Unscientific science & PMS

Oh my goodness, I love my Anne Fausto-Sterling.

You just make so much sense, Dr. F-S!

On unscientific "science" & PMS:

"The tip-off to the medical viewpoint [that being a woman is biologically abnormal for a human animal] lies in its choice of language. What does it mean to say '70 to 90% of the female population will admit to recurrent premenstrual symptoms'? The word symptom carries two rather different meanings. The first suggests a disease or an abnormality, a condition to be cured or rendered normal. Applying this connotation to a statistic suggesting 70 to 90 percent symptom formation leads one to conclude that the large majority of women are by their very nature diseased. The second meaning of symptom is a sign or signal. If the figure of 70 to 90 percent means nothing more than that most women recognize signs in their own bodies of an oncoming menstrual flow, the statisics are unremarkable."

"That so many scientists have been able for so long to do such poor research attests to both the unconscious social agendas of many of the researchers and to the theoretical inadequacy of the research framework used in the field as a whole."

"...the crying need for some scientifically acceptable research stands out above all. If we continue to assume that menstruation is itself pathological, we cannot establish a baseline of health against which to define disease. ... Only when we have some feeling for [what forms healthy female reproductive cycles take] can we begin to help women who suffer from diseases of menstruation."

(Boldface mine; italics hers.)

Coolest. Science. Book. Ev-eeeeeeer!
Especially her 1.5-page table on pp. 106-107. I just found scribbled in the margins, "WOW. Great table. Give as an example to every middle-school science teacher (teaching the scientific method) I know! Give to every OB/Gyn/M.D. I know who probably assumes his/her field's research is done according to the scientific method!"