Article published on The Big Smoke on the 9th of September 2025.
With the current system failing women veterans, investing in gendered research is becoming a moral imperative.
The experiences of women in the military are often overlooked, and their unique needs dismissed as anomalies in a system built around male norms. As the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide continues to unearth disturbing patterns of institutional neglect and harm, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: without investment in gendered research, women veterans will continue to suffer in silence—rendered invisible in a system that was never designed with them in mind.
This invisibility is not accidental. As Caroline Criado Perez powerfully illustrates in her seminal work, Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, the absence of sex-disaggregated data and the failure to account for gender in policy, infrastructure, health, and economics have created what she calls a “gender data gap”. It is a gap with consequences—sometimes inconvenient, often harmful, and in extreme cases, fatal.
In Australia, this gap has serious implications for the growing number of women who have served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The Royal Commission has heard evidence that women in the military face disproportionate rates of harassment, discrimination, and exclusion, both during and after their service. Yet, systems for reporting, support services, and even research into veteran well-being have been predominantly structured around the male experience.
Criado Perez makes a compelling case that we have designed the world around a “default male”—a standard human template based on men’s bodies, lives, and social roles. This “one-size-fits-men” approach is replicated in militaries across the world, where the tools, training, uniforms, housing, equipment, health care systems, and rehabilitation programs are created with men in mind.
The Royal Commission has highlighted this in harrowing detail. Testimony from women veterans repeatedly emphasises how they have been “othered” within Defence culture. They describe being treated as interlopers, often subjected to a hyper-masculine environment that punishes difference and fails to provide gender-appropriate support.
When these women transition out of service, the story doesn’t improve. As Criado Perez notes, the absence of data doesn’t just mean omission—it means no one is looking for problems, and no one is preparing solutions. Women veterans fall through the cracks of a system that hasn’t collected enough information about their specific needs. This makes targeted intervention almost impossible.
Why gendered research matters
Gendered research doesn’t just benefit women—it improves outcomes for everyone. But when it comes to veterans’ services, its absence has created a skewed picture of health outcomes, barriers to employment, homelessness risk, and mental health struggles. For instance:
- The Royal Commission has noted that women are less likely to engage with traditional veteran support services, which are often perceived as male-dominated or unwelcoming.
- Data suggests women veterans are underrepresented in suicide statistics—but experts have warned this may be due to underreporting or differences in methods, not actual lower risk.
- Research into military sexual trauma (MST), while increasing, remains patchy, and often fails to address the long-term compounding effects on women’s physical and mental health.
- The impact of pregnancy, parenthood, and caregiving on women’s military careers and post-service employment remains inadequately studied.
All of these issues require gender-disaggregated data, qualitative inquiry into lived experiences, and longitudinal research that considers the full life course of women veterans—not just their service years.
Criado Perez argues that “when we exclude half the population from the production of knowledge, we lose out on innovations, insights, and solutions that could improve the lives of everyone.” In the military and veteran space, the consequences of this exclusion can be deadly.
Failing to fund and prioritise gendered research means missing the opportunity to develop trauma-informed care that recognises the specific experiences of women. It means designing transition programs that do not work for the women they are meant to serve. It means continuing to ignore the warning signs that too many women veterans are falling into poverty, isolation, or despair.
If Australia is serious about honouring the service of all veterans, it must start with listening to those who have been unheard for too long. The Royal Commission is providing a platform for these voices, but that platform must translate into policy, funding, and systems change. This includes:
- Mandating sex- and gender-disaggregated data collection across all veteran support programs.
- Funding longitudinal studies into the post-service lives of women veterans.
- Developing services specifically tailored to women veterans, co-designed with those with lived experience.
- Embedding a gender lens in Defence health, rehabilitation, housing, and employment services.
This is not about special treatment—it is about equal recognition. It is about acknowledging that different groups experience systems differently, and those differences deserve study, respect, and action.
As Criado Perez reminds us, “the result of a gender data gap is that we make things worse for women—sometimes fatally.” The Royal Commission has already confirmed what many women veterans have known for decades: the current system is failing them. Investing in gendered research is not just a matter of academic interest—it is a moral imperative.
Because visibility is not a privilege. For women veterans, it is justice.