Let me see if I follow this logic:

1. "First, HPV is more likely to harm girls" Girls benefit more from vaccination.

2. "Second, the vaccine is more effective in girls" Vaccination will work better if given to girls.

3. Vaccination is expensive and intrusive, which would imply vaccinating as few people as necessary: 'Third, the rate of viral transmission depends on the virus's prevalence "in the opposite sex at any given time."' In other words, pick one sex or another and vaccinate, but don't vaccinate both.

And Saletan's conclusion: We should vaccinate boys instead of girls, because girls have to take birth control! "Maybe routine vaccination of both sexes is overkill. But in that case, perhaps we should ask why the partner who takes care of the birth control should get the vaccination, too."

In other words, the hell with science and health, what really matters is my idea of social justice!

I don't think your first point is entirely accurate. Girls (at least heterosexual ones) would also benefit from boys being vaccinated because someone has to give them the virus in the first place. Within the heterosexual community the virus goes from girl to boy to girl to boy.

I'm not sure that Saletan actually came to a "conclusion," as you state, but his argument seemed to be leading more toward vaccinating both boys and girls. Nowhere did he suggest that boys should be vaccinated instead of girls. The title of the article is "Why vaccinate girls but not boys against HPV?" not "Why vaccinate girls instead of boys against HPV?". Vaccinating both sexes is always going to be more effective than vaccinating only one sex unless 100% of the population of that sex is vaccinated and the vaccine is 100% is effective. Now, it may not be more cost effective for health care providers to vaccinate both sexes, but that's not the same thing as saying it wouldn't be more effective at preventing the spread of HPV. Obviously if a boy ensures he won't get the virus then he won't pass it on to any girls. It would be particularly effective to vaccinate promiscuous individuals of either sex.

I would agree that he didn't come to any conslusion and if it is vaccinate both that isn't logical because of the cost. If vaccinating one group is logical than pick one group and based on my limited knowledge that would appear to be girls before boys.

Again, I think it kind of depends. First of all, "cost effective" is a somewhat subjective term. What one researcher deems an unbearable cost may not be unbearable to another. Ultimately one is concerned with the "percent of population protected" versus "cost of vaccination" curve. Second, it really depends strongly on the vaccination rate. If 100% of girls get the vaccine then vaccinating boys may provide little extra benefit for a lot of extra cost (twice the cost, in fact). If, however, only 70% of girls get the vaccine (for example), then it may actually be "cost effective" to give the vaccine to boys as well in order to get an acceptable level of protection for girls.

There is also the the unsupported conclusion that vaccinating only girls is somehow doing harm to womankind, in the same way as say, lack of suffrage. I don't doubt that the possibility exists, but I have yet to see any speculation of this sort in any articles. It's always "Hmm, division along the line of sex, QED it must be sexism."

If there was a limited sickle-cell anemia vaccine that was only given to African-Americans, there would be the same outrage. "Well, racism exists and it is bad, so... anything having to do with race must be due to racism!"

Discrimination means to tell two unlike things apart. Sexism is different from saying that there are indeed differences between the sexes. For example "Women, in general, tend to have more vaginas than men." Uh-oh, better call up the sexism-police.

People always jump to believing racism/sexism as the primary evils in the world. They are definitely real and dangerous, but I wonder about inflammatory articles like this one. People love to feel righteous about pointing out the big bad racist. Don't you feel so important now that you have done your part to vanquish a sexism phantom.

Love the thread title. Yesterday I was a child rapist, today I'm a hyperfeminist zealot. Tomorrow I'll be a baby-seal clubber. C'mon.

The Internet is full of people who think they have all the answers. If you're one of those people, or if you want to read one of those people, there are lots of other places you can go. I'm here to raise questions and listen (though I lurk more than post here) to others who also like to ask and argue and think. To all of you who share that interest, welcome. And thanks for your comments and challenges, even the tough ones.

So you're a baby-raping hyper-feminist baby seal clubber? You monster! :)

Bob Montgomery:

In other words, the hell with science and health, what really matters is my idea of social justice!

Welcome to Slate.

Give me a break. I suppose it's telling that you popped into this thread, not to dispute or engage with what I or anyone else wrote in it, but instead to knock down a straw man and try to take the high road.

I made an argument - admittedly it wasn't written especially well and I gave it an inflammatory title (in my experience, Fray posts with boring titles don't get read) - but there is still an argument there and it isn't too hard to find or figure out. Here, I'll rewrite it and, since you apparently have thin skin, I'll rewrite it straight:

Assuming certain facts that you gave in the article, it would seem to make more sense to vaccinate one sex instead of both and, when comparing the sexes, it would seem to make more sense to vaccinate females instead of males. Instead, you somehow conclude that we should vaccinate both sexes, or perhaps boys instead of girls. The only reasons behind this conclusion that I could find were that your sense of gender justice (for lack of a better term) was offended.

Am I wrong?

Fair enough. Here's my serious answer: Given that this vaccine was designed for girls, I would prioritize girls over boys. And in exchange, I'd like to see a more effective, lasting, and widely adopted form of male contraception.