LOJ and monkeypox. Knows what a man is

[123Callie]

So LOJ has finally decided that men who have sex with men ARE more at risk of contracting monkeypox after all. And he wants them to know this so that they can all go and get vaccinated. Strangely, he is not using inclusive language at all. He only mentions men. There are transwomen at risk in exactly the same way but no mention of the women who sleep with men who sleep with men. Now that men are affected he is well aware that clear language is necessary for health campaigns.

Also, on another note, he doesn’t want men to stop having sex with multiple strangers. That’s fine despite the known risks. Can’t expect a man to take responsibility for his own health over servicing his raging libido.

What behaviour?

What networks?

It's a lot like Owen likes to lecture women on being inclusive, but feels justified in excluding people when it suits him.

Do more men than women engage in those behaviours though, is the actual question? And I think the answer is yes. So it would appear that having a penis does in fact make some difference, does it not?

As a temporary measure they asked for all commercial sex venues to be closed to keep the outbreak under control until health protection plans could be implemented. Compare that with OJ who at the time laughed as an LGBA tweet talking about the risk of monkeypox was taken down. Now we have over 2000 confirmed cases.

Semantics. There are extremely few straight commercial sex venues. The vast majority are gay venues.

Calling for the closure of commercial sex venues is essentially the same as calling for closure of gay venues.

Has anyone posted his 'lol' tweet screenshot at him?

Sounds eminently sensible, really.

OJ is using perfectly inclusive language by reflecting that men who have sex with men are most at risk. Trans women do not necessarily face the same risks as gay men.

Even in the article he recognises that people who are not MSM might also need prioritisation and targeted comms, such as sex workers.

Utter nonsense. I dont believe for one second you think there are hardly any commercial sex venues for straight people.

That's not semantics. You're saying that commercial sex venues are gay sex venues. But also that being gay makes no difference to risk factors.

Are you telling us that commercial sex venues are not a risk?

.But also that being gay makes no difference to risk factors

They said the opposite of this.

Policing the sex people can have is a terrible public health practice both for civil liberties reasons and because it is totally ineffective.

As well as stigmatising gay sex (the ‘all’ venues is a misnomer since the vast majority of them are gay venues), it would merely have driven that activity into cruising grounds, cottages and onto apps.

If people want to have sex with multiple partners they will have sex with multiple partners. If they do that in a licensed venue, they can be targeted with public health advice and also have ready access to condoms and lube which makes sex safer. Closing sex venues would have no impact on those who enjoy having sex with multiple partners.

Compared to the number of gay sex venues, there are extremely few straight sex venues.

No, tea laxon said that genitals made no difference to the risk factor. Which we all know is not true.

Pretty sure its not lesbians who are at risk of monkeypox

Where did I say being gay makes no difference to risk factors?

I very clearly agree with OJ that gay men are at higher risk of monkeypox.

But you also said a person's genitals has no significance to the risk contracting monkey pox. Do gay men not have a penis?

In this case it’s correct to say genitalia doesn’t matter though isn’t it? It’s not a difference based in biology (such as having a penis or being XY) that makes gay men more at risk it’s behaviour.

How does a transwoman who is having sex with gay men have a different risk profile than a gay man?

You said The risk has zero to do with what genitals someone has

I'm pretty sure gay men all have penises. Therefore the risk very much has something to do with what genitals someone has.

(Some) People with penises are at much higher risk than (All) people with vaginas.

Ergo

Men at are higher risk than women.

Ergo

Your statement that genitals were immaterial was clearly very wrong.

Which bit are you confused about?

No, its not at all correct. See above

Being XY seems to drive the risky behaviour.

Being XY seems to drive the risky behaviour.

Not in the majority of men - that’s why it’s disproportionately gay men rather than all men.

Semantics. There are extremely few straight commercial sex venues. The vast majority are gay venues.

Calling for the closure of commercial sex venues is essentially the same as calling for closure of gay venues.

I think they are probably quite a few commercial sex venues for straight people even if they wouldn't be classified as sex venues. I can only imagine how many massage parlours there are in big cities and there are quite a few swingers clubs about. There will also be venues which host swingers nights whilst not actually be a dedicated commercial sex venue.

So are you saying transwomen don't engage in sex with gay men? Do they not mix in these networks you speak of?

But it is men? With penises? So the fact of them having penises is entirely salient to the risk factor.

I would say the opposite in that genitalia DO matter as it's your chromosomes that create genitalia and its chromosomes that determine sex drive....it is true in all societies to say that "men" aka people with XY chromosomes are on average more promiscuous and have more lifetime partners than "women" aka people with XX chromosomes ....hence someone who is XY having non-monogamous sex with other people with XY chromosomes is more likely to catch money pox! But try putting that in a soundbite....