Sometimes testing positive on a fairly accurate test for a very rare condition means you are still more likely to not have the condition, and even Doctors sometimes screw that logic up.
Knowing that this very rare disease affects 1 in 10_000 men, and 1 in 100_000 women, doesn't tell you that much about how to perform diagnosis on any one individual. But it does tell you accurately that the male ward probably needs 10x as many beds as the female ward.
Statistics are hard. At least for me.
Edit: also I wasn’t trying to respond directly/refute your comment. Just chiming in with a related concept.
Then we know what mix of coffins to load on the UN plane. But as a doctor on the ground, after your 99% accurate test comes back, you certainly need more information, and knowing the sex of the patient is not much help. The doctor, and the guy loading the plane, are asking very different questions.
Sticking with medical examples, the first matters for "does this guy have this disease?" The second matters for "how many doses should we order?"
Or, more controversially, "how many of the doctors we train today will still be working in 30 years?" Which came up as a question regarding the increasing proportion of women in medical school. And many people were loudly offended that this might be something to take into consideration. Because they read it as the first kind of question, "will this individual...". But that's different.