Article content continued

[np_storybar title=”Full Briefing” link=”https://twitter.com/full_briefing”]

Psst…do you like politics? Sign up for the Post’s wry new morning newsletter, Full Briefing. Click here.[/np_storybar]

[np_storybar title=”Read & Debate” link=””] Find

Full Comment on Facebook

[/np_storybar]

Adding fuel to her grievance is the fact that boys who are “vulnerable” to the virus – i.e. “those who have sex with males or who are street-involved” (in the government’s words) – can also receive the vaccine free. But as the admirably commonsensical Ms Brinkman asserts with justifiable incredulity, “asking a 12-year old boy who is still at the stage where they sort of think of sex as a bit weird to basically figure out if they will still be at risk later in life is really difficult.”

The government’s position is that there isn’t enough money to provide all boys with the vaccine, but that with all girls being protected, the boys don’t have to worry – or the heterosexual boys, that is. Well, using the government’s logic, one could say that girls who remain chaste have no need of the vaccine at all, and the money could therefore be spent only on those children, female or male, who intend to be “vulnerable” by having lots of sex, an obviously nonsensical proposition, but no more nonsensical than the government’s actual stance.

To appreciate the inherent bias going on here, imagine a vaccine that helps both sexes stay disease-free, but the government decides only boys will get it for free, because, you know, if all the boys are safe, then probably all the girls will be too. We all know that would never happen. When it comes to health care, heterosexual males are second-tier citizens.