Men get clarity, women get obfuscation.

[Sapana]

In this article in the Guardian Benjamin Weil tells us that gonorrhoea "can result in serious complications, including pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to infertility in people with a womb and ovaries (who are less likely to experience telltale symptoms in the first place)." So in any sense that has much meaning, he means women. Doesn't say it though. In fact, so far as I can see the word woman is not mentioned once.

But just down of that we're told that the vaccine will be offered first to "gay men, bisexual men and men who have sex with men (GBMSM)." They're the most likely to get the illness it seems so that context is important. But the context of the information regarding the former link is also vital - I followed it and it says that ONE in ten men and SEVEN in ten women will get gonorrhoea with no symptoms. Doesn't it seem just as important to name the biological class he's talking about in this case, for the sake of clarity? Nothing to stop him also saying that it also applies to trans or non-binary people with a womb and ovaries. Who he's talking about here matters, because of the different experiences of the disease.

He can say men/ man four times in one sentence and follow it up with an acronym but he can't say woman once in the entire sodding article?

It is dated today. This is an incredible piece of misogyny from that writer. Benjamin Weil, isn’t it? Some of these ‘bro’ and faux ‘progressive’ men appear to really salivate at the prospect of referring to women using only our reproductive body parts. I always invisage them as nasty misogynistic creeps, having a sly snigger up their sleeve whilst they spew their words which dehumanise women. The evidence is there that they don’t call men ‘people with penises and testes’. Mind you, I would think of him a ‘pr*ck’. In all uses of the term.

They seem to be as backward and prejudiced against women as you can get. These so called ‘right on bros’. A big cover for dodgy men, I aways think.

It would be much easier for the author to use "men" and "not men" as that is clearly how he sees the world.

"the vaccine will be offered first to "gay men, bisexual men and men who have sex with men (GBMSM)." They're the most likely to get the illness "

"it says that ONE in ten men and SEVEN in ten women will get gonorrhoea with no symptoms."

So I got really confused. Are the women also men? Or are the rates of infection high in gay men despite there being more women infected? Are gay men infecting women?

What is going on?

Men are more likely to get infected, but, of all those infected (men and women) women are much more likely not to show symptoms. Because of this women are more likely than men to have life-changing consequences such as infertility and chronic PID, as they miss out on early treatment. Seems to me a very valid reason for women to be immunised, especially women who have multiple sexual partners.

Why the FUCK can't these people just write the word woman?

On an individual level, women who have sex with men who have sex with men would benefit. But at population level, targeting the latter has the best chance of reducing overall infection levels, thereby protecting everyone indirectly.

Lots of deleted comments btl, and I can't work out if these two are serious (image).

Annoying, because the statement 'x is common in women' is equally true whether you believe in genderwang or not, given that the non-women 'women' are small in number. Do they not realise how hateful it sounds?

Any man who uses this terminology about women and girls is a misogynist. I’m quite confident to make that judgement.