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 language specifically do you think is confusing and unclear?

I'll give this a go!

LOJ's position is that TWAW and TMAM.

This means that when he says "men" are more at risk of something than women, he can be presumed to mean natal men and also trans men. Not trans women, who he has been very clear time and time again he believes are women.

And when he says "women" he can be presumed to mean natal women and trans women. Not trans men, who he has been clear he believes are men on the much rarer occasions he's mentioned them.

This is why language is so important.

What he actually means is that natal men are more at risk of something than natal women. Which is why he correctly said "men who have sex with men".

So by his own beliefs about inclusive language, he should surely refer to those at higher risk as "cis men, trans women and non binary people with penises who have sex with cis men, trans women and non binary people with penises". Which obviously sounds ridiculous because "men who have sex with men" (which is what he said on this occasion) is perfectly clear.

People are pointing out the hypocrisy within what he said about this topic vs the level of inclusion requested by him when people discuss for example menstruation. He doesn't believe we should say "women", he believes we should refer to "cis women, trans men and non binary people with uteruses" so as not to alienate, hurt, dismiss or disregard anyone with a uterus.

So it's interesting to some of us that the same rules, that he has been don't seem to apply when a man is talking about men...

Hope that made sense. It's word salad because of the ridiculousness of the language we are compelled to use by LOJ when discussing women, that he doesn't then use when talking about men.

He can't say gay men though, can he? He has to label people as "queer", the vile little cretin.

So, a cis gay man is your garden variety homosexual.
A gay transwoman is a straight man.
A gay transman is a straight woman.

Is that right, I am not trying to be offensive but this is confusing to me.

Yes, according to the new language:

-A gay cis-man is a homosexual male

-A lesbian transwoman is a straight male
(They always, always call themselves lesbians, and occasionally queer, rather than gay)

-A gay transman is a straight female
(although very few males tend to want sex with transmen). And confusingly, there are a lot of couples made up of two transmen. So a pair of females, who define themselves as gay men in a relationship.

Like I said, gay men are not into the vaginas. So a "gay transman" is most likely to be in a relationship with another "gay transman", ie both women (lesbians).

Transmen in general though, are generally into women. One has to wonder if that has anything to do with them just not being welcome by men of any kind? Isn't it funny though that you never hear any issues or outrage about transmen not being welcome in male spaces? Or calls for men to be more inclusive? No, its always the women who are supposed to #bekind

Although this is from 2018, I seem to recall it wasn't the only instance of trans men being unwelcome in gay saunas.:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/02/gay-sauna-criticised-telling-transgender-man-leave-female/

'Paul Twocock, director of campaigns at the gay rights charity Stonewall, said: “There’s widespread misunderstanding about the legislation on this issue. Trans people’s right to use single-sex spaces that match their gender is already settled in law.'

So from what I understand it now looks like MP is in fact being spread sexually, whereas at first they just thought it was through any close contact. So more like herpes.

From what I have read it seems like it is more likely to be spread by having sex with a man, rather than say two women having sex. But it seems unclear whether things like oral or anal sex are more likely to spread it.

The main reason it's exploded in the gay male community is because their sexual behaviour differs substantially, on a group level, from almost any other sexually active population. That's reflected in rates of STIs in that population overall, it's not specific to monkeypox.

Stonewall lying there again, as usual.

So from what I understand it now looks like MP is in fact being spread sexually, whereas at first they just thought it was through any close contact. So more like herpes.

Herpes can also be spread through non sexual close contact - wrestlers famously often get it.

I forgot about when trans identities intersect. You're right about tm being overlooked. There another thread about medical guidance and tw being treated on women's ward, as they'd be more comfortable there. Nothing about tm on men's wards. Anyway, don't want to derail.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. So it’s that when someone says gay man you’re not sure what they might mean? I take your point but when talking about broad brush behaviour across a class of people does it matter? I guess I’m saying I don’t have an issue at all understanding what group is being spoken about if someone is talking about gay men.

@Pruella

I take your point but when talking about broad brush behaviour across a class of people does it matter? I guess I’m saying I don’t have an issue at all understanding what group is being spoken about if someone is talking about gay men.

Exactly - I completely agree.

People are pointing out on this thread that this isn't the case when OJ talks about women.

He calls people transphobic and bigoted for hair he word 'women' without qualifying it with 'cis' or asking to add 'and trans women...' etc. Yet he himself used one word ('men') himself.

It's not his language people are challenging, it's his hypocrisy and the fact he calls women bigots when they use simple, clear language when discussing important issues. just like he did today.

"For using" that should say - not sure where hair came from!

Do you have a source for this claim?

With a quick Google I found 49 gay sex venues, and 66 'straight' sex venues.

Yes, but it is still considered an STI, whereas it used to be that MP wasn't. That has changed, they are now considering it an STI.

It could be that if one uses only one type of sex venue one will be less aware of the existence of the other type.

There is a proportionality issue though and you can still see that in those numbers. How many gay men use such venues compared to straight men or women, or lesbians?

Here's what I find unclear (and thanks to other posters who have also explained this). Owen Jones says 'men who have sex with men are more likely to be at risk from monkey pox.' I know that Owen Jones is a genderist. This means that when he says 'men who have sex with men' he means people who self identify as men. He is referring to (sorry to use the language) 'cis' men (so biological males), 'trans' men (biological females), and possibly transmasc/ gender fluid individuals who identify as men sometimes. He is, by his own lights, NOT referring to trans women (who are biologically male) or males who do not identify as men (non binary.)

But when you divorce sexual disease from biological sex entirely the health message becomes entirely incoherent and opaque. Men having sex with men could technically encompass a male having sex with a male, two females, or a male and a female. It can encompass every different genital configuration and sexual act under the sun. It is thus very difficult for me to see what population, exactly, we are talking about here who is at risk and what activities are risky. Are two trans men who have sex equally at risk as a group of trans women? What about non binary people? Gender is absolutely useless to get any kind of health message across because it boils down to 'all people in all relationship configurations doing all kinds of sexual behaviours are at higher risk.'

Whereas if Owen Jones had said 'biological males who engage in sexual practices with other biological males are at a greater risk of monkey pox' then suddenly things become a lot clearer. I know this includes men, non binary males, and trans women, and doesn't include trans men and women.

His hypocrisy on language is off the scale.

I genuinely find it odd. He’s clearly not stupid. I am honestly perplexed thst he can’t recognize that - by his own definition- he is being transphobic.

What REALLY got me about that account in the guardian mentioned on Malcolm Clarks Timeline was the fact this particular bloke worked in sexual health. Yet was sleeping with all these men seemingly without thought.

Not only did he have monkey pox but he tested positive for gonorrhea too!!!

We need to have an honest conversation about that.

Anyone with a brain doesn't think AIDS is the gay plague. Yet we know it disproportionately affected the gay community because of behaviours. Its a proven scientific fact.

So why are we even having the argument about the reality that, at present, monkeypox spread is being driven by these accepted and common community behaviours.

We know that eventually it filtered through into the wider population and HIV can affect women and children.

When even people who should be smarter about gonorrhea arent being, what does that mean about risk taking being an accepted part of a certain lifestyle? - its more important to get your sexual kicks rather than engage your brain with regards to your health.

Thats why its important to be spreading the message 'protect your dick' rather than 'spotted dick' by any way you can rather than being utterly precious about identities not being insulted on the way. Especially when its a particular identity most at risk if they don't learn the lessons of yesterday and be honest that there is a community threat - not from outside, but from within.

This really has nothing to do with trans and Mr1984's hypocrisy on it. Its about LOJ being on the wrong side of history (again) and not following the fucking science. Quite literally the behavioural science on fucking. Because ensuring hurty feels of the gay community is more important than an actual medical risk to it.

It boggles my mind.

Everyone knows that sleeping around unprotected, probably isn't smart if you are a gay man. Cos HIV.

Why is it difficult to say, its probably not smart to have tonnes of male partners if you are gay. Cos monkeypox.???

Cos getting your rocks off is clearly the priority and has been for 2 months for significant voices in the gay community.

Take note to what is given priority. It matters.

Jones is now encouraging people to go up to Keir Starmer in the street, call KS a conman and a liar, and film it. I think he’s losing the plot.

I’ve no idea what your ‘quick google’ entailed. To be clear I’m not talking simply about sex entertainment venues which need a license. There may well be more SEVs catering for straight people than gay people. But that includes venues like sex shops, strip clubs etc which do not pose a significant risk for monkeypox.

Im specifically talking about venues where people pay an entry fee to a venue where they can then have sex with other patrons.

There are some straight examples but they are far less numerous and ubiquitous than gay venues. Many of the straight equivalents are monthly events rather than fixed venues precisely for this reason. There are very few equivalents of gay saunas for straight people, for example.

When LGB Alliance called for sex venues to be shut it is merely semantics to claim that did not amount to shutting gay venues, since they would be the venues that would be massively disproportionately affected.

No, they didn’t say it the ‘wrong way’.

They advocated a policy that would have increased stigma around gay sex for absolutely no public health benefit.

Unlike other organisations that actually advocate for gay people, they were not campaigning for vaccines, or better public health information. They did precisely nothing to get the actual facts out there to educate people.

When LGB Alliance called for sex venues to be shut it is merely semantics to claim that did not amount to shutting gay venues, since they would be the venues that would be massively disproportionately affected.

But wouldn't that make sense as men who have sex with men were and are being disproportionately affected by monkey pox?