You're right, and I did. To me the 8.8% cited in the reference used in this article seems pretty vague. This number relates to women's health defined as "[...] includ[ing] diseases and conditions that are sex specific or affect women and men differently or disproportionately, [...]". So this particular work does not really say that men are particularly favoured here. However, they do cite another article by Arthur Mirin (DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1029.8682) which stated as of 2021:

Not only are there almost three times as many male-favoured diseases as female-favoured diseases, but the the degree of funding disparity for the male-favoured diseases (extent to which male-dominant diseases are overfunded and female-dominant diseases are underfunded) is nearly twice as large as that for female-favoured diseases.

To me, these numbers give ordinary people a much better view of the problem, I would say. The 8.8% likely makes much more sense to experts within the field and I never meant to oppose that. It was simply difficult to make sense of within the scope of the article.

Also, whether or not there are references in the article is completely irrelevant to my criticism about the author being unclear as of what point they were trying to make with their piece. They simultaneously claim that healthcare should be allocated more equally and depending on the gender specific needs. It reads like rage-bait.