Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 6

RfC RE:are TS/TG women MSM's
I am the one who requested the comments and this is why I have the position I do. For the longest time I agreed unequivocally that TS/TG women were NOT MSM's. I revisited this article recently and sought to find an actual source which defined who is and is not an MSM. Just to shore up what the article said. What I found was the following...

|UNAIDS:Men who have sex with men Which says in it's first paragraph...

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 also found a study from 2004 which is typical of such studies and also considers TS women along with MSM's. I further found a study that tried to consider men who have sex with transgender women MSTW's as a category.

Last but not least a court case has been found which supports the converse view point. In which a transgendered woman sued a blood donation center for excluding her and definging her as a MSM (as per the law of that particular state). She won the case but the blood donation center found a different rationale. (The fact remains from all souces that can be found the prevalence of HIV among TS/TG women is about 25%! 25%! I find hard to belive even among my circle here in Chicago.  A circle that is hardly monk like in its sexual practices to say the least. I should know allot more HIV+ people than I do.)

I suppose the question is does the above mentioned court case define who is and is not a MSM to the exclusion of anything else?

+ A court case that I am trying to find a reference for. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience has been that it's an unqualified "maybe". In all of the cases I run into, it's a question of self-identification.  Some TS/TG say yes, some say no.  The one point that's been raised is whether they "should" be considered.  Wikipedia simply does not care what "should be".  Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking issue with the validity of self identification for defining a persons public gender. I am only thinking about how the researchers out there have historically used the term which is a totally different thing.  Google "MSM transgender blood" and see what you find.  I did looking for that court case and instead found yet another study by the where researchers define MSM like so " MSM include gay and heterosexual-identified men and transgender (TG) who often sell sex and may be castrated."  The study is from India. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'''WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, HFARMER! DO YOU NOT SPEAK ENGLISH? Quote: "HIV responses for transgender populations are also often considered alongside''' MSM initiatives." Key words bolded. Do you not understand what those words mean? alongside that means, it's put into MSM statistics but they are not MSM. Why do you have to have this crazy idea that just because it's often (not always!!!) included for MSM statistics, that they are MSM. Let me show you some logic... In order for all TG people to be MSM (and thus qualify for this article) then they must be a formal subset of MSM. That means that every TG must always be an MSM. Now, not only does your source itself use "weasel words" ("often") as well as contrasting words like "alongside", it also uses a word of subjectivity in "considered". I edited the article to accurately state what your source says... and you throw it out? Why? Because you don't like what it actually says? You're just using this source to push your bias? What? --Puellanivis (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Writing in all caps doesn't help your case. Talking about other editors rather than the article and its content doesn't help your case. See No personal attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor."
 * Instead, try backing up your approach by visiting and quoting Citing sources and Reliable sources. Hyacinth (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I don't see why this would cause such a response.  All we are doing is discussing how HIV/AIDS reseachers use the term MSM.  Which was defiend for the purpose of researching HIV/AIDS risk.


 * Look back in the archives and see that on this matter I have actually agreed with the above poster on this. I felt as she did.  Looking at this article now as it was with all those caveats around intersex and transgender women.... that's not how any HIV AIDS researchers define MSM.  They do it simply.  Where are those key words in the following quotes?


 * This one from a study done in India.

MSM are an important emerging risk group in India and have received scant attention. MSM include gay and heterosexual-identified men and transgender (TG) who often sell sex and may be castrated. Systematically collected data on these groups are limited. We evaluated MSM accessing the Humsafar Trust, a male-health NGO and one of only 2 MSM sentinel surveillance sites in India.


 * How about the key words in this one? This is a key passage in a paper that looked at Men who have sex with transgender women.  I'll hilite what I think are the key words.

Throughout this paper, sexual orientation identity refers to the descriptive terms individuals use to signify their sexual and/or erotic attraction to others. In public health and popular discourse, there currently exist a variety of previously characterized sexual orientation identity categories: these include heterosexual/straight, bisexual, homosexual/gay/lesbian, asexual, and others. ''However, some individuals do not identify as members of any of these categories. Notably, sexual orientation identity terminology generally reflects gendered patterns of sexual attraction, but they do not necessarily denote behavior or experience (reflected in behavior-based terms such as MSM, WSW, or MSTGW). Sexual orientation identity is also distinct from other aspects of identity such as gender identity (male, female, transgender, intersex) and gender roles (masculine, feminine). Recent debates have reminded HIV prevention researchers and health education professionals that self-ascribed sexual orientations identities do not always align with sexual behaviors (Pathela et al. 2006; Young and Meyer 2005''). The validity of public health categories such as MSM and WSW has been challenged, as these terms may offer little insight into the lived experiences of individuals that fall within these behavioral parameters (Young and Meyer 2005). Prior assessments of men’s sexual behavior have often considered sex with transgender women to be a subset of MSM activity (Beyrer et al. 2005; Hernandez et al. 2006; Pisani et al. 2004) and, consequently, might not capture a potentially unique sexual and gender dynamic.
 * The above two quotes are from journal articles. I could point to the PDF's but HTML is easier for all to see.  Based on the above I would say that MSM is defined thusly..  MSM are people born anatomically unambigously male who have sex with other male born individuals.  We could just leave it at that and not bother with a list of who is and is not MSM and just let the readers draw a conclusion.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further references that support my position. This is from a CDC Report on HIV related TB among MSM's on the east coast.

The four patients were identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) and belonged to a transgender social network. Some network members dressed as women and participated in dance and fashion competitions known as "balls." These social networks include "houses" (i.e., a guild providing a social framework for young MSM and transgender persons) that exist in many large U.S. cities (house leader, personal communication, 2000). All four also were commercial sex workers.
 * Let me reiterate that I wish a more sensitive term than MSM had been chosen. Since it seems that from when it was first defined it was intended to cover TS/TG women. I have a source that says that MSM was defiend by the CDC officially in 1995 yet I cannot find a source for just what that definition is.  That would partially settle this matter.  UN and other international sourecs have their own equally official definitions as well.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could try letting the discussion cool down while you wait for other comments... Hyacinth (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article nows contains a section "Examples of persons inside and outside of MSM demographic" which resembles a trivia section in that it is an unjustified and unincorporated list. Given that this list has no introduction or explanation it seems that the issue of who or who isn't MSM is given far to much emphasis in the article, including the introduction, especially given that no source appears to directly address the issue. Hyacinth (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Generally I see two main issues here. How do those who participate, either willingly, knowingly, or not, identify themselves and those that they have had sex with; and how do those researching these issues identify these people. The answer is essentially a mixed bag as a trans person may self-identify as male or female, or something else, but their partner may not agree with that assessment and simply may not care. This is also true for those researching as neutrality usually requires them to seek identity from the participants or create a variable for their research. You will certainly be able to find a reference for every possibility but per policy we represent differing views with appropriate weight. And we do represent multiple viewpoints together. So yes, TG and TS people and those who are raped can all technically be considered MSM but in extrapolating research data and quoting statistics we should be cautious about what we are interpreting as well as being careful not to assume the same standards and terminology translate equally from one source to the next. Banj e  b oi   13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this assessment, though I would caveat that the definitions only vary slightly and solely on inclusion of these unusual cases. The question of identity mainly comes up with whether or not someone is "male", the exact same problem a "Men who drive trucks" group would have.  The article should acknowledge that identifying someone as male is not always as straightforward as many would assume, and that the "men (by any definition) who have sex with men (by any definition)" group in many cases has a similar risk profile to those who are more clearly MSM.  SDY (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Illuminating Conversation
See User:Puellanivis's talk page. On it I basically said that this categorization is all about HIV risk behaviors not identities or any such. She claimed that the HIV risk of transgender( which by any definition includes transsexuals of any op status...everyone starts somewhere) is equal to that of natal females. I showed actual data which does not support that claim at all. It illuminates this matter much. It seems that Puellanivis has a COI because she cannot set aside personal feelings to edit this dispassionately.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While that may be true in some form or another let's just stay focussed on the RfC at hand. If another user's input here gets out of line it can be addressed but it's better for all concerned to stay focussed on the content and off the contributor. Banj e  b oi   03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction... the data support that the total number of females (no qualifiers) contracting HIV/AIDS is equal to the total number of MSM (no qualifiers) contracting HIV/AIDS. I have a COI because I am not a man, and therefore by definition not an MSM. If you want to use what the UNAIDS1 source said, it's that TG/TS people are considered and then alongside MSM. Not that they are MSM.  Get over yourself. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed we should stick to the topic at hand. (However I will ask that anyone following this take another look at her talk page...look at it's history.  Where can we talk about the evident COI and general lack of decorum?)--Hfarmer (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Puella you are plainly wrong. I would like it if you would cite some of this supposed data. ':-/ For the benefit of this discussion I have retrieved what I originally put on her talk page.  Everything indented Below.  It is long but look at what I found.  Not only does it put to rest this preposterous fantasy that TS/TG women have the same HIV risk factors as Natal females.  I also found a definition from 1998 which defines MSM's at least in terms of that study.  I humbly ask that commenter's consider the following.


 * (Originally put on Puellanivis's talk page. Text in  was not in original.) You say "You talk about HIV risk factors being more important than "identity", well, then why don't we just lump all heterosexual women in the group of MSM because the number of people infected every year is identical between MSM and women."


 * First of all there is plenty of evidence that is not so. See this website it cites several studies of TS/TG women and the most representative one of them puts the HIV rate at 15% (The one that studies random women coming in a clinic for hormones and not just sex workers.)  The average proportion of transwomen that were found to have HIV was 35%.  That is 35% of the people tested were found to have HIV.  By comparison the proportion of women infected with HIV world wide is estimated at 0.0058%. (See  it gives 17.5 million then I divided by (6 billion/2) and * 100)  So what you say is just plain false.  The rate of HIV infection among transwomen is WAY WAY greater than that rate among natural born women. The studies I cited above were among a few that specifically targeted transwomen separate from MSM's report an averaged prevalence of HIV among them of 33% (with a range from 46% to 21%).


 * The prevalence of HIV among MSM's is within the range of the prevalence figures I have found for transwomen. Therefore it would be scientifically accurate to say that transsexual women who are attracted to men have similar risk factors to MSM's.


 * (But that's all original research what we really need is a definition)Furthermore by the definition of MSM that I found in a CDC document from back about 1998 . Note who it says those MSM's are

'''During June--August 1998, the Tuberculosis (TB) Control Program of the Baltimore City Health Department (BCHD) identified four cases of TB among young black men. Three of these men also had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The four reported belonging to a social network of transgender persons (i.e., persons who identify with or express a gender and/or sex different from their biologic sex) (1).''' By October 1998, test results on Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from the four men demonstrated a matching 11-band DNA fingerprint pattern (2), suggesting that these case-patients were epidemiologically linked. This report describes the public health investigation of these TB case-patients to identify contacts in Baltimore and the New York City area (NYC); the findings suggest that an interstate outbreak of TB has occurred within a social network that includes transgender persons.


 * (It Goes on to say)

(The four patients were identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) and belonged to a transgender social network. Some network members dressed as women and participated in dance and fashion competitions known as "balls." These social networks include "houses" (i.e., a guild providing a social framework for young MSM and transgender persons) that exist in many large U.S. cities (house leader, personal communication, 2000). All four also were commercial sex workers.)


 * (The term was defined by the CDC in 1995 to refer to transwomen of all kinds from post ops to Drag Queens. We all pass through phases that look allot like being a Queen on the way to wherever we end up.  No one goes full time all at once.  If they do they either look a fool, are blessed with good looks, or are a damm liar.)


 * The next thing you will say is that you did not talk about prevalence but rate of infection. Well here is the data on the rate of infection for women.
 * According to 9708 women were diagnosed with HIV nationwide in 2005 (out of what 1/2 of 280 Million Americans who are medically women in every biological sense.)  The prevalance of HIV in natal females is about 0.0069%!
 * According to 19,248 MSM were diagnosed with HIV nationwide in 2005 (out of an unknown number of MSM's which could include some number of transwomen depending on the counting which is what is at issue here and now.)
 * According to Meta-analytic findings indicated that 27.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8-30.6%) of MTFs tested positive for HIV infection (four studies), while 11.8% (95% CI, 10.5-13.2%) of MTFs self-reported being HIV-seropositive (18 studies). Higher HIV infection rates were found among African-American MTFs regardless of assessment method (56.3% test result; 30.8% self-report).


 * Look at that DATA. DATA backs up what I say not some ideology.  The MTF's have a rate of infection thousands of times greater than that of natal women and statistically indistinguishable from that of MSM's.  Therefore from the perspective of preventing HIV.... If looking at HIV infection  and only that (not identity, self image or any of that for now)  MTF's who have sex with men are indistinguishable from MSM's.  In fact I can say this from experience that among black and Hispanic people MTF's and people even you would call MSM's intermingle quite freely and sociably.  Those are facts and those facts are undeniable.  Those facts are what I base my argument  on.


 * In the process of writing the above I found a definition of MSM's. One that very explicitly mentions transgender women as being MSM's.  Most every definition I have found either explicitly backs up that usage OR mentions that some studies define tranwomen as MSM's and others don't. The reson for this being that our HIV risk factors are not statistically different from those of other MSM's (therefore "along side MSM's" in that one definition.)  This is so even though we are in no social identity sense of the word "men" we are male and the definition of the word really refer's to biology not identity. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out how that 1998 study uses MSM to refer to transwomen and in another instance acknowdelges the social difference between transwomen and other MSM in the very next paragaph. One use does not negate the other.  It is obvious that in many social ways transwomen are different from MSM's. however in terms of sexual behavior and tendencies, of which the HIV #'s are hard evidence for, transwomen are exactly like MSM's.  That seems to be the reasoning behind the term. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief! Puellanivis, comments such as "get over yourself" are not helpful, please remain civil. Hfarmer, this is a RfC on the article not on a user. Please focus on the article content and avoid focusing on other editors. I'm sure there's some policy that covers not filling up article talk pages with tangentially related discussion. It's distracting and disruptive, IMHO. Let's stick a tack in this and say that everyone needs to remain civil and calm and stay to discussion on improving the article. I'd like ou to get back to the RfC and comtribute there if you feel this issue hasn't been resolved yet. Banj e  b oi   22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues I raised above come up because this category was originally defined by epidimologist studying the spread of HIV/AIDS. The RfC is about the definition of MSM's.  The claim was made that females get HIV at the same rate as transwomen.  I presented the best possible proof that's false.  Based on all I had ever heard we transwomen get HIV at the same rate as gay/bi/downlow... MSM's  Which based on all the information I found is true.  I'm sorry it takes allot of words to argue these points.  Points which are directyl related to the question of the RfC which is about defining who is and is not a MSM.


 * I also thought that by creating another heading this would be separate from the RfC (perhaps I should have put the RfC on it's own subpage or something.) I'm goona shut up now.  Whatever the consensus is I will just live with it.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, not that natal women have the same HIV risk as TG/TS women... but rather that the total number of females contracting HIV is the same as the total number of MSM contracting HIV. Source? http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm Looking over the data, sorry, I correct my statement.  Being female who only has risky heterosexual sex has the same HIV contraction rate as being a male drug user.  Both total populations are unknown however.  Again, my assertion stands, many TG/TS are not males, and thus are not MSM.  Your own sources state that TG/TS groups are only "considered" "alongside" MSM, not that they actually are MSM.  As to Benji: my statements were made on my own talk page, and were not intended to be neither neutral nor unbiased.  If HFarmer wished to discuss the merits of the argument in this talk page, I would have been more than civil... however, she has consistently sought to put me in the worst situation possible and provoke me into an emotional response.  My assertion has, and always will be "I am not male, thus I am not MSM by definition of the term".  She can argue all she wants until she's blue in the face whether they are included or not in MSM statistics, but that's only making a lighter assertion, "they are included in MSM statistics", however her very own source says that they are not considered MSM, even though they may be included in MSM statistics.  I understand the difficulty in understanding the situation... they're saying they're not, but then treating them as if they are, however the fact still remains, many if not most TS/TG individuals are excluded from MSM by the very definition of the term... "men who have sex with men." --Puellanivis (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear what both of you are saying and stick with what I stated above. Researchers go by cultural standards at the time of their research and their own knowledge. The studies themselves often contain cultural bias by only providing for some set gender binary categories. When improving this and other articles we need to remain neutral and as clear as possible. This isn't always easy, and in many cases it also doesn't help to personalize the issues. When making sweeping statements about all MSM or most TS/TG people we should be quite careful. And as I've stated, I completely disagree that "many if not most TS/TG individuals are excluded from MSM". These populations simply haven't been studied enough to make that kind of statement. Many gay transmen would certainly disagree with that statement. There is also another comment above that perhaps this discussion better fits on the male page. They might be right as a lot of what it means to be male or female (and intersex) is still being learned. This is a cultural and biological issue. We even have a man giving birth so that should challenge some conceptions. Banj e  b oi   06:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "If HFarmer wished to discuss the merits of the argument in this talk page, I would have been more than civil... however, she has consistently sought to put me in the worst situation possible and provoke me into an emotional response. My assertion has, and always will be "I am not male, thus I am not MSM by definition of the term"."  I HAVE NEVER CURSED AT YOU.  NOR HAVE I EVER SAID YOU WERE A MAN.  That is a fact.  All I have ever written is exactly the "lighter" claim which you make it sound like I was argued down to by you or something.  All I have ever said is that in terms of HIV/AIDS risk factors as evidenced by statistics Transgender women are indistinguishable from MSM's.  That is not anything like saying transwomen are men (ok I have said the fact that the average run of the mill transwoman was born anatomically male.  That is not the same as being a man.  Not at all the same.)


 * This is where what benjiboi said comes in to play. Back in the 90's when the term MSM was defined it was defined to explicitly include transgender women.  The reference I found from that 1998 study is what I base that on.  Along with the other statements "along side" and all that...It seems to be most accurate to say that the meaning of this word has evolved.  From being used to cover MTF's to being mentioned "along side" mtf's in most cases.  To what we have more of now studies that focus only on MTF's alone and separate from MSM's (which I cited in order to explain the indistinguishability arguement).  Do we finally understand eachother?  We cannot re write history to suit our taste.  However what we can do is rewrite this article to get rid of that list and leave any conclusions about who is and is not a MSM up to the readers.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed version
Ok let's reset the conversation. I apologize to Puellanivis if she took my stance on this issue as a denial of the identity of herself and other transwomen. I think I have made it clear how and in what context I mean what I say about this topic. (Basically, that MSM is based on biological sex and not gender identity.) I have prayed on it and am willing to forget her uncivil behavior.

Ok new business

Based on the comments above I have made a experimental rewrite of the article. This is the version I have written up for your perusal. Any constructive criticism will be welcome. Any more violations of WP:CIVIL will be dealt with accordingly.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:CIVIL specifically, "Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Again, MSM does not refer to biological sex... how would one even define that? as covered in the TS/TG articles already, there is no "biological sex". What is the biological sex of a woman with CAIS?  Is she MSM just because she has a Y chromosome and sleeps with men?  No, MSM refers to specific behaviors that MSM have, and TS/TG do not.  TS/TG have different behaviors that still tend to put them in the risk column.  Now, to kind of give a rough gross and entirely unscientific example, if BBL Theory were true, then autogynephiles would be MSM, but homosexual transsexuals would not... um. Ok, homosexual transsexuals would not be MSM post-surgery. I'm sorry, but my "biological gender" is female. There is no doubt in my mind that I had insufficient androgens during my natal period and came out under-virilized.  When the brain (evidenced by my parents that I never acted correctly as a "boy") and the external body are in conflict... personally, I can't, and I don't know why you could, say that the external body wins out.  --Puellanivis (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not taunted you. I have merely disagreed with your ideology.  Which I am sure is totally allowed.  You swore at me which I am sure is not.  If I were the mean person you say I am I could have prosecuted you and likely you would have been banned and IP blocked for such behavior.  To your being truly biologically female all I will do is give you some heartfelt advice sister to sister.... Don't forget to have your prostate examined on a regular basis.  You can still get prostate cancer (Unless you had it and your ability to orgasm removed).  The good news is you have no risk of ovarian or uterine cancer. :-|


 * Moving along. I am going to say this to all of your straw men. BBL theory, Intersex conditions, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.  The term is defiend as "males" who have sex with "males" in some literature or "men who have sex with men" in others.  (I think the "males" variant is likely the more correct one based no how the CDC and UNAIDS use the term.)  As usual when one uses the terms male and female unless otherwise specified it refers to those who were born unambiguously anatomically male.  I have so many references to back this up now.  That is the definition.  This RFC has been going on for a long enough time and most of the commenters have came down on my side of this matter.  I have had enough of this merry go round with you.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not accuse me of a COI, just because I disagree with you and I am TS... you yourself are TS, and have as much of a COI as I do in this matter. You cannot/should not use policy of Wikipedia to bludgeon your view onto the article. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Next note: Why does the CDC have a separate page for transgender and men if you're right. I'm sick of this run around too... I'm contacting my contact at the CDC for a definitive answer. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have accused you with a Conflict of interest not because you are a TS but because you have decided to take your personal feelings, with which I empathize and try to put them in WP as if they were facts. As I have had to say to another person on Wikipedia, you and I just have different outlooks on life as TS women.  I feel to offence when someone says I am biologically male. Because to me anatomy is what is separate from gender not sex.  So on some things we will just never agree. (I suppose it could be said that outlook has influenced my response to BBL theory.  But not to this.)


 * The fact that they have two separate webpages can mean many things. If we take the kind of logic you are proposing to another question I could say.  Well the CDC only has one page for both MTF and FTM TS/TG persons.  Therefore it was stupid for us to ever say that FTM and MTF's were different the CDC has us on the same page therefore we must be exactly the same.  :-?  Come on. You can do better than that.


 * Furthermore, your contact's information may or may not be admissible here. For one thing can what they tell you be cited and independently verified by us here?  Is their position official policy of the CDC and does that trump the other varying definitions I found across time, used by different research teams, as well as different organizations?  I don't think the answers to any of those questions will be yes.  Please try to make those answers affirmative.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you have just as much COI as I do... you're taking your personal opinions, seeking sources to justify your position, and ignoring evidence to the contrary... some of which is in your very own documents. As you stated, yes, the CDC only has one page for TG/TS people... this is because we're all in approximately the same risk category... MTF or FTM.  MSM have different risks from TG/TS individuals, and education needs to be targeted to each group specially (generally only in the top most "use condoms!" way), just like women who engage in risky heterosexual sex have specific risks.  Don't worry, I will ensure that whatever I quote from the CDC will be referable, and independently verifiable. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you figure I am searching for sources that back up only my opinion? The following references back me up.      Among them is a study from 1998 and 2000 by the CDC which clearly includes TG/TS women as MSM's, A study done in 2004 which counts African American transgender women as being MSM's. A study which tried to characterize the "men who have sex with transgender women" ... as a separate behavioral group from MSM's and found no real differences.... and so on and so on and so on.  I I accused you of a COI because it seems that no matter what evidence is presented you will not drop your objections. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the references I have based my arguement are were made an issue of again here they are.
 * So are these references not authoritative enough or only your particular source?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument... your UNAIDS1 reference reflects my point of view, yet you're reading into it your own personal bias. I've explained the key words in that document already a number of times. When you're not willing to consider my points alongside your own, you're rejecting my argument out of hand without consideration, when your own source is read to back up my position.  And then? When I quoted the reference directly into the page, you reverted that edit, claiming that it was POV, or something like that.  Please read your own sources and see that they state  that TG is not MSM, but is simply considered alongside MSM. (Not, men on the "downlow" wouldn't be "considered alongside" but rather are MSM.)  --Puellanivis (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument... your UNAIDS1 reference reflects my point of view, yet you're reading into it your own personal bias. I've explained the key words in that document already a number of times. When you're not willing to consider my points alongside your own, you're rejecting my argument out of hand without consideration, when your own source is read to back up my position.  And then? When I quoted the reference directly into the page, you reverted that edit, claiming that it was POV, or something like that.  Please read your own sources and see that they state  that TG is not MSM, but is simply considered alongside MSM. (Not, men on the "downlow" wouldn't be "considered alongside" but rather are MSM.)  --Puellanivis (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing your sources.... "MSM in Africa" does not contain the string "trans" anywhere in the document. I don't know what you expect in that document being used as a reference, except to increase your refcount.  UNAIDS states that "TG is typically considered alongside".  It is fairly equivocal about the whole matter.  The Powerpoint Document gives the most convincing argument with the statement: "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." (A noted lack of source on this in the document is noted here... it amounts to hearsay.)  The MSTGW article speaks against applying labels such as "MSM" and categorizing people.  This would include the MSM label.  That the article specifically refers to these individuals as "MSTGW" and not "MSM" is a good indicator that TG individuals would be non-MSM.  Lastly the HIV-releated Tuberculosis document specifically states that the individuals are male and that: "Some network members dressed as women and participated in dance and fashion competitions known as "balls." These social networks include "houses" (i.e., a guild providing a social framework for young MSM and transgender persons) that exist in many large U.S. cities (house leader, personal communication, 2000). All four also were commercial sex workers."  This is clear information pointing to that these individuals were drag queens.
 * My conclusion... I have to admit, I've been viewing TG too narrowly, and excluding individuals that are TG, yet also MSM. However, that doesn't mean that TS individuals are MSM... it's hard to argue that a drag queen isn't MSM, while it is hard to argue that a post-operative MTF living a life in stealth is an MSM.  Please feel free to alter the document to reflect this information. --Puellanivis (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This source provides some further enlightening information:
 * "Three hundred thirty-two MTF transgender persons (112 African American, 110 Latina, and 110 API) completed the survey. ... The 3 most common self-identified genders were female (36%), preoperative transgender (31%), and preoperative transsexual (21%). Few had undergone sexual reassignment surgery; among them, 73% identified as female and 24% as postoperative transsexual. A majority identified as heterosexual."
 * This points out an interesting thing. The large majority of the transgender individuals in the survey were pre-operative.  Since the only receptive intercourse available to them is oral, or anal, they are more likely to engage in URAS.  Honestly, I like the idea of "URAS", it should be: "People engaging in URAS" as the risk category... and we could avoid this whole "who's male who's female" idiocy. --Puellanivis (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Puellanivis, the ppt doc does give a source (very poorly, but it's there, in the bottom right-hand corner of the slide), which is |this. Having said that, the gender.org pdf doesn't list a source, so it may be a case of information laundering. It would be better to check the CDC website itself. Darimoma (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First thing's first. This will answer both Darimoma and Puellanivis.  Darimoma says we should consult the CDC's website.  The study which refers to Transgendered MTF's as MSM's is from the CDC's website and as I understand it is a online version of a physical publication.  By all usual WP standards that's an official source.  The CDC's website having separate pages is as I pointed out not really evidence.  (For exmple it only has one page for FTM and MTF which if who the CDC has pages for was some kind of a definition of what gender identity a person has would not make any sense at all.)  Now as for how broad the application of the word TG is in that study.  I will point out that various wikipedia policies WP:OR WP:NPOV prevent us from straying from the letter of the source.  That source does not specify just how each of these people is TG.  You know like just how much of their lives do they live as women?  It just says TG.  Leaving aside that wikilegalistic point and I think MUCH more important is the following.  Most people in the house-ball community who would be called TG are more along the lines of non-op, pre-op, and even post-op transsexuals than they are of true "Drag Queens".  They have their own lingo and their own lexicon and will refer to themselves in the context of the ball culture as being "Femme Queens"...this is becuse they have to be able to distinguish themselves from the Butch Queens (who live as males yet act femm and might appear in drag from time to time.)  I can point out many many cases to back this up.  I mean you have at least seen "Paris is Burning" right? Anji and Venus Xtravaganza are iconic examples.  More currently consider these MTF TG's who are in houses,http://www.infinitipower.com/ballerina/Prodigy.html, or these just looking at the MTF's now http://www.infinitipower.com/ballerina/Xtravaganza.html,or these http://www.infinitipower.com/ballerina/Ebony.html....  Some of these people are post op, some aren't, some say they will never have the op.  All of them live as feamales. 24*7 365. But as it has been said we cannot rely on that.  The letter of the source does give us something "The transgender social network includes biologic male house members who appear as women and members who neither cross-dress nor are transgender." While it does not specify just what it means by "appear as women".  Do they mean just at the balls or all the time.  Considering the biological perspective used throught the article it does not seem to matter.  Therefore, at least that team, considered ALL MTF TG's to be "male" and if they had sex with men to be MSM's.
 * For the record I also like the idea of a term like the one you proposed Puella. It would be nice if the various researchers who defined the term MSM would have chosen a gender and sex neutral term.  I mean I don't think a bio-females anus or mouth are any less vulnerable than a males.  If the mode of sex act is all there is to it (I think there is more to it though numerous studies have shown that bio males and bio females have different sexual behavior).  However things being what they are we on WP don't make up new research terms or anything like that or use it to right the wrongs of the world WP:Soap.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consult the article Ball culture, which states "drag queen, or transgendered". WP:OR does not cover synthesis by bringing two facts together. As well, the term "Femme queen" does not have an article, so the term is currently of dubious usage as it's a neologism, (which WP policy suggests to avoid using).  You state a source: "TGMSMNET", however neither this page, nor the mainpage refer to such a reference.  From the way you talked about it, I linked it to the "MSTSW" reference.  In the future, if you could, could you please site resources on this page by using this form? http://example.com That way it shows up like this http://www.example.com, and one can simply click on the resource, rather than search through the article for the reference itself.  Your data is backed up there as well.  However, we still have issue... how would the CDC consider a post-op MTF living in stealth as anything else but a "female"... the MTF would obviously not admit to being a transsexual, and in fact engages in no activity any more risky than a "biological" female.  (I wait for further evidence that TG/TS is caused by biological factors, and thus the term "biological male/female" becomes complicated in even research... no one would ever state that a woman with CAIS is "biologically" a male...)  As well, I understand the point of not using WP as a soap box... however in talk pages, I'm still free to assert the better application and appropriate nature of the term "people having URAP"... --Puellanivis (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting the indenting) Puella :sigh: where to begin? The word "Femme Queen" is not a neologism. It is a word that has been used for a long time in the house-ball community. Did you look at those webpages I linked to in my previous reply? It's written all over those pages. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:unofficial&hs=fxW&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Femme+Queen&spell=1 Or look at what results from googleing the term. It's not new at all.] The fact that the word Femme queen is not in WP is only because the kind of people who would have any direct involvement with the Balls and the kind of people who would spend thier free time on WP are generally (with many exceptions I am sure) NOT the same people. Perhaps I should correct that.

I understand where you are comming from on the stupidness of the CDC not choosing a gender and sex neutral term. Placing people from male rape victims to post op transsexuals to gay men in one group. Only when reducing everything to biology and anatomy that we can see and touch does this category make any sense. But what can I say it is what it is.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looked up the google again... *oof* I don't know how I missed that there were 9.x some million hits.... yeah, ok, my bad. I still don't think that "reducing everything to biology and anatomy" is even accurate... anatomy can change... having a "prostate gland" is not particularly that definite that someone is a male either... recall that the females have an analog the skeen gland.  As you mentioned before, transwomen can possibly get prostate cancer, but then women can get skeen gland cancer... from what I see after about 12 years, the likelihood is just about the same possibility.  There is one report of a transwoman getting prostate cancer 40 some years after castration, however, before her, the longest period after castration for development of prostate cancer was 12 years.  In fact, non-transgender men are probably more likely to get breast cancer than a transwoman getting prostate cancer.  Genetics? CAIS women have XY, but in no way should ever be classified as MSM... and even then, they have a genetic variation that prevents their virilization... genetically, they are definitively female.  hormone levels? We know that isn't good enough (well, typically... for the Olympics it's good enough, because it determines how much androgens are available for building muscle mass... the very reason that men have an advantage over women physically).  Everything about "biological" sex are demonstrated to be mutable and alterable by either intersex or transgender/transsexuals.  That's basically why I object to the term "biologically male/female"  --Puellanivis (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I made with the cancers is that only males may get prostate cancer (while males and females have breast matter which is structurally the same females just have more). As for females having a organ analogous to that of the male prostate sure they do.  The glans of the penis is also analogous to the clitoris, the scrotum is analogous to the labia etc.  Looking at this that way SRS is merely an unessary luxury because there would be no difference between male and female genitalia!  :-?  Clearly their are differences and those differences are what make for two biological sexes.  Anatomical sexs which are distinct from a persons gender (which is something phychological or nureological or a bit of both).--Hfarmer (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that the only reason that women can't get prostate cancer, is because the Skeen's gland is not considered a prostate. Again, my statement still stands that the likelihood of a transwoman post-op getting prostate cancer after about 12 years is pretty much equivalent to a natal woman getting cancer in the Skeen's gland.  Both are driven by androgens, which significantly diminish, and cause the prostate to shrink, and then become almost vestigial, except for carrying the sexual stimulation nerves... which is where they are with a woman's Skeen's gland anyways.  As well, by transitioning early enough in one's age, the prostate will be almost negligible risk at the time period when prostate examines are at their most important.  And if a transwoman does get prostate cancer, due to the lack of androgens, the tumors won't grow very quickly at all (being that they're directed to grow by androgens) and since prostate cancer in the later stages of life become a "well, we could do an expensive surgery and take it out, or you could just live with it, and likely die of other causes before it becomes an issue", they'd be even more likely to hear "zomg, you have cancer... it will kill you in 50 years... you'll probably die of something else first."   --Puellanivis (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the best counter to all of that consider persistent mullerian duct syndrome.  People with that condition are anatomically male yet they have a uterus.  IS A MALE WITH THAT CONDITION WHO HAS SEX WITH MEN A MSM?  (I say yes regardless of their self ID. They are male and they have sex with other males.  Such a person would likley be pissed if I said otherwise.)--Hfarmer (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are arguing against your own point here. If a man can get uterine cancer, then he's a woman, right?  Your position on a post-op TS being biologically male is that they still have a prostate.  You're now arguing for my side, that there are essentially arbitrary criteria that we use to segregate women from men, and that a woman with a prostate, is no different than a man with a uterus... both are still biologically female or male respectively. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the word you two are both looking for is "inconclusive"? Hyacinth (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I describe that well by mentioning that different organizations and research teams have defined the term differently. Sometimes explicitly including TG/TS women and sometimes not. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)