Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 5

Carefully considered
I guess my question is: are they carefully considered? Most of the time I've seen MSM used it's in the context of self-description or description by a third party (a physician) and there isn't a lot of explanation.

In other words, even if it should be carefully considered, is it considered at all? Most of the time it's just a box on a survey or a health department reporting form that gets checked yes or no and there is no further explanation. SDY (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I see what you're trying to say, the answer is "it depends", which is I guess what I was trying to say in the article. The MSM label is certainly something that is just applied with no further explanation, however it still ends up being that some people become marked as MSM, and some people don't, even if both are transwomen.  A woman with CAIS would not be considered "MSM" by any definition except genetic (oh, and gonadal) however since their external sexual appearance is undeniably female, they don't essentially run the risk of being labeled MSM.  However, the coin is in the air for instance, when considering androphylic transmen... are they MSM?  They are certainly more likely to engage in activities that put them in the same risk category group as MSM, even though most transmen haven't had phaloplasty (the results just aren't even resembling realistic right now).  That's what I'm basically trying to say... you can't just label all IS, TG, and TS people as "non-MSM" or "MSM"... it just doesn't work that way.  While I trust a health official in general to be accurate (with natural sampling error) on if someone is MSM or not, certainly lay people should be discouraged from assuming anyone to be MSM or not, if they are people with IS, TG, or TS. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but it runs into the Is-Ought problem: health research should take into account these intricacies. The question is: does it?  SDY (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source concerning MSM that considers androphylic transmen or one which considers women with CAIS? Hyacinth (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do know of a rather bizarre case that happened in Seattle with a plasmapheresis center. Plasma, like all blood donations, is supposed to come from donors that are at low risk for HIV, and MSM are excluded.  A transgender individual attempted to donate plasma and was deferred.  They sued for discrimination, and as far as I know they won.  The plasma center, as far as I know, now just finds them ineligible for other reasons, so it was a pretty hollow victory.  At any rate, that they were able to successfully sue either indicates one of two things: either there is no guidance on whether transgender individuals are MSM, or there is guidance that excludes them.  Given the impossible pitfalls to the second (it runs into questions of self-identification vs. genetics vs. how society describes them), my guess is that the first is true.  My other guess is that these individuals are not common enough to significantly influence data collection on things like HIV risk and rigorous definitions were never identified as necessary.  I know that blood industry does not specify and MSM is exclusively by self-identification.  SDY (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point us to a source that one could cite? Hyacinth (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the case, no. For blood donors, this page has the resources for the Universal Donor History Questionnaire, the "recommended" set of questions to ask US blood donors.  There isn't anything there on anything but a definition of "sexual contact" and "defer them if they answer yes to question 34".  A little google searching brings up this, which talks about "MSM and transgender" as if they are two separate groups, but the objectives lists "MSM include gay and heterosexual-identified men and transgender (TG) who often sell sex and may be castrated."  SDY (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment is pretty much on point. Being transgender/transsexual alone does not significantly affect HIV prevalence of the individual... it's the acts and behavior which they do which determines if they should be eligible or not.  They aren't allowed to deny an individual just for being gay... after all, the individual might be sexually inactive, and thus have negligible risk for blood-borne diseases.  That's the important distinction here of "MSM", because MSM means you're having sex with other men, period.  I personally think that perhaps because homosexuality is so looked down up in our society, causes many men to not consider the consequences of their actions... they're already looked down upon, and told what they are doing is wrong... why should they have concern about doing it safely?  It's kind of like the abstinence-only education... they're much more likely to not use a condom when they break their commitment to abstinence.  You've already made the move to break your moral beliefs... why be safe about it? :( Either way, being transgendered can significantly increase your risk of HIV... you're already outside of the norms, and unfortunately, they're more likely to work in the sex industry (there's little else available for them.) Transsexuals are a bit different though, in that there are really kind of two groups of TS people, those who tend to transition early, and are more likely to end up in the sex industry, and those who transition late and are more likely to end up engaging in MSM-like risk behaviors (generally due to their more masculine appearance, and behavior).  Yes, there are significant percentages of people who do not fit these molds... however they're high likelihood.  Either way, the defining issue with TS/TG people is more so "what behaviors do you engage in" and less about the actual identity.  For instance, a TS person like me, who switched pretty much exactly from confused male having sex unenjoyably with women, to a much more sane woman having sex happily with men... I have taken up a large amount of female gender roles (in some ways more than many of my friends... stupid conservative upbringing : and refuse sexual gender roles that are masculine... I don't like it, and I don't want it, and so, I'm about as interested in having a guy suck that part of me which shouldn't be there, as any other girl would be excited to have their cock sucked.  It doesn't mentally fit, it's traumatic, etc... so, no reason to refuse my blood, or even call me MSM... --Puellanivis (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So the ultimate question is: what should the article say? What I'm familiar with is that there is no ironclad definition and it is done by self-identification.  My guess is that studies are inconsistent on how they treat the topic.  The CDC's fact sheet as of 2007 refers to a study,
 * That article might be helpful, but I have no idea where to find a copy of that particular journal. The language in the first paragraph of that fact sheet, "even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM" sounds like the CDC calls them MSM if they call themselves MSM and doesn't get into trying to identify genetically male vs. chemically male vs. psychologically male vs. uncontroversially male.  SDY (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I ended up getting a contact at the CDC to talk about this... of course, stupid me, totally ditzed it and forgot to call them back, and discuss this material. I think you're pretty much right, in that they likely stick to "self-identification of sex".  It's kind of hard to avoid in this sort of a situation.  That's basically why I'm saying that in the article we should say, "yeah... just don't try, please." or something like that.  Really, if it were a black-box on what the CDC decides is MSM regarding IS/TG/TS, then does it really impact the world? We don't use the statistics, the CDC collects the statistics.  It might be interesting to have them collect data about "transgendered" instead of just "male and female", perhaps a super-symmetry of sex with, "intersexed/transgender/transsexual male" and "intersexed/transgender/transsexual female"... it'd be nice if there were one term that could be used inclusively of all three of those terms... but as is, nothing really works.  "Transgendered" doesn't match "intersexed" and arguably neither "transsexual." I'd almost like to consider expanding "intersexed" to include both... "intersexed: either psychologically or biologically." *shrug* --Puellanivis (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out in relation to this comment the discrepancy with the women who have sex with women article, which states bluntly: Perhaps the two articles should be revised so as the maintain the same tone and style between the two. This is only a single sentence, but it seems that the WSW article as a whole is woefully inadequate in comparison. Rootneg2 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a statistic which makes me think that transsexuals are included as MSM in most cases. That is that 25% of transsexuals, who are congenitally and terminally attracted to men have HIV. I apologise if this has been mentioned before but UNAIDS says"The term “men who have sex with men” - frequently shortened to MSM - describes a behaviour rather than a specific group of people. It includes self-identified gay, bisexual, or heterosexual men, many of whom may not consider themselves gay or bisexual. HIV responses for transgender populations are also often considered alongside MSM initiatives."  I know it is an unsavoury fact to you Puellanivis and I understand why.  I am sorry to say that it seems it is correct given that and other cites to include TG/TS women as MSM's regardless of op status and classified by sexual preference. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The UNAIDS article which you began sourcing (thank you) indicates that intersexed, transgendered, and transsexual persons are not considered MSM, but rather are often just lumped into MSM because HIV transmission rates are similarly high, but the UNAIDS article specifically states constantly "men who have sex with men, and transgender individuals." Just because transgendered individuals (umbrella term, sorry for IS/TG/TS) have a high HIV infection rate does not mean that they are MSM... simply that they are in a separate category, which just happens to have a high risk rate of HIV regardless of the nature of the IS/TG/TS status. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

HFarmer posted to my User Talk saying what the text from her source says. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, not just the part that supports your personal opinion. "Legal and policy reforms to promote human rights and access to health services of men who have sex with men and transgendered people, should be undertaken, where barriers exist. There is need to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of men who have sex with men and transgendered people and address stigma and discrimination by amending laws prohibiting sexual acts between consenting adults in private; enforcing anti-discrimination; providing legal aid services, and promoting campaigns that address homophobia. "

The specific article itself says this: MSM is not transgendered people, they're simply tacked together. Why do you make this such a difficult issue, your OWN SOURCE tells you that you're wrong. I have a contact with the CDC, do you really want me to BUG him, and call him up, and tell him, "I need a definitive answer. Are TG people MSM?" --Puellanivis (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Effect on statistics
To provide some context on the urgency of getting an answer to this question, "are trans folks considered MSM?", let us consider what effect they would have on the overall statistics concerning MSM. For instance, what percentage of the MSM popular would transmen and women be, if included in that population? Would that be a large enough percentage of the MSM population to have an effect on any statistics? Hyacinth (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

More sexual partners sources
The article claims "Some sources show that men who have male partners tend to have more sexual partners overall." The two sources given don't state this - one claims that MSMs who get HIV have a greater number of male sexual partners, and the other claims that MSMs in India have more sexual partners than (presumably) non-MSMs. Neither can reasonably be applied to MSMs in general. I'm going to remove the claim, but please let me know if you think I'm out of line. Darimoma (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you don't think the claim is true? It certainly sounds like a correct claim to me. Would you accept it if there was a better source? Skoojal (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Darimoma:
 * The claim: "Some sources show that men who have male partners tend to have more sexual partners overall."
 * The sources given support a claim that two subpopulations of MSMs tend to have more sexual partners overall.


 * The question raised by Darimoma is: "Is it legitimate to generalise from these subpopulations to the general population of MSMs?" Darimoma's answer is a resounding "No".  I am more equivocal:  if either of these two sources itself draws a generalisation from the subpopulation it studied to the general population of MSMs, then it would support the above claim.  But no indication has been given that either of these studies does so.


 * So I'm behind Darimoma on this: we must (A) present sources that support the claim as written, (B) revise the claim to match what our sources actually say; or (C) remove the claim altogether.


 * If the sentence is emended to "Some studies show that certain populations of MSMs tend to have more sexual partners overall", then this objection is satisfactorily answered. (Though I deplore using a comparative without specifying what is being compared.) --7Kim (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Skoojal - I think it probably is true (certainly, I think the mean number of partners will be higher amongst MSM than amongst heterosexual males), but a decent source is needed. I've searched quite a bit to find one, and the best I can find is that 1990 study referred to in the article, but we really could do with one which is more up to date (and less reliant on data of sexual practises in the 80s). Everything I've found tends to talk only of HIV-positive MSM, or comes from very questionable sources. Darimoma (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, from what I've heard with people working with MSM, is that MSM do not automatically have more sexual partners. Being that Darimona states that the sources state that MSM who _have_ an STD are more likely to have more sexual partners, this is just a statement of "increased risk results in increased risk".  MSW and WSM both have the same correlation... and a study in India of MSM is also not globally applicable.  I support the statement being removed, or reworded to point out that "MSM that contract an illness are more likely to have more partners on average than non-MSM contracting HIV"... but even then this statement is almost a tautology...  MSM are more likely to contract HIV or another STD than even non-MSM. --Puellanivis (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Hyacinth (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Response from the CDC
I've received a response from the CDC regarding my inquiry.

Gender identity is not collected by CDC. There is no way to know how many people who are categorized as MSM are biological males, MTF transgender individuals, or any other variation along a continuum. Just as MSM doesn’t tell you anything about sexual orientation (gay, bi, straight); it also doesn’t tell you anything about gender identity. It refers to behavior. Some states may collect this information, but to my knowledge it is not shared with CDC. Sue Carlson, MLIS, Health Communication Specialist CDC/NCHHSTP/DHAP/TICB DHAP Intranet Content Manager CDC-INFO Responder

It sounds like to me, the result is: "no one knows, it's up to the arbitrary and inconsistent opinions of the reporting individual/organization". My comments back were "it says men, that requires declaration of gender identity, or at the very least arbitrary segregation of individuals on something other than behavior. Please consider 'people who engage in unprotected receptive anal sex' or 'PUPRAS'. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PUPRAS may seem similar at first, but the MSM risk category includes protected oral sex and there is a definite distinction. SDY (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Protected oral sex is not a strong risk factor... except for herpes. It is nearly impossible to spread any form of STD through oral sex, even unprotected.  In order to be at risk to contract HIV, and most other STDs while giving even unprotected oral sex, one would have to have a cut, or bleed in their mouth.  Saliva does not carry HIV at all. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't argue that, but for the purposes of the definition, it's "sex". Again, what the definition should be is irrelevant to Wikipedia, we're only reporting what is.  SDY (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, for MSM giving oral sex even with protection is "sex", and would be used as such. However, even though PUPRAS would exclude people only engaging in that, it would better represent the behavior rather than an identity... male vs. female.  --Puellanivis (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion. MSM is a different risk group with a different definition.  SDY (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * * sigh* Ok, again... my statement is that MSM is a different risk group... my statement is also that MSM is inconsistent on risk factors. PUPRAS is based off of consistent behaviors that are documented to be actual risk factors, unlike MSM.  To declare that protected oral intercourse equivalent in risk to unprotected receptive anal sex simply based on the matter that the two are performed by a man upon a man... is kind of silly.  This statement has nothing to do to the article... it was simply mentioned in passing as part of my reply to the CDC.  --Puellanivis (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus
I've had this page watchlisted for a long time and have observed this discussion meander around. Everyone here should remember that Wikipedia article talk pages exist solely to discuss improvements to articles, and not to discuss the topics ofthe articles themselves and especially not to discuss each other. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I'm going to stop watching this page, but I encourage the editors here to stick to the narrow topic of how to improve this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the discussion, though, it sounds like the only plausible thing for the article to say is "the definition of male varies" and give some examples of how the less straightforward cases are included (or not).


 * Whether a person is classified as MSM is the decision of the person designing the study, outreach program, or whatever else that wants to make a distinction. Many rely on self-identification but some do not.  SDY (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That is why with regards to the question of transwomen I wrote.


 * "It's precise use and definition has varied with regard to transwomen.   With some sources considering tranwomen to be MSM,, Others considering transwomen "along side" MSM, while still others are internally inconsistent (Defining transgender women to be MSM in one place but referring to "MSM and transgender" in another.) ."


 * Willbeback is right about the conversation between me and Puellanivis. It has nothing to do with the article.  The sources support the quote above... that the definition of MSM varies from study to study and organization to organization. It does not matter what her or I think. The CDC response Puella posted also supports this (which I still think could only be used as a source if it was in a generally verifiable form regardless of what it says.)  I wish that they would have chosen or would replace it with a more sensitive term but hey it is what it is.


 * I think all this hullabaloo was worth it. Quite worth it. The article is better for it. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm just posting the CDC response, which despite being a verifiable source, is still a supportive source of "we don't know, nobody knows, we ignore the issue."  I agree that this debate has been worth it... HFarmer would have had the article say that TS/TG were always MSM (or at least MTFs were) while I would have said that TS/TG are such a complicated issue to satisfy that the issue should be treated carefully.  Neither of us would have given a clear and concise and accurate representation of all the sources... through the debate, as heated as it was... we were able to agree upon one thing... no one can agree on this issue... which we can represent in the article now. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this. While I entirely agree that the article should only focus upon "verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view", however this particular debate was about what the reliable sources even said.  As has been found, there are sources to say that they're not MSM, and there are sources saying that they are MSM... the best answer we've come up with, by debating the issue of if TG/TS are MSM or not, by pulling in reliable sources, references, etc is simply that it's inconclusive, arbitrary, and subjective.  To push the article as it was originally set up "that TG/TS are definitely always MSM" misrepresents the reliable sources.  Sometimes, when sources are not clear, or contradictory, debate must be waged upon the details in order to arrive at a neutral point of view... --Puellanivis (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it would also be wrong to have the article set up as it was over a month ago. In which transwomen were not MSM and in which it gave special status to post-ops. :-? --Hfarmer (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * * sigh* There is no point in continuing this debate, as the article already indicates that the usage is inconclusive. I stand by that post-ops shouldn't be classified as MSM ever.  Depending on the reporting agency, if my health insurance and primary physician were to report me as being HIV positive, I certainly wouldn't end up as "MSM", because my medical records indicate that I am female.  I still get asked if I'm pregnant, or think I might be pregnant.  I also get letters telling me to be sure to get my yearly pap-smear.  Even though I'm pre-op.  So, again... your definition is just as valid as mine, because none of the reporting agencies report consistently anyways. --Puellanivis (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that post-ops are never considered MSM? My experience is that there has been some ambiguity and I'd just leave the article as leaving the identity of "male" as totally the choice of the person defining the term and not include the post-op caveat.  SDY (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * * sigh again* Ok, I am not talking about the article, nor suggesting how the article should be, nor suggesting how it should be changed. Ok? Do you understand now?  I'm providing anecdotal evidence about my case, which is worthless for the article.  However if HFarmer wishes to continue to berate my opinion that post-op transsexuals should never be considered MSM, then I will continue to defend my opinion.  N.B.: my opinion is not fact, and I am not suggesting that it should be integrated in any way with the article.  --Puellanivis (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Honey those same things happen to me. As SDY said that is not the point. Furthermore to answer his query and disprove the "post ops are never MSM" thing. All I need is one reference which could disprove that... I already have one the ppt file that I liked to above and in the article [] It states "With regard to HIV surveillance and prevention, the CDC’s current practice is not to separate MTF TG and TS people from the MSM category, with no attention paid to the risks of FTM TG people." Most of the time TG is used to cover any and all gender variance. However it was common when this was written to refer ONLY TO POST OP's as being TS and to any others as being TG. Therefore this reference explodes the never claim. In fact according to that source Post-op's are "always" considered MSM if they have sex with men. However we have sources that disprove that extreme claim as well. What can I say transwomen are in a grey area on this point.

I don't see why this has to be personalized at all? The article is not about you or me individually.

I also will not ever recognize Op status as defining a person as male or female. A transwoman is marked as such by how she lives her life. It is very possible to live the life of a woman in every way but for the bio mechanics of how you have sex. My anecdote and the anecdote of the majority of the transwomen I know is this... We live as women we have sex like men, with men and that's not an oxymoron. That's a fact. Even the post op's that I know indulge in anal entry after having the op. To me and to them having a vagina or a penis is not what defines a person as a man or woman... But it does define someone congenitally as being male or female or intersexed. That is my opinion. On this let us agree to disagree. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, the article should not be personalized, as again, I was just stating my personal opinion for the talk page, and not intended for it to become part of the article. I don't recognize op status as defining male or female either.  Male vs female is about how you live your life, not what you do in bed.  Now as for "We live as women we have sex like men, with men.... Even the post op's that I know indulge in anal entry after having the op." First, not all of us have sex like men... I do not.  I do not engage in anal intercourse at all.  What's the difference between me giving a guy a blowjob and a natal female giving him a blowjob?  Pretty much zilch.  And just because a post-op engages in anal post-op doesn't make it that they're having sex like men.  I just asked my cisgender roommate, "Do you consider anal sex having sex like a man?"  She responded, "uh... no, I do it".  So, to the point, I am not PUPRAS, I'm not even PRAS, even though my cisgender roommate is at least PRAS.  --Puellanivis (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading this section out to her, she said "I would totally give anal with a strap-on." ... There you go... "how" you have sex does not determine being male/female/intersex. It's just personal preference on conducting sexual activities. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [removed by User:Hyacinth] --Hfarmer (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [removed by User:Hyacinth] --Puellanivis (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[removed by User:Hyacinth] --Hfarmer (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Colorful as it is, I'd agree that this doesn't really fall within talk page guidelines as it really isn't about the article... SDY (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [removed by User:Hyacinth] --Puellanivis (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, enough
I've been following this meandering discussion for days now, and I think it's time to stop it. As far as I can see, there's really no discussion of the article itself happening at all. I'm not even entirely certain what it is you're arguing about. So. If there are concerns regarding the article content, please articulate them clearly, succinctly, and briefly, perhaps in point form, so that others can respond to them. A reminder that changes/additions to the article should be properly referenced with a preference for quality, scholarly sources and not based on personal experience. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. [removed by User:Hyacinth]. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop, please. The purpose of this new section was not to continue the fruitless discussion from the previous section.  Everyone please limit themselves strictly to discussion of the article from now on.  If you have issues with the article as it stands, then please present them clearly, succinctly and briefly so that others can respond to them.  Thank you.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also request that this fight cease, but I would like to phrase the request more strongly: If users continue to participate in this discussion I will begin to examine their actions with Wikipedia policy violations in mind. If you feel that you have issues or a conflict with another user which do need to be addressed, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE. See Dispute resolution. Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you discuss things other than the article you may be warned or your comments may be removed.
 * If you discuss or attack other users I will begin arbitration or other measures. THIS IS YOUR WARNING on this page.

Health Commissioner quote
I took the health commissioner quote from out of the Explanations section. It came immediately after the sentence on the 1990 study of number of partners amongst MSM. This is the sentence removed:
 * New York Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said "We are very concerned about the increase in HIV among young men who have sex with men... Unless young men reduce the number of partners they have, and protect themselves and their partners by using condoms more consistently, we will face another wave of suffering and death from HIV and AIDS."

I took it out for a few reasons. Firstly, its position seemed to imply that Frieden was implying that MSM have more partners than men who don't have sex with men, which simply isn't what he's saying. My first instinct was to separate the paragraph into two paragraphs, but then I realised that this sentence doesn't really constitute any sort of explanation as to why MSM have higher STD infection rates than other demographics. So I thought it may be an idea to move it to a different section. However, I can't really think where what Friden's saying is appropriate. The drive of it is that younger MSM's infection rates are rising, and they need to be more careful. I thought maybe that could go after the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, but it wouldn't really add anything. Thus, I deleted it. But, I'd be quite happy for it to go back in, if someone can suggest a decent home for it. Darimoma (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would add something to the section on growth rate. It could serve as an explanation for why the HIV rate is higher among young MSM's.  (I know it's not admissible WP evidence but many of the young ones I know are under the delusion that if they get aids they can just take whatever Magic Johnson is taking and they'll be ok. This does lead them to take big, big, risk. )  But then the section "explaination" is there for that reason I reckon.  It is an interesting quote but looking at the explination section it looks better without it.


 * An interesting reference to look at is this one. A bit of Googleing and I found a report that has hard numbers on how many partners a sample of MSM's have Vs. their perception of how many partners others have.    They found that MSM's do not have that many sex partners.  In that sample 13.4/year was average. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the quote explains why the HIV rate is higher among young MSM's, nor higher than what. Than other groups? Than before? Than it could be? In fact, since the quote addresses the future, its impossible for it to explain past or present rates. Hyacinth (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Transmission is not an explanation for high infection rates. Transmission is part of the explanation for high infection rates which itself needs to be explained. Hyacinth (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The health commissioner's quote applies to all people: "To reduce HIV infection rates, have less partners and use condoms". Pointing out that young MSMs are just like young WSMs in ignoring safe sex practices is a bit of a tautology... but it does help to show that they're disregarding the risks. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The HIV infection rate among MSM's is higher than it is among the general population. That is a fact.  The CDC's fact sheet says "MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections  among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with  long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to  7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM."


 * So while what the health commissioner said would help all people to avoid infection. It is especially applicable to MSM's.  It is a message that so many young ones need to get. --Hfarmer (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, but this article is not a pamphlet about protecting oneself from infection as a young MSM. Though young MSM's do need to get some sort of message and change their behavior, the section explaining infection rates among MSM is not the place to send them that message. Hyacinth (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The health commissioner is clearly talking about prevention and preventing infection, not explanation and explaining infection rates. To attempt to use his warning as an explanation is to grossly misquote him based on conjecture.

Why don't we start a prevention section? Hyacinth (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that the message that young MSM's need to get should be here (look above where I say that the health commisioner's quote could be left off the article and it would look better without it. ) What I was trying to do was to provide some context for what he said.  --Hfarmer (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think everyone editing this article is aware of the context of what he said... It's a well established fact that MSM have higher infection rates.  What the commissioner said was simply fluff... it had no explanatory benefit, means nothing on its own, states already well established fact.  No one is arguing about the context of the quote, just that the quote lacks any meat... like Kate Moss.  *zing!* Sorry... couldn't help myself... --Puellanivis (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Political Correctness
Article:
 * Critics charge that political correctness has led to the association of MSM and HIV being downplayed.

The two sources cited are the Daily Mail and Business Day. I can't find anything in the Daily Mail article supporting this statement (just that it's hypocritical to deny treatment to those who are too old, while not denying it to people who are HIV positive); moreover, the Daily Mail is not a mainstream newspaper - that's not to say it shouldn't be included in the article (it should, if people can find a Mail article - and you probably can - blaming PC for the alleged playing down of the link between MSM and HIV, but it should be stated that it's the Daily Mail, a very socially conservative tabloid). With regards to the Business Day article - first thing, the given link is to a bizarre site that doesn't seem to function properly (no homepage etc.), but the article is definitely the genuine article (little pun there), and can be found on Business Day's website |here. Next, the article is written by James Chin, who is apparrently notable enough to have his own WP article, so I'd like to mention him by name (and link to his WP article) in the sentence (and not just "Critics"). Finally, I'd argue that it would be more in accordance, with both Chin's Business Day article and the explanations section, to say that PC has led to undertargeting of MSM in HIV/AIDS prevention, and overtargeting of heterosexual populations.

Is everyone okay with these proposed changes: 1. Cut out the Daily Mail citation. 2. Change the sentence to (something along the lines of): "James Chin has stated that political correctness has led to a lack of focus on MSM in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes." ? Darimoma (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at Mr. Chin's article, it appears that he falls into the category of WP:NPF, so attributing a quote to him doesn't mean much to the average reader. That he is actually in the field of public health and not some pundit is an important clarification.  I agree with the Daily Mail bit, it should at the very least explain the nature of the publication for all of us non-brits.  SDY (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)