Autism, and the autistic spectrum, is often thought of as being a male affliction. Almost everyone knows the numbers, at least in an abstract sense: boys are three to four times more likely than girls to be diagnosed along the autism spectrum. Because of this, there has been little research not only in how the standard drugs for autism will affect girls, but in whether or not the autistic experience is the same for girls as it is for boys.
A compelling and well-written essay in the NYTimes Magazine by Slate editor Emily Bazelon suggests that autism is in fact a very different experience for girls; for example, girls on the spectrum tend to be highly proficient in reading and writing, with little inclination or fascination with math. The essay is based on interviews with specialists and girls who've been diagnosed as being on the spectrum, and highlights both where research is going, and where there is a sad lack. Most interestingly, it looks like teenage girls with autism are aware of their inability to navigate the complicated social networks of teen girlhood, and this knowledge of what there is that they cannot participate in helps spiral them into severe bouts of depression.
Now imagine that the girl, because her autism doesn't present like a boy would, has never been diagnosed as being on the spectrum - she is merely labeled a depressed teenage girl. It's so likely a scenario, that thinking back to my teens in the SF Bay Area, one or two socially ostracized girls from my own high school immediately come to mind.
Once again, in a continuing theme in scientific research, women are excluded from scientific research, so the models of health, disease, and affliction don't match what actually occurs in women, and their health suffers for it.