Banning Words Could Be a Matter of Life and Death

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed ban on certain terms, including those related to gender, race, and equity, and the harmful impact this could have on scientific research and public health, particularly in areas such as heart attack science and treatment. A clear example of how this could negatively affect our ability to conduct critical research lies in the study of heart attack gender differences. Medical research has long recognized that men and women experience heart attacks differently—both in terms of symptoms and risk factors. Women, for example, often exhibit atypical symptoms, such as nausea, fatigue, and jaw pain, which are commonly overlooked or misdiagnosed as something less urgent than a heart attack. This misunderstanding leads to delayed diagnosis and worse outcomes for women. However, if terms such as “gender differences,” “atypical symptoms,” and “gender-specific care” are prohibited, researchers would be unable to discuss these important differences in their studies, thus limiting the understanding of heart attack symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Without the ability to acknowledge these gender-specific nuances, critical research that directly improves the health and treatment of women would be compromised. The results could lead to policies and treatments that reflect only the experiences of white Christian males, without accounting for the diverse symptoms and needs of women and minority populations. The same holds true for research into racial disparities in heart attack outcomes. Studies have shown that Black, Indigenous, and Latino populations face worse heart attack outcomes, in part due to systemic health disparities, lack of access to care, and historical inequalities. By banning terms like “health disparity,” “marginalized,” and “vulnerable populations,” we risk ignoring these disparities in future studies. This could result in policies that fail to address the unique needs of these groups, leaving them without the necessary care and intervention required to improve their outcomes. If we limit the language that can be used in scientific research, we risk falling into a trap where only the experiences of white Christian males are considered, while the diverse experiences of women and minority groups are sidelined. This not only stifles scientific progress but also perpetuates inequality in healthcare. Therefore, I urge you to reject these proposed bans and protect the integrity of scientific research. We cannot afford to hinder our understanding of medical and health conditions, especially when doing so will directly affect the quality of care received by half of our population—women—as well as racial minorities who face significant challenges in healthcare.