- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
That’s the really dumb thing isn’t it? Medicine has always looked at both the physical and the socioeconomic. There are many notes that the sweating sickness in Tudor England affected the rich disproportionately. Where and how has always been on medicine’s radar, because it’s quantifiable.In all of medical history nobody ever considered looking at who was most affected by a disease until intersectionalism.
Ironically, the intersectional lot actually hamper the progress, because they downplay the biological side and even some socioeconomic stuff in favour of ideology.
So men get hit harder by most lung diseases because of biological reasons (one is bigger lungs, but there are several) but also socioeconomic (men are exposed to more industrial lung injury at work.) Both these are neutral facts, backed up by evidence (look at the rates of silicosis and miners lung.) but I would bet you money that if you put that on Twitter you’d get shrieking about how men are somehow not the worst affected, but (insert minority) are.
It’s fucking annoying, but it’s corrosive to any discipline that works on facts to have this culture of feels over facts.