- Local time
- Today, 07:24
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,122
We cannot differentiate anymore based on if you are male or female. In fact, this gendered language is now on the ban list in congress. However, is there not another side to the story? Take a look at this graph of the death rates between men and women based on Covid:
The governments goal in the UK is to minimise the number of deaths from Covid. That is why vaccinations are prioritised for the oldest first, care home staff and medical workers. Yet you can see from the above graph that men are dying at much higher rates than women for each age group. To minimise the number of deaths, you need to segragate who gets the vaccinations first by not just age, but also gender. Women between 70 and 79 are dying at nearly half the rate of men for the same age range yet this clear fact is not allowed to be put into the vaccination rollout due to pressure against gender discrimination.
Is this morally right? Should more men be allowed to needlessly die than necessary, just so we can ignore gender? Is this lack of gender discrimination effectively saying that 1 woman's life saved is worth nearly 2 men's lives? That is what the government policy is basically saying. i.e. we can save 1,500 lives, but we will only save 1,000 lives because we are giving priority to a demographic that is less at risk. The governments goals are in conflict.
Lack of discrimination kills. Q.E.D.

The governments goal in the UK is to minimise the number of deaths from Covid. That is why vaccinations are prioritised for the oldest first, care home staff and medical workers. Yet you can see from the above graph that men are dying at much higher rates than women for each age group. To minimise the number of deaths, you need to segragate who gets the vaccinations first by not just age, but also gender. Women between 70 and 79 are dying at nearly half the rate of men for the same age range yet this clear fact is not allowed to be put into the vaccination rollout due to pressure against gender discrimination.
Is this morally right? Should more men be allowed to needlessly die than necessary, just so we can ignore gender? Is this lack of gender discrimination effectively saying that 1 woman's life saved is worth nearly 2 men's lives? That is what the government policy is basically saying. i.e. we can save 1,500 lives, but we will only save 1,000 lives because we are giving priority to a demographic that is less at risk. The governments goals are in conflict.
Lack of discrimination kills. Q.E.D.
Last edited: