"Obamacare leaves the average 27 year old facing a gender-averaged 47.5 percent premium increase..."

"Even after subsidies, that’s an expense that many Millennials can’t afford. Perversely, such high costs make it even harder for us to purchase health insurance in the future, when we can afford it. By not signing up for expensive plans now, insurance rates will increase as soon as next year — for everyone. That leaves us with two choices: Buy an unaffordable plan now, or wait and buy an unaffordable plan later."

From a piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal titled "We’re young, but we aren’t stupid."

"Gender-averaged"? I'd like to see that broken down into what the average increase is for a 27-year-old male and a 27-year-old female. The decisions are being made by individuals, each of whom is either a male or a female. I assume that males are looking at a much larger increase and are seeing much less advantage in having the insurance and that this is precisely why they are the most desirable members of the pool.

Young males know better than to gripe too bitterly about the burdens on the male. The above-linked article is written by a male — Evan Feinberg, the President of Generation Opportunity (whatever that is) — and he means to express himself strongly, yet he's bound by present-day gender politesse and only tells us about the "gender-averaged" problem.

With so much gender politics pandering to women, it's strange that men, feel the need to adopt a "gender-averaging" approach to talking about problems. I mean, I understand the desire to be safe and adopt a self-defensive posture, but some of this gender etiquette is utterly obfuscatory.