At the risk of infuriating people, it's complicated. Most of the article focuses on cardiovascular disease. It is the number one killer of women, as it for men. But men have an elevated risk over women, and develop CVD 10 years earlier.

Lumping CVD research into a single bucket isn't super helpful. A lot of it will be done in vitro and focused on molecular mechanisms. These studies are essentially sexless and it's not clear to me if the funding calculations were limited to human, whole organism, or anything at all. Were they comparing funding targeted specifically to women against a denominator that included test tube research? I can't tell, but maybe I missed it on a quick read.

Research also covers different areas: mechanisms, treatment options and outcomes, cost, patient factors such as access to treatment, acceptability of treatment, impact of disease on life factors and a million other things. Some of these require a sex or gender segmentation. Some don't. Some studies will use a convenience sample i.e. everyone who showed up to a hospital, some will have screening criteria. This not a case of comparing apples to oranges, but rather comparing apples to poodles and a growing sense of doom for an upcoming exam. They are just not relatable in the aggregate.

No discussion of this sort can take place without a reference to Simpson's Paradox .

So I completely agree that women need to be included in CVD research. I think the article is being deliberately inflammatory and ignoring critical details on how it is already being done, and where improvement is most needed.