For decades, corporations have utilized feminist language to market their products, often manipulating messages of female empowerment to promote unhealthy commodities like tobacco and alcohol. Today, a similar trend is emerging in women’s health, where feminist narratives are co-opted to sell health interventions lacking solid evidence.
Recent analysis published in the BMJ explores this trend through two contemporary examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.
The AMH Test
The AMH test, sometimes termed the “egg timer” test, measures the number of eggs in a woman’s ovaries. Although it is frequently used in fertility treatments, it cannot accurately predict pregnancy likelihood, timing, or menopause onset. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against its use for women not undergoing fertility treatment.
Despite this, some fertility clinics and online services market the AMH test to women who are not actively trying to conceive. They use feminist rhetoric to promote the test as a tool for empowerment and proactive health management. Phrases like “you deserve to know your reproductive potential” and “be proactive about your fertility” are employed to create an illusion of personalized fertility insight.
However, these companies often downplay the test’s limitations, leading to misconceptions about fertility and creating unnecessary anxiety. Misleading claims about the test’s predictive value can pressure women into premature fertility interventions, such as egg freezing or early conception.
Our study highlights that approximately 30% of women undergoing the AMH test in Australia do so under these misleading pretenses.
Breast Density Notification
Breast density, which refers to the amount of dense tissue in the breast compared to fatty tissue, affects mammogram readability and is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Estimates suggest that 25-50% of women undergoing breast screening have dense breasts.
Feminist advocacy has pushed for breast density notification using slogans like “women need to know the truth” and “women can handle the truth.” While these efforts stem from valid concerns about cancer risk, they often simplify a complex issue. The benefits of additional screening for women with dense breasts, such as ultrasounds or MRIs, are not yet clear-cut. These tests can lead to higher rates of false positives and additional costs without proven reductions in breast cancer mortality.
The push for breast density notification, supported by advocacy groups and sponsors with financial stakes in additional testing, may undermine genuine empowerment. The lack of transparency about the limitations and uncertain benefits of these additional tests can be misleading.
Ensuring Authentic Feminist Advocacy
The intersection of feminist rhetoric and commercial interests in women’s health highlights the need for more transparency and evidence-based communication. While advocating for women’s health rights is crucial, it is essential to ensure that feminist language is not misappropriated to promote unproven or harmful health interventions.
Health professionals and policymakers must prioritize clear, evidence-based information to help women make informed decisions about their health. Greater scrutiny of conflicts of interest and a commitment to transparency can help maintain the integrity of feminist health advocacy and prevent it from being undermined by commercial motivations.
Related topics:
