MPox, the new name is. Which strikes me as remarkably foolish: The first thing every child will ask is “what does the “M” stand for?”
But of course, that’s not really the point, is it?
FOLLOWING A SERIES of consultations, the World Health Organisation (WHO) will begin using the new term “mpox” as a synonym for monkeypox in 0rder to combat what it deems as racist and stigmatizing language online.
Both names will be used simultaneously for one year while “monkeypox” is phased out.
In some ways, the less effective the name change is, the better. We’re all supposed to remember what the “M” stands for, that’s the whole point. It’s not much of a virtue signal if you’re using an abbreviated or new name that’s entirely different. But if you know what the “M” stands for, and you carefully and deliberately refuse to say the word, then that’s perfect culture war fodder, because you are demonstrating your caution and restraint and kindness much more effectively than you would be if they’d just given it some other, entirely sanitary name, like “dermovirus” or something.
Meanwhile, of course, baboons like you, dear reader, will prove your unfitness for polite society by loudly proclaiming that the “M” stands for monkey. It’s the perfect Rorschach test – like whether somebody says “illegal alien” or “migrant”. The language they use can tell you almost immediately what “side” they’re on. It’s a useful way of deciding who to invite to things.
That this is entirely cultural is obvious from the facts of it. Why is “monkey” considered offensive?
If, for example, this was a virus that solely and exclusively infected people with dark skin, then one might see the point. “Monkey” has, after all, been used as a racist slur against black people for decades, and if a virus that infected them exclusively were called that, then you’d have a fair case that the name was deeply insensitive. But have gay people (who are the predominant victims of Monkeypox) ever been called Monkeys? Readers can enlighten me if I’m wrong here, but I can find no evidence of it.
The bigger question, again, is what the point of the World Health Organisation is. In the aftermath of the outbreak of Covid-19, it often felt as if that organisation’s primary objective was not to slow the spread of the virus, but to prevent people from linking the virus to China, lest Chinese people be offended.
Again, here, it often feels like the WHO has been more concerned with not stigmatizing gay men than it has been about educating gay men of the risks to them. We’ve had absurd campaigns targeting people not at risk of Monkeypox, just so that those who are at risk of it might not feel upset at the existence of a virus that is of higher risk to them.
It’s the equivalent of launching a campaign warning Ethiopian distance runners about the dangers of obesity.
There’s not much more to say, really. Once again, the World Health Organisation seems less concerned with World Health, and more concerned with making sure nobody is ever open to the slightest possibility of a risk of being offended.
In the contest between “wokeness” and “medicine” at the WHO, the former appears to win every time. Perhaps that is because, like a growing number of NGOs and global organisations, it sees itself these days much less as a medical organisation, and much more as an advocacy group. Really, it shouldn’t care what monkeypox is called. It should care about stopping it.