It does affect more women than men, apparently, but it is not a women's disease as some doctors would have. Unfortunately this perception has been part of what fed into the ME-as-hysteria trope.
You will all be delighted to learn that women are considered much more inclined towards hysteria and somatisation (that is, physical symptoms that are the expression of emotional states) amongst a lot of the medical profession. I don't know if this has improved in recent years, but it has definitely been an issue until fairly recently. I still see things written that imply that if someone effects more women than men that this is "evidence" towards the view that the symptoms are psychological in origin.
Having gynaechological symptoms are sometimes considered part of the "evidence" that a patients symptoms are psychological in origin. Of course, as it is women who have these problems then it becomes circular logic that women are more likely to be hysterical.
This is an interesting essay into an influential paper by 2 people (McEvedy and Beard) in the 1970's that seems to have started the ME--as-hysteria story (these 2 writers had not met or examined any patients for the purposes of their paper, why bother when you have your mind made up?). The essay quotes McEvedy and Beard:
“…there is little evidence of organic disease affecting the central nervous system…” they write in their summary: “and epidemic hysteria is a much more likely explanation… The data which support this hypothesis are the high attack rate in females compared with males”
www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/05/during-me-awareness-week-we-revisit-the-toxic-legacy-of-mcevedy-and-beard-10-may-2017/
It isn't exclusively "women's diseases" that get psychologised, as ones affecting more men than women can also be psychologised (e.g. Gulf War Illness and Parkinson's disease) but it is much more likely if something affects women that this will happen either will the condition itself or in specific cases (e.g. so women with MS in the olden days used to be diagnosed with "hyserterical paralysis" and sometimes sectioned. I don't know if the condition as a whole was considered hysteria, or whether it was that women with it were under threat of getting a hysteria diagnosis. I know there was some condition like this where it was thought more men than women had it, until better testing was available, purely because the women were being "diagnosed" with psychiatric conditions).
Psychology and psychiatry are not like other branches of medicine. They are not a hard science and there seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated claims in the area. Thankfully the house of cards is falling in some areas as the spotlight shines on some rubbish. Unfortunately there seems to be so much rubbish in this area that it could take a while....
It is odd to watch people in the same field have wildly different views as to the diagnosis, cause and best treatment for something. These views can be diametrically opposed to one anther, they can't both be right, yet we are expected to treat them both as if they are knowledgeable experts. At least, for example, in nephrology they can agree that a kidney is a kidney.
In psychiatry a "diagnosis" can often involve circular reasoning. Confirmation bias is a big issue in this field. I suspect that there is a rampant issue with poorly conducted research in this area (I don't have energy to read enough to know how widespread this is so I am going off comments by doctors and scientists that seem to be reliable).
Part of the defence of a ridiculous psychological treatments trial into ME (the PACE Trial, where they changed outcome criteria so that you could get worse on key measures but now be deemed recovered on these measures) was that it was no worse than a lot of other trials in psychiatry/psychology. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of either the trial or psychology/psychiatry as a whole.
One huge problem with this trial is that you had unblinded trials with subjective outcome measures. (basically the researchers could manipulate, consciously or unconsiously, the patient into giving the answers they want on questionnaires. In the case of PACE the whole point of treatment is to change the view the patient has of their illness so questionnaires are unreliable as outcome measures). Though in the case of the PACE trial the brainwashing/manipulation was ineffective even on subjective measures, which is why they had to change their initially planned outcome measures, and drop the main objective measure (activity monitors) to avoid a null result.
Dr Johnathan Edwards has written a brilliant, easy to read, essay on some of the design flaws of this trial (which would apply to other CBT trials in this area). It can be read for free here
PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science
Jonathan Edwards
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700886
One quote from it:
"The way that human nature creeps into the research environment is something all too well known to physicians and pharmacologists. It seems strange that it should be unfamiliar in psychological medicine"