Monkeypox public health messaging

[TheLion]

Reading the latest detailed monkeypox update it's highlighted that the statistically significant increase in cases among women is a lot less significant (not sure whether it's still statistically significant) if transwomen are excluded from the category of "women".

www.gov.uk/government/publications/monkeypox-outbreak-technical-briefings/investigation-into-monkeypox-outbreak-in-england-technical-briefing-6

On the same topic I was reading an article in the guardian the other day with a gay man talking about the impact of monkeypox. Unlike the early messaging from the government and WHO his language is very exclusionary of anyone other than gay and bisexual men being affected by monkeypox. For example the comment that "we have no support package agreed by the government for men who have to isolate with monkeypox" and the discussion of who is eligible for a vaccine "men with multiple partners, who participate in group sex or attend 'sex on premises' venues".

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/25/the-anxious-wait-for-monkeypox-vaccines

This is an aspect of public health where inclusivity of messaging/actions could be important but it doesn't seem to be happening? It's obvious that transwomen are affected by monkeypox with the case breakdown being 99.8% male, 0.4% female and 0.4% transwomen ie men massively overrepresented, women massively underrepresented, transwomen about in line with their makeup of the population.

I know I am preaching to the choir here but I find it interesting that I haven't seen the same push for inclusive language around monkeypox health messaging and health services as there is around pregnancy and women's health. Maybe it is out there but I've not come across it? I guess this is just another example to add to the growing list of how women are targeted for erasure and men are not.

I guess a positive thing to note is that the statisticians responsible for preparing the briefing did consider the impact of transwomen on the data. That shows that this is no longer a niche issue.

Do we think that NBs and transmen were even smaller in number and unlikely to have any impact?

You're spot on about 'appropriate language of public health messaging' being recognised as necessary in this case.

Yes, as usual, transmen are not mentioned. I suspect there are no transmen affected as they would be a subset of the female cases and with only 24 female cases the chance that any are trans is small (assuming the incidence of transgender individuals among monkeypox patients is in line with the general population). Transwomen as a subset of affected men, for example, is broadly as expected given the estimated incidence of transgender individuals in the population. Statistics don't respect pronouns!

Trans people are mentioned twice in that report. In the second mention it is entirely clear that the writers are differentiating between male people and female people. But the first mention is entirely unclear. You have to be immersed in the ideology to read a statistical analysis (ie where accuracy is vitally important in differentiating between classes) to read 'transgender women' and understand that to refer to male people.

They treat transwomen as a subset of women:

Of 36 cases who were women aged 16 and above, 12 (38%) of 32 with available information were transgender women. Of the 32 women, 15 had evidence of possible transmission during sexual contact...

Well yes, they are paying lip service to "transwomen are women" but it's very clear that the statisticians realise that is not the case as they have analysed the key statistic relating to female cases with transwomen excluded. I agree that the terminology is very confusing for anyone not familiar with it.

Does this mean that Monkey Pox is transphobic? I wonder how it can tell the difference between women and transwomen?

Nature is transphobic.

The category ‘men’ means ‘not trans’.
It does not include transwomen (who are affected by the disease) or transmen (who are not).
The category ‘man’ has to be pure and exclusive and everything else is shifted over to the womens.

It certainly seems that way! 0.4% of monkeypox sufferers are transwomen (and that proportion is growing) yet they don't include them in messaging. I wonder what % of "pregnant people" are transmen and yet we are expected to champion inclusive language and our own erasure...

If they followed the new rules it should read people who have sex with people. Because that is inclusive.