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.

Erm the whole point was to specifically disrupt the disease spreading in gay venues. Gay venues have to be disproportionately affected..

Hold on. are you blindly using a yard stick of anything that affects mostly the gay community is bigoted?

Do you have any understanding of public health and public health strategies at all?
Or is this a symptom of American public messaging not understanding community health and everything has to be equal even if it is to the detriment of society?

TeaKlaxon I really don't understand your reasoning.

This disease is being spread by sexual contact in gay clubs, yet to suggest closing said clubs would increase stigma? Would it? Why on earth would it?

What about demanding that gay males' need for constant sex be respected never mind the risks - is that not going to cause more stigma?

Honest questions. I do not understand the reasoning, here.

This post exemplifies the sort of ignorance that is really unhelpful.

Having a penis is irrelevant to the level of risk.

Being someone who has multiple sexual partners and frequent casual or anonymous sex with people from a high risk group is the risk factor.

Despite all the lies to the contrary, this includes trans men who go to gay sex venues or hook up via apps or go cruising (and yes, those trans men exist, both with and without penises). Similarly, trans women who do not engage in that activity are not at high risk.

I'm guessing we have to take your word for it that the policy which would have resulted in actual action would have had no public health benefit...

But all the education which has happened since and has resulted in the prioritisation of the vaccine for men who have sex with men being labelled homophibic is definitely bearing fruit...

Carry on... carry on.

Of course I disagree.

LGBA did absolutely nothing to combat the spread. Their suggestion - the only thing they did - would have been counterproductive and damaging and it was absolutely right that the gay community (not just Owen Jones) reacted with horror.

Meanwhile others have been working to actually combat the spread by campaigning for a vaccine roll out and educating people about how this spreads (an education many on this thread could benefit from).

Being someone who has multiple sexual partners and frequent casual or anonymous sex with people from a high risk group is the risk factor.

Despite all the lies to the contrary, this includes trans men who go to gay sex venues or hook up via apps or go cruising (and yes, those trans men exist, both with and without penises). Similarly, trans women who do not engage in that activity are not at high risk.

Right! Thank you, that is finally starting to become clearer. I would suggest that many transwomen do engage in exactly that activity.

So, how is that education campaign going?

Umm the answer is that womens bodies should not be policed. Not that gay mens bodies should.

Gay men have a long history of their sex being policed and very understandably do not want to return to those days.

The information is out there. Have you cared to look for it?

What a load of unmitigated bollox.

Proof yet again that mumsnetters single greatest barriers to being supportive of trans people is that they obviously don’t know any!

everyone is at risk. And anyone can get monkey pox. The virus does not discriminate. Everyone knows that.

Statistically right now, it is spreading in the community of men who have sex with men higher than in any other demographic.

It is not a lie to focus on the highest risk group despite the existence of any others! Transwomen should know their sex and therefore realise they are part of the high risk group already.
Transmen are not yet part of this group.
If your point is that they are, statistically not theoretically, then prove it!
Theoretically we are all at risk. Statistically some are at higher risk. Language mangling and all taken into account, the public health message is clear enough.

Right, so fully grown adult men, who know that their behaviour could be dangerous to themselves and others, are literally unable, and should never be expected, to change their behaviour in any way in order to take responsibility for their health? It's just always going to be someone else's fault?

No. For reasons I already explained.

1. This isn’t the gay community’s first rodeo. It knows that closing sex venues doesn’t reduce sex, it displaces it. If a gay man is going to have anonymous sex, it is preferable to be in a venue that can provide education, testing and access to condoms and lube rather than on a cruising ground. Hence why the suggestion would be counterproductive for public health.
2. People are responsible for their own health. Curtailing civil liberties - especially for a community that has historically had its sexual activity criminalised is not a proportionate response to something that ultimately only affects the individual concerned and those having consensual sex with them.
3. We have other, better solutions, namely a faster roll out of the vaccine and better information about how to access it.

I’ve already explained why it would be counterproductive.

But we know from experience what public policy and public comms that demonises (or even criminalises) gay sex in the name of public health does. We’ve seen this before in the 1980s with a much scarier disease with much less effective alternatives.

The effect then was:

1. Massive increase in homophobia and stigma around gay sex
2. Actual useful public health messaging around condoms and testing got lost in the ‘gay sex = AIDS’ hysteria
3. The stigma directly affected testing rates (one of the single biggest tools in the fight against HIV)
4. That stigma lives on (even on this thread there is a lot of ignorance displayed about HIV).

You don’t need to take my word for it on what happens when we try to address public health crises by demonising the sex people choose to have. We know what happens and we know it’s bad.

Pretty well I’d say.

Most gay men I know are very keen to get the vaccine and at least a few of them spent hours queuing for it last weekend at a walk in in London.

Vaccine availability rather than education is the problem. The education is thanks to other organisations of course - LGBA did sod all to actually spread useful public health messaging.

I’ve already explained why trans men are at the same risk as a gay man who engages in the same activity.

The risk is with behaviour, not identity or orientation.

Trans men going to gay saunas, hooking up on Grindr, cruising etc aren’t at any less risk because they were assigned female at birth. It’s hugely irresponsible for people to imply they are.

Points 2 and 3 are somewhat a contradiction. People are responsible for their own health. So choose not to adapt behaviour and continue with high risk and numerous sexual encounters. But then outcry as medical treatment/vaccines is not fast enough.

Also laughing at the imaginary picture of all the chaste and demure transwomen sitting at home not getting involved in any of that high risk behaviour.

edition.cnn.com/2022/07/27/health/who-monkeypox-msm-sex-partners/index.html

Seems like the advice WHO is giving out for men who have sex with men to limit their sexual activity.

You are implying that transmen have the exact same behaviours as men who have sex with men.

This may or may not be the case.

What is showing up in the statistics is that men are overwhelmingly being infected faster than any other demographic.

Different demographics can take part in the same behaviour but not have the same outcome, until the research is out we have no way of knowing if this is what is happening or if the demographic had not been catered for properly.

In the mean time, men are statistically actually being scarred in larger numbers than any other demographic so let's give out the public health information based on actual evidence rather than the way we think it should be!

I searched for gay sex venues, and found a site for reviews, then searched for swingers clubs, and found a site for reviews.

So I gather from your answer that you have no source, it's merely your assumption.

This is dangerously ignorant.

Gay men have had to change behaviour more than almost any group to protect their sexual health over the past 40 years.

Forty years ago condom use was almost non-existent among gay men. By the 1990s it was much much more common.

As HIV science evolved, gay men have adapted their behaviour to reflect that PEP and PrEP offers significant benefits, and that U=U/treatment as prevention has the potential to eradicate HIV.

When some people talk about gay men changing their behaviour though they don’t mean things like mitigating the risks of their sex. For some people, it is the sex itself they want to stop, regardless of whether it is necessary for public health.

The messaging from WHO is that gay men should change their behaviour though!

Some people, most people, almost never.

I'll take evidence based healthcare over all this waffle and will now go back to unashamedly campaigning for more medical statistics for women, the cunty kind. Who knows maybe it would also pick up if a certain demographic of females who have sex with msm were put at any risks... it is way more action than an education which associates the prioritisation of a vaccine for the highest risk affected group as homophobic, Or curtails effective policy because they don't like the person who proposed it.

Seems sensible.

Not sure which site you looked at but when I searched for gay saunas and sex clubs I found 79 venues.

When I did the same for straight clubs - excluding informal groups or irregular events nights etc (ie just looking for fixed venues in both cases) - I found about 30.

Given the population disparity that suggests there are about 50 times as many gay venues per gay man as there are straight sex venues per straight person.