This book addresses the social construction of endometriosis. Ground‐breaking ethnographic research, carried out between 2013 and 2014 in the UK by physician and anthropologist Véronique Griffith, reopens the historical gender issues surrounding the female body and its 'singularly feminine' diseases. In frank and provocative questioning, the author asks profound questions about the ordeal women are subjected to by GPs and gynaecologists in their quest to obtain the diagnosis of endometriosis (endo).

The book appears to be divided into three core sections: In the first part of the book (Chapters 1 to 3), Griffith gives the reader a breakdown of the basic and crucial problems surrounding endo. The author also revisits the histories of diagnosis and menstruation.

Griffith proceeds to reopen the thorny issue of the gendered process of endo diagnosis. There is effectively no uniform definition of what endo is, and there are various differing criteria for diagnosing the disease. Often, the physical symptoms (pelvic pain) of endo are glossed over by physicians as merely psychological problems associated with the ‘very normal’ female sex life. Women are comforted with gynaecological jargon such as 'it's all in your head', 'when you get pregnant, everything will be fine'. In addition to this, there is the folklore that every menstrual cycle is always painful, stressful and inherently linked to womanhood. Women are usually obliged to be satisfied with such clichés as: ‘It’s your normal period’, ‘normal period pain’, ‘normal period cramps’.

GPs and gynaecologists are the professionals who often fail to give the diagnosis of endo. To study women undiagnosed for numerous years before being attributed an endo label (on average seven years), Griffith proposes a new category of analysis, namely the a‐diagnostic category. This category of analysis is leading edge in the literature and can potentially be applied to other chronic diseases.

In this central part of the book (chapters 4 and 5), Griffith recounts her ethnographic visits to the gynaecological clinic. This ethnographic part is a highlight in her work. A significant finding in the biomedical construction of endo is that it takes place on two different levels: The official line is that of the public health epidemiology of endo, and the second level is that of physicians, which Griffith calls the lay professional epidemiology of endo (which differs notably from the official guidelines). This is an important finding in this research that partially helps to explain the chaotic process before obtaining the diagnosis. The lay epidemiology of endo prescribes for example that teenagers cannot be diagnosed with endo because menstrual cycle pains at this stage are natural; another glaring example is that menopausal women cannot be diagnosed with endo either.

Also, in the clinic, Griffith makes a thorough analysis of the web of relationships involving physician, patient and nurse. She believes that interactions between physicians and patients are not a power struggle relationship. She sees it as a relationship of joint collaboration and discovery. Both parties deal with feelings of powerlessness weakened by the disciplinary power of biomedicine. The research makes it clear not only that nurses and physicians lack control strategies to deal with disciplinary power, but also that patients are imbued with control strategies. Women use these control strategies before, during and after the clinic visit to cope and strengthen themselves in the quest to be given the endo label.

In the final part of the book (chapters 6 to 8), Griffith expands her ethnography beyond the medical clinic. This part brings a unique contribution to the studies of endo. Griffith explores the social constructions of endo from the perspective of endo‐afflicted women. Patients report, for example, that medicine completely refuses to consider the psychosocial factors of this chronic disease. Endo not only causes extreme physical suffering, but also has devastating consequences upon mental health, work, sex life with a partner and in general social relationships.

The use of visual representations of endo is also unprecedented. Women with endo have met up online and sought to share their physical and mental suffering. Griffith analyses several images that were posted in the endo groups. It is vital to note the therapeutic effect of these representations at ontological and group level. It is also important to emphasize the therapeutic potential of visual representations of endo that can be utilised by physical and mental health professionals.

This manual is an indispensable reference in the field of endometriosis and related fields. Griffith's research was conducted in the global North, with a female population within the English public health system, and the participants of the research are all from the Anglo‐Saxon world. However, the geography of the fieldwork does not imply limitations to its use at the global academic and professional level. Griffith gives an international flavour to her book as she herself moves professionally between the USA and Europe.

The author touches upon the issues of race, ethnicity and social class in the social construction of endo, without going into the issue in depth. She mentions these intersections but does not go into detail. These intersections remain vital to the understanding of the social construction of endo. According to Griffith, the lay epidemiology of endo has created a social divide between career women as officially diagnosed with endo, as opposed to family women who are said to have mere 'psychological problems' due to their perceived lower sociological status.

This book reveals questions that go far beyond endometriosis. Griffith raises fundamental questions about the lack of studies on gender and female sexuality in medical education; it also subtly emphasizes the lack of communication between gynaecology, psychiatry and psychology.

本书论述子宫内膜异位症的社会结构。2013年至2014年间，由医师和人类学家VéroniqueGriffith在英国进行的突破性的人种志研究重新开放了围绕女性身体及其“单一女性”疾病的历史性别问题。在坦率和挑衅的质询中，作者提出了关于全科医生和妇科医生为了对子宫内膜异位症（内膜异位症）进行诊断而遭受折磨的妇女的深刻问题。

本书似乎分为三个核心部分：在本书的第一部分（第1章至第3章）中，格里菲斯为读者提供了有关内码的基本和关键问题的细分。作者还回顾了诊断和月经的历史。

格里菲斯（Griffith）着手重新开始性别内诊诊断过程的棘手问题。实际上，对于内膜是什么没有统一的定义，并且有多种不同的诊断疾病的标准。通常，内科医生的内在症状（骨盆疼痛）被医生掩盖为仅仅是与“非常正常”的女性性生活有关的心理问题。妇女对妇科术语感到满意，例如“全在您的脑海中”，“当您怀孕时，一切都会好起来的”。除此之外，还有民间传说，每个月经周期总是痛苦，压力重重，并与女性气质有内在联系。女人通常必须对以下陈词滥调感到满意：“我是您的正常生育期”，“正常时期的疼痛”，“正常时期的抽筋”。

全科医生和妇科医生是经常无法对内膜进行诊断的专业人员。为了研究被赋予内膜标签（平均7年）之前多年未被诊断的女性，格里菲斯提出了一种新的分析类别，即非诊断类别。此类分析在文献中是领先的，并且有可能应用于其他慢性疾病。

在本书的中心部分（第4章和第5章）中，格里菲斯叙述了她对妇科诊所的人种学探访。民族志部分是她作品中的亮点。内膜生物医学构造的一个重要发现是它发生在两个不同的层面上：官方是内膜的公共卫生流行病学，第二层是医生，格里菲斯称之为外行专业流行病学。内膜的含量（与官方指南明显不同）。这是这项研究中的重要发现，部分有助于在获得诊断之前解释混沌过程。内源性外来流行病学规定，例如，由于这一阶段的月经周期疼痛是自然的，因此无法诊断出青少年患有内源性疾病。另一个明显的例子是，绝经期妇女也不能被诊断出有子宫内膜。

此外，在诊所，格里菲斯（Griffith）对涉及医师，患者和护士的关系网进行了全面分析。她认为，医患之间的互动不是权力斗争的关系。她将其视为联合合作与发现的关系。双方都应对因生物医学的学科力量而变得无能为力的感觉。该研究表明，不仅护士和医生缺乏处理纪律能力的控制策略，而且患者也充满了控制策略。妇女在门诊之前，期间和之后使用这些控制策略来应对和加强自己，以寻求获得内标。

在本书的最后部分（第6章至第8章）中，格里菲斯将人种学扩展到了医疗诊所之外。这部分为内膜的研究做出了独特的贡献。格里菲斯（Griffith）从遭受内endo的妇女的角度探讨了内endo的社会结构。例如，患者报告说，医学完全拒绝考虑这种慢性疾病的社会心理因素。远藤不仅造成极度的身体痛苦，而且对心理健康，工作，与伴侣的性生活以及在一般的社会关系中也具有毁灭性的后果。

内窥镜的视觉表示的使用也是空前的。带内窥镜的女性在网上见面，并寻求分享他们的身心痛苦。格里菲斯（Griffith）分析了在内组中张贴的几张图像。重要的是要注意这些表示形式在本体论和小组水平上的治疗效果。同样重要的是要强调可以由身心健康专业人员使用的内窥镜视觉表示的治疗潜力。

本手册是子宫内膜异位症及相关领域必不可少的参考。格里菲斯（Griffith）的研究是在全球北部进行的，英国公共卫生系统中有女性人口，研究的参与者都来自盎格鲁撒克逊人的世界。但是，实地考察的地理位置并不意味着对其在全球学术和专业层面的使用会有所限制。格里菲斯（Griffith）自己在美国和欧洲之间进行专业往来，这使她的书具有国际化的风味。

作者在内部社会建设中涉及种族，种族和社会阶级问题，而没有深入探讨这个问题。她提到了这些交叉点，但没有详细介绍。这些交叉对于理解内在的社会建构仍然至关重要。根据格里菲斯（Griffith）的说法，End的外来流行病学在正式诊断为Endo的职业女性之间造成了社会鸿沟，而据称由于其较低的社会学地位而被认为仅具有“心理问题”的家庭女性则与此形成了社会鸿沟。

这本书揭示了远远超出子宫内膜异位的问题。格里菲斯提出了有关医学教育中缺乏关于性别和女性性行为的研究的基本问题；它还巧妙地强调了妇科，精神病学和心理学之间缺乏沟通。