[m0a0t0]

>It was the same with the aids epidemic, the gay community ignored/denied/downplayed the demographic localization of HIV but the truth was that at it's height if you were not a gay male the epidemic was effectively irrelevant to your life.

There are a hell of a lot of people - and a hell of a lot of people who have sadly died - who would be very surprised to hear this. It's a pretty accepted view by those that study the AIDS epidemic that calling it a gay plague caused massive problems for people who weren't gay and contracted HIV.

Singling out gay men for what you have decided are immoral behaviours is exactly why there is a stigma around HIV and why people continue to fail to seek treatment.

[adnzzzzZ]

This is so true. What really terrifies me is if this new monkeypox became more easily transmissible and killed millions of people. Imagine the backlash against homosexuals?

[twofornone]

...imagine the millions of dead people? What are you implying exactly, that if behavior from a protected class is the source of a major social issue/catastrophe, that we need to avoid making that link, and allow this class to continue engaging in antisocial practices, because we are worried about stigma?

That doesn't seem like a sane ordering of priorities.

[m0a0t0]

>I am making no moral judgement here

You talk with seeming disgust about sex, I think you are.

>And allowing stigma to influence public policy decisions is harmful to the far greater majority

Yes, because if there is one thing straight people are compared to gay men it's stigmatised.

>Hiding details about outbreaks to avoid offending protected classes

The information isn't hidden - it's on the front page of BBC News in the UK where the disproportionately higher cases for gay men is. It's just unlike you they're aware that it's not a gay plague