Het Vrouwenhart: (strategisch) essentialisme in de zorg

WOMEN’S HEART T H E Medical Sexism Making The Invisible Visible Correcting For The Male Bias Two Sizes Don’t Fit All, Either Variation As A Default Intersecting Experiences Beyond The Binary Historically, medical research and practice focused on men as the norm. This focus has produced limited knowledge and poorer care for anyone who does not fit the “standard male patient” model. Women’s health advocates exposed how cardiology’s male bias had created both medical sexism and epistemic injustice: women’s symptoms and experiences were not seen as valid knowledge. “Het Vrouwenhart” became a strategic term to make this bias visible and mobilize awareness and change. The visibility created by the “Vrouwenhart” movement stimulates the development of new models and guidelines tailored to women cardiovascular health; an important step to counter the one-size-fits-all approach. Yet, much work remains to fully address ongoing health disparities. While effective in raising awareness and change, the term “Het Vrouwenhart” creates new binary: the “male” versus the “female” heart. This framing overlooks important differences among women, overlaps between women and men, and the realities of transgender patients and other people who do not fit into a binary framework altogether. Human variation isn’t exceptional; it is the norm. Biological sex differences are far more complex than the male-female binary suggests. Genes, hormones, reproductive systems, and physiology interact in diverse ways. Likewise, gender involves an interacting spectrum of social identities, roles, and norms. Sexed and gendered experiences, such as pregnancy, caregiving stress, or gender-based violence, shape health outcomes. These experiences also intersect with ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic class, age, and more, producing overlapping patterns of inequality. A static, binary model is unable capture this complexity. Data and language both shape what we see and understand. Terms and categories like “women” cover vast diversity; there is no universal “standard female patient”. Precision in how we measure, and name differences is crucial for equitable medicine. “Het Vrouwenhart” illustrates how the use of categories can both enable and constrain medical progress. The term has been vital in exposing medical sexism and epistemic injustice in cardiology, where women’s knowledge and experiences were long undervalued. The work of improving care for women remains ongoing and urgently needed. At the same time, every category we use to mobilize awareness and change also has its limits. Biology and lived experiences are multilayered, dynamic and intersecting. When identity-based categories are used as shortcuts for understanding and explaining underlying biological and social mechanisms without critical reflection, they risk becoming fixed explanations rather than starting points for deeper understanding. People who fall outside established boxes are then easily overlooked, misunderstood, or underserved. By presenting “Het Vrouwenhart” as a teaching case, this project invites reflection on how we can continue building medical and research practices that value variation as the norm, not the exception, and strive towards health equity for all. This poster is the result of an interdisciplinary project between dr. Annelies Kleinherenbrink and dr. Irene Göttgens, funded by the Radboud Young Academy. Artwork by Asiel. More information and sources: