Yes Wilson. In my mind, you have to look and see if this sort of thing crops up when one expresses a view about other issues in other contexts and gets a similar response. If not, you have to question why!
The example you give is interesting because I have actually seen examples where there is an article about breast cancer or cervical cancer in the Guardian and someone pops up in the comments underneath with a, "but what about testicular cancer, or prostate cancer," blethering on about how all the services are there for women, not for men, men don't go to their doctors, men are more embarrassed than women, etc.
But, I can't say I've seen an article about say, Multiple Sclerosis where someone has commented that all the services, all the research, all the treatments are there for MS with next to nothing for other neurological conditions, especially those affecting fewer people.
Can you spot the difference?
If it's an issue that affects only women or primarily women, expect comments on the "what about the menz" line. If it's an issue that affects both (like a specific chronic illness), you probably won't get such challenges.
Similarly, if you take an issue that is ostensibly "gender blind" like welfare reform, and try to argue that the impact on women is disproportionately worse than the impact on men, you'll get red herrings being chucked all over the shop, all insisting that it's the same or even worse for men.
And, not surprisingly, I find you get exactly the same thing when you talk about inequality due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, sometimes even class and disability.
Which brings me back to why this kind of response comes up so often. Maybe it's not done to deliberately antagonise (although I'm convinced sometimes it is,) but I think it is often done to try and "neutralise" uncomfortable feelings that come up when you hear someone's had a crap experience through no fault of their own. It's the equivalent of a, "quick let's change the subject," when a tipsy aunt starts talking about religion during Christmas dinner.
Except, that it means that the original point tends to get lost in the ensuing argument about whether it's "legitimate" to ask about violence against men, or even times I've seen a conversation flip completely to talking about how hard done by men are, how women make up allegations of abuse and rape, etc. etc., so even worse than silencing, even worse than ignoring.