<< The manosphere, a diffuse commercial ecosystem and loose collection of online communities united by shared beliefs about masculinity, misogyny, and male victimisation, is an under-recognised determinant of health harms. This network has been implicated in considerable health harms: widespread mental health impacts, especially in young people; violence against women, girls, and gender minorities; and delegitimising help-seeking in boys and men. In this Viewpoint, we argue that the manosphere is best understood and addressed as a public health problem.
I think we can now safely say Lancet is not a serious organization. It is not often I see such blatant political takes pretending to be a health consideration.
Who gets access to what healthcare is political. Abortions are political. Vaccines are political. Payment models for healthcare are political.
The other way around, too, of course. Pollution limits are a political choice that is also a health choice. Traffic law. Gun policy. Tax policy. You name it. It all affects public health.
And yes, the above is also both political and a health consideration. They make the case right in the block you quote.
You're trying to draw a false dichotomy, when the two are inherently interrelated concepts.
It is clear from your response you have not understood my point.
The political is medical and the medical is political. Solutions to a political problems are often medical, solutions to medical problems are frequently political.
You are drawing a line where there is none. Why? I believe artificial gatekeeping is what keeps societies sick and medicine underdeveloped. We need to take a look at all the factors affecting health, not just the ones that aren't ideologically inconvenient.
<< We need to take a look at all the factors affecting health, not just the ones that aren't ideologically inconvenient.
Oh, I understand, but I also openly wonder if you would argue the same way if said ideologically inconvenient considerations found their way to your 'side' of the argument?
Because then someone you consider politically opposed could theoretically define what sick means. I would invite you to think on this before you answer.
I am just a guy, but there are people who read HN and you may just give them an idea.
What sick means is defined by outcomes, as cited in the quote you pointed out yourself.
> mental health impacts, especially in young people; violence against women, girls, and gender minorities; and delegitimising help-seeking in boys and men
These are real life, observable, negative public health outcomes.
They don't need anyone to define them, they just are. The ideologically inconvenient thing is that some people's identity is tied up with the causes of above negative outcomes, causing them to violently reject critical examination.
<< The manosphere, a diffuse commercial ecosystem and loose collection of online communities united by shared beliefs about masculinity, misogyny, and male victimisation, is an under-recognised determinant of health harms. This network has been implicated in considerable health harms: widespread mental health impacts, especially in young people; violence against women, girls, and gender minorities; and delegitimising help-seeking in boys and men. In this Viewpoint, we argue that the manosphere is best understood and addressed as a public health problem.
I think we can now safely say Lancet is not a serious organization. It is not often I see such blatant political takes pretending to be a health consideration.
Health is political.
Who gets access to what healthcare is political. Abortions are political. Vaccines are political. Payment models for healthcare are political.
The other way around, too, of course. Pollution limits are a political choice that is also a health choice. Traffic law. Gun policy. Tax policy. You name it. It all affects public health.
And yes, the above is also both political and a health consideration. They make the case right in the block you quote.
You're trying to draw a false dichotomy, when the two are inherently interrelated concepts.
No. What they are trying to do is to create a medical solution to a political problem. But thanks for playing.
It is clear from your response you have not understood my point.
The political is medical and the medical is political. Solutions to a political problems are often medical, solutions to medical problems are frequently political.
You are drawing a line where there is none. Why? I believe artificial gatekeeping is what keeps societies sick and medicine underdeveloped. We need to take a look at all the factors affecting health, not just the ones that aren't ideologically inconvenient.
<< We need to take a look at all the factors affecting health, not just the ones that aren't ideologically inconvenient.
Oh, I understand, but I also openly wonder if you would argue the same way if said ideologically inconvenient considerations found their way to your 'side' of the argument?
Because then someone you consider politically opposed could theoretically define what sick means. I would invite you to think on this before you answer.
I am just a guy, but there are people who read HN and you may just give them an idea.
What sick means is defined by outcomes, as cited in the quote you pointed out yourself.
> mental health impacts, especially in young people; violence against women, girls, and gender minorities; and delegitimising help-seeking in boys and men
These are real life, observable, negative public health outcomes.
They don't need anyone to define them, they just are. The ideologically inconvenient thing is that some people's identity is tied up with the causes of above negative outcomes, causing them to violently reject critical examination.
[flagged]