HPV Vaccine for Boys: Double Standard in Discourse?

Wow, there's a lot of news today. This was on Page One of The Post this morning:

When a vaccine designed to protect girls against a sexually transmitted virus arrived three years ago, the debate centered on one question: Would the shots make young girls more likely to have sex?

Now the vaccine's maker is trying to get approval to sell the vaccine for boys, and the debate is focusing on something else entirely: Is it worth the money, and is it safe and effective enough?

"We are still more worried about the promiscuity of girls than the promiscuity of boys," said Susan M. Reverby, a professor of women's studies and medical history at Wellesley College. "There's still that double standard." A Vaccine Debate Once Focused on Sex Shifts as Boys Join the Target Market

All right, hold it right there.

I appreciate that The Post wants to expose a gender bias in public discourse. In a way this is a progressive story, we should recognize that there is a big difference between discussing chastity and discussing safety.

But did "the debate center on one question?"

We followed "the debate" here on this blog, and ... it wasn't a debate, any more than there is "a debate" over the theory of evolution. Who in their right mind would put their daughter at risk of catching an incurable and possibly deadly disease, out of the belief that protecting her would make her more likely to have sex? Okay, it's a trick question, I snuck the phrase "in their right mind" into it, no fair.

Some of the men at Concerned Women for America say they would do that, but you wonder.

Skipping down, some background:

Gardasil protects against the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted infection. HPV causes genital warts and, in women, can lead to cervical cancer -- a disease that strikes about 10,000 American women a year and kills about 3,700.

For males, the vaccine is aimed at protecting against genital warts and less common malignancies that HPV can cause, such as penile and anal cancer, as well as cancer of the mouth and throat. The virus causes at least 250,000 new cases of genital warts and an estimated 7,500 cancers in males each year, causing perhaps about 1,000 deaths. Vaccinating boys and men would also help prevent the spread of the virus to their sexual partners.

"By vaccinating men as well as women, you reduce the amount of virus that is out there that can be transmitted back and forth," said Richard M. Haupt, who leads the HPV vaccine program at Merck & Co., which makes Gardasil. "Hopefully there will be a benefit not only to men themselves, but to their partners and future partners."

When this vaccine came out, the Family Blah Blah groups came out against it because it would inevitably cause young women to have sex, which they wouldn't ordinarily do, of course. The absence of both facts and logic to support the assertion didn't slow them down any, but it did turn out in the long run to be an embarrassment, it appeared to me, similar to the time they came out against SpongeBob SquarePants. It was just too dumb to think we would sacrifice our daughters to enforce a standard of chastity.

Here's what the Family Research Council was saying in 2005 -- from New Scientist:

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus. Will cancer vaccine get to all women?

You notice the British spellings in that article. You know what they think of us over there, don't you?

And here's what the same group saying in The Post this morning:

Groups that initially were critical when Gardasil was introduced for girls say they now want to make sure the decision is left up to parents.

"We do not oppose the development or distribution of the vaccine," said Peter S. Sprigg of the Family Research Council. "The only concern we have is about proposals to make vaccination mandatory for school attendance. It's a parental rights issue."

You know, I don't remember Peter Sprigg ever having a middle initial before, do you?

Now they're just concerned about "parental rights," just like the CRW was suddenly concerned about racism when the school district had a video that showed a girl going to an abortion clinic.

Again, I think the Washington Post is trying to do the right thing with this morning's article, they are highlighting the difference in the way we talk about boys and girls. You can find an example of that double standard anywhere you look, but this one was especially vivid because the Family Blah Blah groups were actually saying that a girl's chastity is more important than her life.