wampus

The article literally has a Canadian medical professional stating that it was discriminatory against men. That the decision to provide it only to women was based on cost, and on relying on studies that ignored mens situations.

They literally changed it a decade later, acknowledging that it had been a discriminatory against men.

I don't see what you're arguing at this point. It's literally documented in the history of how this vaccine has been provided to the public.

They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men's health wasn't worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I'm pretty sure that's not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women's HPV related issues -- ie. "We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we're just providing this to girls". Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral 'board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender' type of move. Here's a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):

"Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers."

Sorta like how if the USA says they don't want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it's too costly, it's viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say "Yes, given our budget, we can't cover women's health needs", it'd still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the 'men' situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you'd justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.

I don't see your point as an issue with anything I've stated.

Eh? O.... k..... here?

http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guidelines%20and%20Manuals/Epid/CD%20Manual/Chapter%202%20-%20Imms/HistoryImmunization.pdf

There's your source for the HPV vaccine being available to girls in 2008, and only made available to boys in 2017 A doc straight from the BC CDC website.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-vaccine-the-growing-campaign-for-including-boys-1.3127916

There's a CBC article showing that there was a growing campaign to try and include boys in the HPV vaccine around 2015. They literally quote David Brennan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Work at UT, saying "I know our health ministry is committed to equity and I believe that we're a little bit behind the times in terms of addressing this equitable health issue for boys and men". So you literally had health care professionals calling out the gender-based discrimination that had lasted for about a decade. Some provinces started including boys as early as 2013 -- others waited till later.

Providing you internet sources in regards to my specific case from the 90s is more difficult, because there was.... barely... an internet at that time. It wasn't common for schools to communicate via email, or for govt to post information online. I did have an explicit chat with my mom at the time, who was annoyed that I couldn't get the shot because I was a boy -- and we couldn't afford to get it privately at the time, so I was not covered until much later in life. Apologies if I didn't remember the specific vaccine from when I was a kid, but your response and open antagonism is unwarranted. Especially given that a quick google search, brought up those above links, and support my overall statements. I removed the specific example, as explaining the differences between vaccines / time lines, was going to be overly onerous, and would've muddled the rest of the items I'd listed -- and as it was a later point that got added, it made sense to just clip it. It's not some "cry victim" thing where I turn tail and run when you challenge my stance. As I've hopefully demonstrated by responding to your comment here.

It's not just that. There's another way to look at these groups....

Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women's rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don't advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it's outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don't totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public 'reads' it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It's not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.

If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don't end up with equality.

Semi fair, removed.

Based on Canada's own posting, the HPV vaccine was made available to women in 2008. It was later made available to boys in 2017, based on what I referenced obliquely in terms of scientists going "Oh my, boys have higher rates!". So it still fits.

The case from my childhood was more muddle, admittedly -- a different vaccine (Hep B) -- I admittedly don't keep a close tab on these things. It does make more sense, as part of a regular health check screening to do with a foreign partner I had started dating, my doc recommended I get a Hep B vaccine prior to getting intimate. Elementary school, early 90s, fits with Canadas vaccine schedules and with the adult vaccine top up.

"Lived experience" counts for other groups, why would you think it shouldn't count for us? Plus, surprisingly perhaps, I have a bunch of friends that I don't work with, where we discuss this stuff. Part of growing up local (though most of my friends from hs are minority folks, technically). I've not lilypadded much, so four of my five bosses historically have been women -- the majority of most management in those orgs, women.

While I wouldn't question your lived experiences, my own, and that of people around me in real life who I generally trust more than a rando online, support my viewpoint. This also includes a few managers in the federal government, who are pissed off with the demographic hoops they need to jump through for hiring/promoting people. Like there'll be suitable local candidates, but the gov forces them to appoint people from the other side of the country to meet the racial quota.

Wait, before you do -- feed that guys statement into an image generating AI. May as well get really really dirty before you get clean.

Issue proper travel advisories, blocking insurance for people visiting the states. An official travel advisory would cut tourist volumes down by quite a bit. No one wants to pay US medical rates.

Very unlikely to happen though.

I don't disagree with you -- I believe their line of reasoning was along the lines of getting all the operating funds needed for the 'government' from revenue generated from tariffs. One reason for aggressively slashing social support systems could be that they want to shift people's dependency for those programs more directly to corporate interests such as Google and Apple -- many tech companies have 'interests' in the medical field after all. The one area they would likely still want to maintain govt functions in, are military in nature -- the theory is that they want what are essentially geo-distant corporate city states that are connected via the internet, and protected by orbital weaponry / nuclear arms. Setting up a few blocs of this nature, and having them constantly feign conflicts with each other, will help to keep people placated as well, in a sort of horribly Orwellian sense. That sort of concern isn't really something for the ultra wealthy to be bothered by though, which's one reason oligarchies are so dangerous.

Still looks like the USA is sorta heading in that direction a bit, though obviously any of my musings are just guesses based on conspiracy theories I find plausible -- so I doubt it'd play out that way any time soon or anything. If there were 'real' flags of that sort of thing being imminent, I imagine some people in the govt would be making even more noise to us commoners, hah.

And loss of trust / stability of the government makes the tech industry's push for corporate controlled 'freedom cities' much easier to get agreement on, allowing America's rich oligarchs to quite literally establish their own baronies ;P