Science, please

March 3, 2017 7:01 AM

Is there any scientific evidence that PMS/hormones make women unreliable/unstable?

I'm having an argument with family member who says women aren't as reliable as men for valid biological/physiological reasons. Yes, we're having this argument in 2017. I'm looking for science to refute this claim, or, on the off chance that he's right, to back it up. I've tried googling, but can't seem to find actual studies on this. Help?

posted by yawper to Science & Nature (17 answers total)

Best answer: There is a growing body of research that shows that organizations which hire women and have women in positions of authority and leadership are more profitable and more stable over the long term. See also: the effects of testosterone on risk-taking and decision-making.

We are all ruled by our hormones to some extent or another. Working together seems to give us the best chance of evolving coherently as a society.

Have him look for the research.
posted by amanda at 7:37 AM on March 3, 2017 [12 favorites]

Response by poster: I appreciate everyone telling me to have him do his own research, but I'm asking you to help me with MY research. As I said, I'm looking for science to refute his claim.

And perhaps I should have added some context: this is not an asshole I'm dealing with, it's my 70-year-old dad, and he's not a bad guy, just stuck in the past. I want to gently bring him into the 21st century with facts, not emotion.
posted by yawper at 7:41 AM on March 3, 2017 [4 favorites]

I think it's going to be hard without knowing more about sources he's looking at. I understand what you are asking for but it will be a lot easier if you at least ask him where he found that info.
posted by bunderful at 7:51 AM on March 3, 2017

Response by poster: He's not looking at any sources. This is just garden-variety old-school sexism that exists in our society. Think: people who don't believe a woman should be president because of the potential for "mood swings". I appreciate the knee-jerk desire to say he's WRONG but I really am looking for PROOF.
posted by yawper at 8:16 AM on March 3, 2017 [4 favorites]

Best answer: Try searching for studies in PubMed, which will be a good source of studies and peer-reviewed articles. Here's a basic search for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder with the subheadings "psychology" and "diagnosis."

Here's a broader search that includes less restrictive designations of PMS.

You can filter on the left hand side to control for date or type of publication you're looking for. If you find an article you like, check out the references at the bottom to help find additional sources. If you can't access any article, your public library can usually get them for you.

I'm going to private message you with one more resource.
posted by LKWorking at 8:20 AM on March 3, 2017

Best answer: This might be a useful starting point.
posted by Prunesquallor at 9:18 AM on March 3, 2017 [2 favorites]

Best answer: I'm sorry you're getting so many non-responses to your question, yawper. People seem interested in making up their own questions and answering those instead.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of research into this. Here is maybe a good place to start. While cognitive and behavioral fluctuations have been documented during different stages of the menstrual cycle, some researchers are trying to tease out if that is a result simply of hormonal fluctuations, or if it's more of a social phenomenon where self-consciousness related to menstruation affects ability (or some combination of both).

The article linked above suggests that the research available now (which is still probably too little, and a bit incomplete), suggests that "differences across the menstrual cycle in sexually dimorphic tasks, such as mental rotation, visuospatial ability, verbal memory and verbal fluency, are small and difficult to replicate." So, in terms of intelligence and problem solving? Research suggests that menstrual cycles don't affect much. As they say: "menstrual cycle studies have, for the most part, failed to prove a menstrual cycle influence on cognitive function."

However, in terms of emotional processing, there does seem to be a relationship to menstrual cycles. "These findings suggest that progesterone, or at least the combined effect of estradiol and progesterone of the luteal phase, have the ability to influence various aspects of emotional processing." So while there exists a possible correlation, further studies will be needed to tease out if emotional processing is affected simply by certain hormones being excreted, or is it a feedback loop derived from social expectations related to the stigma of menstruation.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:24 AM on March 3, 2017 [6 favorites]

Mod note: A few comments removed. Especially post-clarification, folks really need to focus on what the asker's requesting: cites and science rather than general thoughts or frameworks.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:28 AM on March 3, 2017 [2 favorites]

Best answer: Gallant, et al., Daily moods and symptoms: Effects of awareness of study focus, gender, menstrual-cycle phase, and day of the week: "In conclusion, given the relatively small changes observed in moods and physical symptoms over the menstrual cycle and the general similarity in men’s and women’s ratings of moods and symptoms, our findings suggest that, although there is an effect of the menstrual cycle on women’s moods, in normally cycling, healthy women this effect tends to be quite modest."
posted by demiurge at 9:48 AM on March 3, 2017 [3 favorites]

Best answer: > Think: people who don't believe a woman should be president because of the potential for "mood swings"

This example is actually a great one to break down into its sexist parts. Step one: Ask him what "mood swings" are. Generally, people think of that as a greater tendency toward getting irritated or frustrated or upset, right?

So, what about people who have illnesses or disabilities that cause pain or fatigue? They have mood swings too. People who get cancer or arthritis can't be President? (e.g. fairly common ailments with which he can likely identify.)

But, but, mood swings are irrational and unpredictable, unlike knowing that you have a specific disease, blah blah blah. So, what about people who just have a bad temper? Search for some stats on workplace violence, OSHA might be a good place to start. I'm quite sure that the figures will show that men, in general, have a more difficult time with anger management and are more likely to react violently (whether just slamming things around or actually throwing a punch.)

Back to these female-specific issues, though, let's narrow down the relevance of specifically menstruation-related mood swings. Okay, (some) women have pretty difficult mood swings during their period. But this symptom is by no means universal, even if we are just including cis women who regularly menstruate. Furthermore, the workforce has a ton of women for whom menstruation-related anything is irrelevant. Trans women, for one. Secondly, all of the women who have had hysterectomies for one reason or another. As for the rest, the average age of menopause is 51. Look up what percentage of working women are over 51. I mean, it's a lot. (Note: Our youngest US President was 42; average age upon entering office is 54.)

If he gets through this granular discussion of menstruation and still claims that women have an inherent tendency toward mood swings for some reason other than their periods, then...what is that reason? That's when you throw the ball back into his court. Where's the clinical evidence for this non-menstruation-related, female-only, propensity for mood swings which are substantially different from the mood swings resulting from any other physical, psychological, or personality factors?
posted by desuetude at 9:54 AM on March 3, 2017 [12 favorites]

Best answer: I think it's worth pointing out that it is easier to demonstrate an effect than the lack of an effect - so the question, as stated, is already a little "rigged" against you. A conclusion that there is no effect is often the result of review/synthesis of many different studies - i.e. extrapolating from the current state of knowledge. In this kind of literature digging there can be a bias toward finding work where an effect was found, even if the effect is extremely modest or questionable.

But that's not why I wanted to comment. Another issue with his argument is that it positions "hormones" as something unique to women - or at least only relevant to someone's ability to make decisions if that someone is a woman. It positions men as the neutral, rational, non-hormonal sex. Except this is of course bunk, because we all have and are affected by hormones. You could also look at the evidence that men are affected by testosterone (and its ratio to other hormones), which seems to be as strong - really, stronger - as the evidence that women are affected by their menstrual cycles. This is not my field, but for example, this, this, and this.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:30 PM on March 3, 2017 [3 favorites]

Best answer: I think meta analyses are your best bet here, calling out effect size particularly (cause a difference doesn't really matter of its a small study or a tiny effect). Google Scholar throws up a tonne of highly cited, very interesting looking studies. A good place to start and then you could narrow down. Best of luck refuting this person.
posted by smoke at 1:22 PM on March 3, 2017

Best answer: This Slate article on the culture-bound aspects of PMS/PMDD contains links to several scientific studies.
posted by epj at 2:45 PM on March 3, 2017

Best answer: This article on endogenous estrogen and testosterone in cognition, from the aptly named journal Hormones and Behavior, lives behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access. But from the abstract:

...in women higher estradiol levels as well as testosterone levels were associated with better verbal memory (paired associates and estradiol; r = .38, P < 0.05; paired associates and testosterone; r = .33, P < 0.05;). Moreover estradiol, but not testosterone was associated with less susceptibility to interference (Stroop color word test; r = −0.34, P < 0.05). In men the only significant association was a negative correlation between testosterone and verbal fluency (r = −0.38, P < 0.05).
posted by basalganglia at 2:47 PM on March 3, 2017

Best answer: There's a great period-related podcast called, cleverly, Period that has an episode (#11) about PMDD and PMS. The host, Kate Clancy, is a mammal researcher and the episode on monkeys and tampons is seared on my brain. The PMS/PMDD one is also amazing for the cultural practices around periods. Oh also it looks like she has some potentially useful online articles on her blog too! Here, here, here.
posted by hydrobatidae at 3:11 PM on March 3, 2017 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Coming at this from a different direction, transgender people who take hormones experience changes in brain chemistry.

Overall, these findings suggest that when people switch from female to male, their biology changes in a way that is consistent with a reduced risk for mood and anxiety disorders, whereas the reverse happens when males switch to females.

Probably not what you wanted to hear. I know dozens of trans people (men and women) and this matches my experience.
posted by AFABulous at 2:52 PM on March 4, 2017

Best answer: Also, this study on transgender men relates to the last sentence of basalganglia's comment.

Researcher Prof. Rupert Lanzenberger (Vienna, Austria) continued: 'What we see is a real quantitative difference in brain structure after prolonged exposure to testosterone. This would have been impossible to understand without looking at a transsexual population. In more general terms, these findings may suggest that the genuine difference between the brains of women and men is substantially attributable to the effects of circulating sex hormones. Moreover, the hormonal influence on human brain structure goes beyond early developmental phases and is still present in adulthood'.

[...]

Commenting for the ECNP Communications Committee, Dr Kamilla Miskowiak, said: '[...]In particular, female-to-male gender reassignment resulted in local brain matter decrease within language processing regions, which may explain why verbal abilities are often stronger in women.'

This is borne out in my personal experience; it's often harder to verbally express myself. I met most of my trans male friends after they started medical transition, so I don't know if they before speak good, but now don't talk no good.
posted by AFABulous at 2:59 PM on March 4, 2017