Gender bias, occupational medicine, and the invisibility of women’s health risks
Abstract: For a long time, medicine has taken the male body as the universal reference model, producing a form of scientific knowledge that appears neutral but is structurally unbalanced. This contribution analyzes gender bias as a systemic phenomenon within occupational medicine, highlighting how the underrepresentation of women in biomedical research and in the construction of preventive models has generated a persistent invisibility of women’s occupational health risks. Through an analysis of biological, organizational, and social differences, the text shows how the failure to integrate a gender perspective affects the recognition of exposures, the diagnosis of occupational diseases, and access to protective measures. Finally, it emphasizes the need to rethink prevention as a tool of equity, capable of making occupational medicine more precise, fair, and effective.
Keywords: #GenderBias #OccupationalMedicine #OccupationalHealth #Prevention #WorkRelatedRisk #WomenAndWork #HealthInvisibility #Equity #GenderMedicine #PublicHealth #KatiusciaVella #EthicaSocietasRivista #ethicasocietasupli
Introduction
For a long time, medicine has taken the male body as the universal reference model. What is now defined as gender bias is not the result of a conscious choice, but rather the outcome of a scientific tradition that has treated the male as neutral and the female as a variation. This framework has produced profound consequences, particularly in occupational settings, where prevention and risk assessment have been built on parameters that are not always representative of the female population.
In the workplace, this imbalance translates into a structural discrepancy between real exposure and the recognition of risk. Women work, are exposed, and become ill, often within preventive models that were not designed to detect their specific health needs. The result is a form of health invisibility that does not stem from the absence of risk, but from its failure to be adequately measured.
Scientific Bias as a Structural Problem
Gender bias in medicine does not concern only the underrepresentation of women in clinical studies, but affects the entire process through which scientific knowledge is constructed. For decades, women were excluded or only marginally included in research, largely due to concerns about hormonal variability, which was considered a methodological disturbance.
This exclusion has generated a cascading effect: clinical guidelines, reference parameters, personal protective equipment, and organizational models have been developed primarily on male populations. In the occupational context, this means that many risks specific to women are not recognized or are systematically underestimated.
Biological Differences and Occupational Risk
Biological differences between men and women are not limited to reproductive systems but involve metabolism, immune response, hormonal regulation, and pharmacokinetics. These differences significantly influence how the body responds to occupational exposures, whether chemical, physical, or organizational.
The absorption and distribution of toxic substances, stress responses, and susceptibility to certain pathogens may vary substantially. Ignoring these variables leads to incomplete prevention models that fail to capture the real impact of exposures on female workers.
Work Organization and the Invisible Burden
Beyond biological aspects, women’s work is characterized by organizational and social specificities that deeply affect health. Women are often employed in sectors with high emotional and relational intensity—such as healthcare, caregiving, education, and services—where mental load and emotional stress represent significant risk factors.
Added to this is the so-called double burden: the overlap between paid work and unpaid caregiving work. This dimension, rarely considered in occupational risk assessments, results in chronic stress exposure with cumulative effects on both physical and mental health.
Underestimated Symptoms and Delayed Diagnoses
One of the most insidious effects of gender bias is the systematic underestimation of symptoms reported by women. Pain, chronic fatigue, and non-specific disorders are more frequently attributed to psychological factors, leading to diagnostic and therapeutic delays.
In the workplace, this results in a lower likelihood of recognizing occupational diseases and delayed access to protective measures. The harm is not only clinical but also legal and social, as the lack of diagnosis entails a loss of rights and protections.
The Role of Scientific Institutions
In recent years, some institutions have begun to acknowledge the need to integrate a gender perspective into research and clinical practice. The National Institutes of Health have introduced requirements to consider sex as a biological variable, while the World Health Organization has emphasized the importance of a gender-sensitive approach to occupational health.
International scientific literature has likewise highlighted that overcoming gender bias is a priority for improving health outcomes and reducing inequalities.
Implications for Occupational Medicine
Integrating a gender dimension into occupational medicine means rethinking risk assessment models, the design of protective equipment, and the organization of work activities. This does not imply creating separate pathways, but recognizing that apparent universality may conceal deep inequalities.
The occupational physician plays a crucial role in identifying these differences, adapting health surveillance, and promoting genuinely inclusive preventive interventions.
Prevention as Equity
Prevention that ignores gender differences risks becoming an instrument of inequality. Conversely, gender-sensitive prevention represents an advanced form of health equity, capable of protecting the entire working population more effectively.
Making women’s specific risks visible does not create privileges, but fills a knowledge gap that has produced measurable effects on health over time.
Conclusions
The scientific bias that permeates occupational medicine is not a marginal issue, but a structural problem that directly affects women’s health. Overcoming it requires cultural, methodological, and organizational change grounded in scientific evidence and an inclusive vision of prevention.
Recognizing differences does not divide science—it makes it more precise, more just, and more effective.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Press.
-
World Health Organization (2019). Gender, equity and human rights in occupational health. WHO.
-
National Institutes of Health (2016). Policy on Sex as a Biological Variable. NIH.
-
EU-OSHA (2020). Gender differences in work-related health. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.
-
INAIL (2022). La salute e sicurezza sul lavoro in ottica di genere.
-
The Lancet (2019). Advancing gender equity in health research.
OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR TELEMEDICINE AS A PARADIGM OF TRANSFORMATION IN TERRITORIAL HEALTHCARE THE OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIAN: THE INVISIBLE ALLY WHO PROTECTS THOSE WHO BUILD THE WORLD IL CLINICAL RESEARCH COORDINATOR (CRC): UNA FIGURA STRATEGICA PER LA CONDUZIONE DEGLI STUDI CLINICI LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS CUBA BETWEEN SIEGE AND RESILIENCE THE REMIGRATION OF IGNORANCE THE SOCIETY THAT NO LONGER FEELS: FEMICIDE AS A COLLECTIVE FRACTURE AND THE COMPLEX GRIEF OF THOSE WHO SURVIVE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION IN THE JUSTICE REFORM: INTERVIEW WITH GIUSEPPE BELLELLI THE ALGORITHM THAT WANTS US SAD: WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA CRASH YOUNG PEOPLE’S EMOTIONS
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non.profit organization Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus. ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0