    Now if this sounds more like yoga and less like therapy, you aren’t alone. In fact, the history of Somatic Therapy is steeped in controversial figures. Even the proponents of today aren’t safe from claims of pseudoscience and feel-goodery.

    Early Somatic Therapy Influences: Wilhelm Reich and Pierre Janet

    The birth of this therapy can be traced back to Austrian psychoanalyst, Wilhelm Reich, who began his career as one of Sigmund Freud’s protégés. Reich’s contributions to the field are numerous, but also controversial. His personal life was ethically questionable (he had affairs with his patients) and the beginnings of his body therapy work were equally problematic (he instructed female patients to disrobe down to their underwear, while he massaged them).

    Known as somewhat of a kook and a charlatan, his life story is really quite interesting, ending in a heart attack while in prison. His charge? The man couldn’t stop selling his jokingly named “sex boxes,” metal-lined, orgasm devices Reich claimed could cure cancer and improve blood flow. The FDA disagreed.

    Wilhelm Reich

    Despite being a radical figure, Reich’s belief that emotional distress is held within and manifested through the body has endured. He believed that unresolved emotional issues became stockpiled, leading to muscle tension and stiffness. He called this one’s “body armor,” and over time, this body armor would grow thicker and more rigid.

    Essentially, the body armor is developed through repression and transformed into physical stagnation. By working to reduce the physical burden, patients improve their mental health.

    For French psychologist and physician, Pierre Janet, trauma treatment inspired his own influence on the field of somatic therapy. Janet studied intense traumas. While many of his patients were reluctant to speak on their pasts, their bodies exhibited what Janet concluded were symptoms directly related to their negative experiences, including tremors and dissociation.

    Pierre Janet

    While not as much of a household name as Freud or Jung, Janet’s influence on psychology is essential to our current understanding of trauma and its effect on the body. He developed the concept of “subconscious fixed ideas,” compartmentalized trauma responses that are created when a person is overwhelmed by negative experiences. As a result, the affected person fails to integrate the experience, leading to flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, and dissociation.

    Janet felt that unresolved trauma depleted a person’s psychological energy, which is the precursor to our current understanding of nervous system dysregulation and burnout. When a person is unable to regulate their nervous system, it can lead to what some call a “fight or flight or freeze” response, an uncomfortable state of constant perceived threat.

    This response is a natural one, when a threat actually exists. But when it is triggered without the presence of danger, a person may suffer from increased heart rate and panic attacks or paralysis and numbness. Yet another example of how emotional distress can present as physical symptoms.

    Sadly, Janet’s contributions to the field are often overshadowed by his relation to Sigmund Freud. There is a long-standing back-and-forth about who is the originator of certain ideas, like the “subconscious.” And while Janet seems to have come on top over the years, Freud’s provocative theories win over in terms of public knowledge.

    The Father of Modern Somatic Therapy: Dr. Bessel van der Kolk

    Controversy and doubt usually shade new therapies in their infancy. For Bessel van der Kolk, often considered the father of modern Somatic Therapy, his concept of trauma as a brain-altering force continues to face debate.

    In 2014, he published his seminal work, The Body Keeps the Score, which details how trauma damages the nervous system, affecting one’s ability to properly regulate emotions. According to van der Kolk, the mind seeks to suppress or avoid trauma in order to mitigate its negative effects. The body, however, cannot do this. Abuse, violence, and other traumatic experiences are encoded in the body, leaving trauma victims in an active state of fear and distress, which over time, harms the immune system, the nervous system, and even organ function. Trauma is so harmful to the body that it can cause sufferers to lose connection with their physical selves, leading to dissociation (again), numbness, and the inability to feel safe.

    The research is extensive, calling upon van der Kolk’s many years of trauma and PTSD research. In the 1970s, he worked with veterans and began to see patterns that were similar to those that Janet witnessed nearly a century before. But now, he had the science of neuroimaging to prove these concepts correct.

    Bessel van der Kolk

    In the book, van der Kolk cites fMRI and PET scans to demonstrate how trauma (e.g., in veterans, children of abuse) affects certain areas of the brain. The amygdala is triggered and remains in a state of hypervigilance. Broca’s area, responsible for language and speech, shows reduced function, which is why many sufferers find talking about their traumas a major challenge. Despite the brain’s difficulty with recall, the physical symptoms are remarkably real, tangible, and debilitating reminders of the painful experience.

    While the book has spent years as a bestseller and has sold 2 million copies worldwide, it’s not without criticism. Several scientists, including Harvard psychologist Richard McNally, have deemed the work riddled with “conceptual and empirical problems.” Kristen Martin of The Washington Post wrote that the book promotes “uncertain science.

    In early 2025, Emi Netfield published an article in Mother Jones with an even more damning critique. According to Netfield, van der Kolk “stigmatizes survivors, blames victims, and depoliticizes violence.” Interviews with trauma survivors reveal a work that “dehumanizes” and leaves some with a feeling of “hopelessness.”

    Additionally, this isn’t van der Kolk’s only controversy. He was famously fired from the Trauma Center, which he founded, for allegedly creating a toxic working environment. It should be noted, however, that his staff left with him in protest. And they have since started a new foundation.

    van der Kolk is a proponent of yoga, bodywork, and EMDR therapies, which have been on the receiving end of critics for being “pseudoscientific.” And if you’ve ever been in an EMDR therapy session, as I have, it can seem a little ridiculous that tracking an imaginary ping pong ball can have any sort of positive aefect on one’s trauma. Anecdotally, I had incredible success with this therapy and yet, I’m still somewhat skeptical of how it actually worked.

    Today, van der Kolk collaborates with Rick Doblin and MAPS in the pursuit of MDMA-assisted therapy as a tool for treatment-resistant PTSD. Having met Doblin myself, I can unabashedly say that the controversies surrounding van der Kolk do not in any way deter me from seeking what are now termed “alternative” therapies as a means to treat trauma. It is a complex machine that requires a nuanced, and possibly “out there” approach.

    When I first began therapy, this was one of the books that was constantly recommended to me. By therapists, those in therapy, and anyone into the self-help genre. I imagine that if you are also on the first steps of your therapy journey, you’ll be adding it to your cart soon.

    Somatic Experiencing and Peter Levine

    Dr. Peter Levine takes these therapeutic concepts a step further by creating his own brand (yes, trademarked) modality: Somatic Experiencing. Levine’s appreciation for the natural world sparked a lifelong curiosity for understanding stress and resilience.

    In his book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma, Levine provides a new perspective on the traumatic experience. Trauma responses are not innately disordered. In fact, they are natural physiological responses that get stuck, overwhelming the nervous system. While animals (like tigers) are able to release this stuck response, humans tend to suppress it.

    Dr. Peter Levine

    Through Somatic Experiencing, trauma sufferers are encouraged to address their bodily reactions first (in what Levine calls a “bottom-up” approach), particularly those related to a “fight, flight, or freeze” response. Understanding how your body reacts to trauma enables you to release what’s stuck.

    So how does this response get stuck in the first place? Humans are animals, after all, and should have some ability to shake off the fear associated with imminent danger. Levine posits that humans, being rational animals, judge their experiences through a lens of shame or guilt or fear of our bodily responses. We see the threat as bigger than it is, which isn’t to diminish its power in any way. We can become enculturated to move on, without allowing ourselves the space and time to address the issues.

    Levine is not without his detractors. Sample sizes are small and studies have not been conducted at a large scale. The certification for Somatic Experiencing comes under fire for its lack of regulation and peer review. As a result, many feel that Levine’s claims are premature at best.

    Others feel Levine’s approach is too mystical and pseudoscientific, claims that have plagued the field of somatics since its infancy with Wilhelm Reich.

    Despite this, many therapists, including those who are critical of the rigor of Levine’s studies, admit that Somatic Experiencing works.

    EMDR and Dr. Francine Shapiro

    I didn’t seek out an EMDR therapist specifically, and didn’t do any prior research before making my first appointment. I knew my therapist specialized in anxiety and trauma, especially in women, and that’s all I needed to know.

    After my first EMDR session, I rushed to Google in order to understand the history of this practice. If you’ve ever done it, then you might have felt like I did: eager, yet skeptical. What a strange, seemingly simple way to address deep, complex issues.

    My therapist was also a wealth of knowledge about the practice. I confided in her that walking always cleared my mind. Even a quick walk around the block had the power to restore my focus and reduce my constant worry.

    And that’s exactly where this controversial therapy was born: with a walk. My therapist explained that the founder, Dr. Francince Shapiro, was walking in the woods and discovered that moving her eyes side-to-side, in step with her leg movements, diminished negative thoughts.

    This happy accident is now an accepted approach to managing PTSD and trauma. The bilateral sensation of eye movement (or alternate hand tapping) is paired with accessing painful memories, but in a way that doesn’t require you to retell the experiences comprehensively, which I found much easier. I could envision what happened, but talking about it was difficult to do, not completely anyway.

    EMDR is based on the belief that the mind cannot fully integrate distressing experiences. The memories haven’t been processed, so to speak. So, “processing” plays a key role in EMDR sessions. I was expecting to talk about my experiences at length, which I did as my therapist included this in her practice. But when I processed, I was told to stick to single memory or emotion. I would think about this, while tapping, and over the course of several minutes, my emotions around this would change. They would be reshaped.

    In one specifically distressing memory, my husband and children actually entered the experience while I was processing. This was completely bizarre, but somehow comforting. I released so much stress and anxiety in that moment, and honestly, I can’t explain how it happened!

    Of course, EMDR has its own criticisms. Dr. Shapiro, herself, has come under fire for the origins of the therapy, with some asserting that she came up with it during her work in neurolinguistic programming, not some magical walk.

    I tapped on the tops of my legs, while my therapist guided me to focus on the emotions and feelings sprouting up.

    However, and yes, I am speaking to my own experience, it works. In 2013, the World Health Organization wrote EMDR “should be considered for people suffering from PTSD.” In the United States, the Veterans Administration gives EMDR the “strongest recommendation” as a first-line treatment for PTSD. The three-month treatment period is also appealing here, especially for veterans seeking alternatives to drugs or longer therapies.

    Should the Controversial History of Somatic Therapy Make You Hesitant?

    When you’re stuck in a loop of trauma and anxiety, you’re probably desperate to try anything that will bring you back to yourself. In my case, I felt that my physical symptoms (some so bad I went to a cardiologist and wore a Holter monitor for 3 days) were the result of a broken connection with my brain.

    And I’m glad that I researched the controversies AFTER I had made the decision to practice EMDR. It took me far too long to settle on a therapist. I didn’t need any other excuses or delays.

    To be quite honest, the controversies don’t put me off. When the accepted treatments are drugs (if therapy didn’t work, I wasn’t against them) and exposure therapy (no thanks!), the alternatives seem so much more appealing.

    In a world where the doctor who proposed hand washing to avoid infection was thoroughly rejected by his peers, somatic therapy and its controversies don’t have to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Medical Gaslighting & the Horrible History of Women’s Healthcare

    Medical Gaslighting & the Horrible History of Women’s Healthcare

    Women have always known when something was wrong with their bodies. But for centuries, they’ve been told otherwise—by healthcare professionals, priests, scientists, and husbands. Pain was not pain; it was hysteria. Bleeding was not a symptom; it was punishment. Fatigue, swelling, breathlessness, confusion—none evidence of illness but of weakness, neurosis, lust.

    The history of women’s healthcare is no well-intentioned climb toward omnipotence. It is an incomplete archive of dismissal, distortion, and outright violence. From ancient Greeks who believed the uterus wandered like a wild animal to 19th-century asylum doors that opened a little too easily for wives with opinions to modern exam rooms where women are still told their pain is “normal”—the throughline is mistrust, not benign misunderstanding.

    As we trace the history of medical gaslighting (by the healthcare system, by our loved ones, and by our cultures), we encourage you to remember that this is not about bad science. It is about power. It is about who is believed and who isn’t. It is about how medicine—so often billed as “neutral”—has followed a cultural script, reinforcing who is seen as credible, coherent, and deserving of care.

    Medical gaslighting is not new, but we’re naming it. And that is new.

    What is Medical Gaslighting?

    Jean-Martin Charcot Series inspired by French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot studies in Neurosis.
    Jean-Martin Charcot Series of photographs from 1878, inspired by his studies in Neurosis.

    Medical gaslighting (also called “medical invalidation”) happens when medical professionals dismiss or minimize a patient’s symptoms and attribute them to anxiety, stress, or a mental health condition instead. This is often done without adequate testing, follow-up, or consideration of the patient’s own experience. It leaves patients—especially women, Black patients, and those from other marginalized groups—feeling unheard, invalidated, misdiagnosed, and without important medical care.

    This isn’t limited to one bad doctor or one rushed medical appointment. It’s rooted in a larger healthcare system shaped by medical bias, limited time, and long-standing gaps in medical research. As you might imagine, we see medical gaslighting happen more frequently in relation to women’s health, chronic illness, and mental health. As Harvard Medical School researchers have noted, even when men and women present with the same symptoms, women are more likely to receive a diagnosis of a mental health condition, be prescribed less pain medication, or have their health concerns labeled as “stress-related.”

    Classic examples of gaslighting in the medical system include women with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) or IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) being told their pain is “in their head” or patients with long COVID, chronic pain, or mental illness being passed between specialists with no clear treatment. Those who rush to the emergency department with horrifying symptoms and unimaginable pain might be dismissed as “drug seeking” by health care professionals. Gaslighting is often associated with worse medical outcomes—especially in women.

    You may be experiencing medical gaslighting if…

    • Your symptoms are consistently dismissed without explanation.
    • A physician tells you your test results are “normal” but you still feel unwell.
    • You are not offered modern medical testing or appropriate referrals.
    • You’re told to “reduce stress” or “get more sleep” as a catch-all treatment.
    • You leave appointments feeling like you weren’t taken seriously.

    The power differential between patient and provider can make it hard to spot medical gaslighting, but there are ways to protect yourself.

    How to Protect Yourself from Medical Gaslighting

    • Bring a trusted friend or family member to appointments.
    • Write down your own experiences, symptoms, and questions in advance.
    • Don’t hesitate to seek a second opinion—many patients need to advocate for themselves to receive quality care.
    • Trust your own body. You deserve to feel heard.

    Medical gaslighting is incredibly frustrating in the short-term but it can also have serious, lifelong consequences. Gaslighting can lead to worse health outcomes, delayed diagnoses, and improper or missed treatment. Recognizing that you have not received adequate care when you should have is your first step toward reclaiming self care, advocating for proper treatment, and demanding a more equitable health care system for all of us.

    But this isn’t all on you.

    Monsters, Myths, and Medical Men: Tracing the Timeline of Gaslighting in Women’s Healthcare

    The Original Misdiagnosis of the Wandering Womb

    Anatomical illustration of the inside of the uterus, fallopian tube and ovaries (1672) Hendrik Bary (Dutch, 1632 – 1707)
    Anatomical illustration of the inside of the uterus, fallopian tube and ovaries from 1672, by Hendrik Bary

    Between the 5th Century BCE and the 4th Century CE, Western medicine did women few favors. The ancient Greeks believed the uterus was not an organ, but a creature. This create was unmoored, mobile, and hungry. According to Hippocratic theory, it could travel through a woman’s body, suffocating her organs, clouding her mind, and producing symptoms of madness. The solution? Scent therapy, sex, or marriage—tools meant to pacify the womb, not the woman.

    This was not diagnosis. It was containment disguised as care.

    The myth of the “wandering womb” is perhaps the earliest recorded instance of what we now call medical gaslighting, which you now know is when healthcare professionals translate a woman’s symptoms not as evidence of disease, but as proof of her instability, sexuality, or sin.

    As Mary Lefkowitz wrote for The New Yorker back in 1996, “A woman who was unwell was said to be ‘womby.” Has much changed? Lefkowitz argues not. “Even today, when wombs have stopped wandering, medicine tends to pathologize the vagaries of the female reproductive system, from menarche to menopause.”

    Not our bodies, not ourselves?

    By the time Roman physicians like Soranus began writing gynecological texts, women’s bodies were already categorized by deficiency. Soranus, often considered progressive for his time, advised against overmedicating, yet still treated women almost exclusively through the lens of fertility. A woman’s body was not her own; it was a vessel, a womb, a means to an end, and nothing more.

    Pain without pregnancy was often invisible. Illness without male distress was rarely real.

    The Age of Authority and Asylums

    Mary Wollstonecraft in 1797
    A portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft in 1797

    Skipping ahead to the 18th century, we find ourselves face to face with Mary Wollstonecraft. Mary Wollstonecraft’s manifesto called for our access to education while ferociously rebuking the systems that kept women silenced, including medicine.

    During this time period, male physicians routinely framed female intellect as a liability and female illness as emotional excess. Contrarily, Wollstonecraft issued a radical claim that angered her male counterparts: perhaps women were not weak but deliberately weakened.

    Ignaz Semmelweis and the Unwashed Hands of Medicine

    Decades later in 1847, Semmelweis observed a deadly pattern: women giving birth in physician-run hospitals were dying at alarming rates from childbed fever. The cause of these mass deaths was doctors moving directly from autopsies to deliveries without washing their hands. Semmelweis’ solution (basic hand hygiene), was dismissed as offensive, unscientific, even hysterical. While he did eventually implement chlorine hand-washing in one hospital, his 1861 book was ripped apart.

    He died in an asylum. The women he tried to save died in droves.

    Medical gaslighting doesn’t always look like disbelief in women’s symptoms. Sometimes, it is the refusal to take action when those symptoms are common, inconvenient, or coming from the “wrong” source.

    The Father of Gynecology and the Mothers He Ignored

    Agnew Clinic by Thomas Eakins (depicts Dr. Agnew in an operating theater performing a mastectomy, not Dr. Sims), Oil on Canvas, 1889

    We often praise 19th century doctor J. Marion Sims as a pioneer of gynecology. Less often mentioned is how he built that legacy: through painful surgical experiments performed on enslaved Black women without anesthesia or consent. Their names—Anarcha, Lucy, and Betsey—are remembered by few, but they are the true founders of the field.

    Medicine’s advancements have often been paved with the suffering of those deemed expendable (women, Black patients, poor patients), whose pain was either normalized or invisible.

    Hysteria, the “Rest Cure,” and the Architecture of Silence

    undefined
    Series of three photos showing a hysterical yawning woman, c.1890, by Albert Londe, Courtesy of the Wellcome Collection, Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

    As women began speaking more boldly—demanding rights, education, autonomy—medical professionals responded with a new diagnosis: hysteria. It could explain everything and nothing. Melancholy, ambition, sexuality, exhaustion, imagination—all were signs of feminine dysfunction.

    The prescription was “the rest cure:” total isolation, no stimulation, no writing, no conversation.

    Many of us are familiar with Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper from 1892, which is much more of a case study than a fictional tale. Written after Gilman herself was prescribed the rest cure, it exposes the insidious way medical care fails us. The unnamed narrator’s descent into madness is not caused by illness but by the very health care system designed to “treat” her.

    Progress, at What Cost?

    poster by Rachael Romero from 1977
    “Stop Forced Sterilization” (1977), poster by Rachael Romero, San Francisco Poster Brigade, Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, digital ID ppmsca.43321, Public domain in the United States.

    Under the banner of eugenics between the 1900s and 1930s, the U.S. forcibly sterilized over 60,000 people, primarily women of color, poor women, and disabled individuals, without consent. These procedures were framed as public good, even though we now see them for what they were: violation, maiming, and assault.

    Women were experimented on, yet routinely left out of medical testing.

    Just a couple decades later between the 1940s and ’60s, Thalidomide was marketed as a mild sedative and anti-nausea drug for pregnant women but caused thousands of birth defects worldwide. The scandal exposed what many already knew: modern medical testing rarely included women. Their own bodies were considered too “complicated” for clean data. The fallout was devastating and predictable.

    Women were misinformed and minimized.

    Around the same time, contraception became available to women. Often celebrated as a feminist breakthrough, the pill’s early trials paint a much bleaker picture. On the ground in Puerto Rico, poor women were recruited—often without full disclosure—and given experimental doses that caused severe side effects. Many healthcare professionals ignored or downplayed their reactions. There was no protocol for informed consent—only urgency to test.

    And in the 1980s, Diethylstilbestrol (DES), prescribed to “prevent miscarriage,” harmed two generations. The drug caused cancer, infertility, and birth defects. Again, it was marketed as safe. Women’s concerns were ignored until the damage was irreversible.

    The Price of Disobedience in Mid-Century and Postmodern Media

    the movie poster for Girl, Interrupted

    Over the last thirty years, we have reflected on medical gaslighting in film and on television. From Girl, Interrupted to The Crown, instances of medical maltreatment are endless. Cultural narratives mirrored real-life violations.

    In Girl, Interrupted (set in 1967–68), young women are institutionalized and overmedicated for nonconformity. In Mad Men, Betty Draper’s depression is treated as an inconvenience. In The Crown, Princess Margaret’s struggles are sedated rather than understood.

    These fictional portrayals echo a healthcare system that pathologized female emotion, autonomy, and illness while offering little in the way of proper treatment.

    Present Day: The Pain Is Real—Are We Listening Yet?

    Medical gaslighting persists, especially for Black patients, trans folks, women with “invisible” illnesses, and anyone outside the narrow model of the “ideal” patient. The maternal mortality crisis in the U.S. continues to produce worse health outcomes for women, especially women of color.

    Long-dismissed conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, and long COVID are finally receiving attention, thanks to women-led advocacy and the democratizing power of social media. But medical understanding is still limited and treatments remain stuck in the past as funding is funneled elsewhere.

    Educate Yourself. Advocate for Yourself.

    a book by Maya Dusenbery featuring a pill on the cover

    If you need more information (and we’re sure you do), below are a few resources that might help. First, Maya Dusenbery’s Doing Harm investigates how bias in the medical system leads to worse health outcomes for women. Her words (and careful research) are incredibly validating. Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English’s For Her Own Good traces two centuries of medical and cultural control over women’s bodies.

    a book by Ehrenreich about medical gaslighting by medical professionals; she also discusses how to avoid medical gaslighting

    Online communities like The Endometriosis Foundation of America, IWeigh’s health advocacy work, and hashtags like #MedicalGaslighting can connect you with other women experiencing similar health struggles and the dismissal that often accompanies them. Find support on Reddit and other forums if you can. For more clinical guidance, Harvard Health Publishing and Emergency Medicine News have finally started addressing these systemic issues in women’s health.

    You are not imagining this. And you are not alone. But remember:

    “Your silence will not protect you.”

    —Audre Lorde

    The featured image for this post is A Clinical Lesson at the Salpêtrière by Pierre Aristide André Brouillet.