{"id":268151,"date":"2020-04-15T10:33:11","date_gmt":"2020-04-15T14:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T22:56:41","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T02:56:41","slug":"its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology"},"content":{"rendered":"

An active public debate about women\u2019s health practices flared up recently on social media. Writers who criticized pseudoscientific practices and products found themselves under attack as \u201canti-women.\u201d Under its 21st-century surface, there were echoes of fervent arguments that go far back in history to early questions about the philosophy and the very meaning of science.<\/p>\n

In November, Scientific American<\/em> published a blog post titled \u201cDoctors Are Not Gods,\u201d by an independent journalist, Jennifer Block. Scientific American<\/em> quickly retracted the piece \u2014 correctly, in my view. (The archived version<\/a>, however, lives on.) It focused on criticizing the personality and opinions of Jen Gunter, a well-respected obstetrician and gynecologist, champion for women\u2019s rights, regular New York Times<\/em> contributor and author of The Vagina Bible: The Vulva and the Vagina \u2014 Separating the Myth from the Medicine<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> Block voiced displeasure about Gunter\u2019s frequent criticism of the pseudoscience that underpins many of the health-related products and methods promoted by Gwyneth Paltrow\u2019s media conglomerate, Goop \u2014 such as vaginal steaming and the use of yogurt for yeast infections.<\/p>\n

Three months later, in February, the ideas of the retracted article were resurrected by Block, along with Elisa Albert, in an opinion piece in The<\/em> New York Times<\/em> titled \u201cWho\u2019s Afraid of Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop? The Long History of Hating on \u2018Woo.\u2019<\/a>\u201d This time, however, there was no mention of Gunter \u2014 though there was a nod to her fellow Goop-battler Timothy Caulfield, professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta and author of The Science of Celebrity\u2026or Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

The central thesis of both articles was that it is an act of \u201cpatriarchal devaluation\u201d to criticize women\u2019s claims of health benefits from products derived from Goop and, more broadly, to dismiss other forms of pseudoscientific thinking \u2014 such as embracing or relying on intuitive thinking or magical thinking that violates the laws of nature.<\/p>\n

The social media melee that ensued not only reflected a projection of anti-medical-establishment sentiments that were concentrated and unfairly launched toward Gunter and Caulfield in the guise of ad hominem attacks. It also unearthed a deeper war of ideas about the meaning of philosophical constructs such as science, pseudoscience, feminism and lived experience.<\/p>\n

Women deserve better evidence-based health care, not pseudoscience<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are egregious problems with the idea that it is anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology. The war and demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a complex one, with decades of philosophical literature devoted to the topic. But the use of quasi-medical procedures \u2014 such as insertion of jade eggs into the vagina and coffee into the rectum \u2014 is not complex. There is no medical theory or research that supports such procedures, and the scientific refutation of any anecdotally reported benefits has nothing to do with feminism.<\/p>\n

Make no mistake: there is well-documented bias in health sciences research with respect to sex-based differences<\/a>, and this bias can threaten the validity of particular scientific findings. These structural problems within science must be addressed and corrected in order for evidence-based health care to make a more inclusive and powerful impact for women. But the existence of these alarming biases does not mean that alternative systems of knowledge, or \u201cother ways of knowing,\u201d are reliable and valid when it comes to health, which is precisely why our ethical standards of practice adopt a scientific and evidence-based approach.<\/p>\n

A Trojan horse<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is careless and dishonest to claim that advocates of science and evidence-based health care are anti-women by virtue of their work debunking pseudoscientific health claims. Is it anti-women to disbelieve women who claim that they are impacted by their astrological sign? Of course not. The argument is a Trojan horse: it invites empty discussion about feminism and lived experience, but in reality, it is masking a pseudoscientific agenda.<\/p>\n

At best, the argument rests on a logical fallacy called a false equivalence by equating the rejection of women\u2019s personal health anecdotes with oppressive acts against women. But the more detrimental impact of this fallacy is to trivialize women\u2019s health and advocacy for it. In fact, it might be argued that the truly anti-women position in this controversy is the hijacking of the construct of lived experience \u2014 a source of self-knowledge with a valuable role in the scientific method \u2014 by using it as an ideological weapon that puts women at medical risk and undermines legitimate advocacy efforts for the interests of women.<\/p>\n

It is a cheap trick to cloak pseudoscientific ideas in feministic doublespeak. It is doubly ironic to elevate these ideas by assassinating the character of those \u2014 especially women \u2014 who advocate for women\u2019s health and for true science.<\/p>\n

Photo: Shutterstock,\u00a0By\u00a0Gusak<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An active public debate about women\u2019s health practices flared up recently on social media. Writers who criticized pseudoscientific practices and products found themselves under attack as \u201canti-women.\u201d Under its 21st-century surface, there were echoes of fervent arguments that go far back in history to early questions about the philosophy and the very meaning of science. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":277267,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"apple_news_api_created_at":"2025-10-08T02:56:43Z","apple_news_api_id":"bd16a25b-c43d-4ff6-b3ab-e3f8ebd45cf3","apple_news_api_modified_at":"2025-10-08T02:56:43Z","apple_news_api_revision":"AAAAAAAAAAD\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/w==","apple_news_api_share_url":"https:\/\/apple.news\/AvRaiW8Q9T_azq-P469Rc8w","apple_news_cover_media_provider":"image","apple_news_coverimage":0,"apple_news_coverimage_caption":"","apple_news_cover_video_id":0,"apple_news_cover_video_url":"","apple_news_cover_embedwebvideo_url":"","apple_news_is_hidden":"","apple_news_is_paid":"","apple_news_is_preview":"","apple_news_is_sponsored":"","apple_news_maturity_rating":"","apple_news_metadata":"\"\"","apple_news_pullquote":"","apple_news_pullquote_position":"","apple_news_slug":"","apple_news_sections":[],"apple_news_suppress_video_url":false,"apple_news_use_image_component":false},"categories":[9385,9372,9377],"tags":[9187,8681],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[4286,4382],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[7136],"class_list":["post-268151","issues","type-issues","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-medias-et-culture","category-recent-stories-fr","category-sante","tag-desinformation","tag-alternative-medicine-fr","irpp-category-sante","irpp-category-soins-medicaux","irpp-tag-medias-et-culture"],"acf":[],"apple_news_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\nIt\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"An active public debate about women\u2019s health practices flared up recently on social media. Writers who criticized pseudoscientific practices and products found themselves under attack as \u201canti-women.\u201d Under its 21st-century surface, there were echoes of fervent arguments that go far back in history to early questions about the philosophy and the very meaning of science. […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Policy Options\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-08T02:56:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"700\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@irpp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/\",\"name\":\"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-15T14:33:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-08T02:56:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":700},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Policy Options\",\"description\":\"Institute for Research on Public Policy\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology","og_description":"An active public debate about women\u2019s health practices flared up recently on social media. Writers who criticized pseudoscientific practices and products found themselves under attack as \u201canti-women.\u201d Under its 21st-century surface, there were echoes of fervent arguments that go far back in history to early questions about the philosophy and the very meaning of science. […]","og_url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/","og_site_name":"Policy Options","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org","article_modified_time":"2025-10-08T02:56:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":700,"url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@irpp","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/","name":"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg","datePublished":"2020-04-15T14:33:11+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-08T02:56:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/stea.jpg","width":2000,"height":700},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2020\/04\/its-not-anti-women-to-fight-against-pseudoscientific-health-ideology\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"It\u2019s not anti-women to fight against pseudoscientific health ideology"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/","name":"Policy Options","description":"Institute for Research on Public Policy","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues\/268151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/issues"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/277267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268151"},{"taxonomy":"article-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-status?post=268151"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-category?post=268151"},{"taxonomy":"section","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/section?post=268151"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-tag?post=268151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}