Lush has fallen

or that they are not in a high risk category

I’m not sure how to explain it better than I have already. The avert link is good compared to others eg from CDC, WHO, NAT etc in that it lays it out clearly, giving different reasons that someone who is transgender might contract HIV.

Of course there will be some overlap (stigma and discrimination figure prominently) but it shouldn’t be assumed that because a transgender person contracts HIV that it is due to being a sex worker. HIV is also caught outside of sex work.

I have never said that transgender people don’t contract HIV via sex work, or that they are in a high risk category.

If all the different reasons could be disentangled, I’m sure they would have been by organisations way more knowledgeable than me, and it is well recognised that there is a paucity of data in this area.

I thought HIVpos said it wasn't about prostitution. Not, necessarily, how that prostitution is enacted.

I suspect Datun may want HIVPos to explain how one would unentangle the other stuff from the prostitution, given that for example feeling unempowered to insist on condom usage is going to result in significantly higher risk if one is in prostitution than if one is not and thus has a much smaller number of sexual contacts.

I think HIVPos is talking about this link Datun - which lists other causes as well as prostitution: www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/key-affected-populations/transgender

Thanks HIVpos

I've had a skim but I can't see the section to which you're referring. I've searched on transwomen, but it also doesn't take me to the bit you're pointing out.

Would you mind just steering me in the general direction, so I can swot up.

Oh, I'm looking at the THT link. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong one?

Datun, the article has 4 sections giving reasons why transgender people are at higher risk of contracting HIV. One section is to do with sex work, and three sections give other reasons why this happens. My point is, it is not solely to do with sex work, and somewhat misleading to infer it is.

HIVpos

You said

As for citing just prostitution as being the reason...ouch... really? No other reasons for it?! Please explain further.

And then said

Great link from Avert, explaining it well, and how it is not just about transgender people choosing to go the route of sex work

So I'm a bit confused. If the high rates for tw aren't to do with prostitution, what else is it?

^HIV rates are rising among middle-aged women in England because of unprotected sex, according to researchers.

A study found the number of women aged between 45 and 56 who needed HIV treatment is five times higher than it was a decade ago.^

This will be referring to the The PRIME study (Positive Transitions Through the Menopause), which is one of the largest studies of HIV and ageing in women globally.

Again, it needs to be read in context. For a start, the study addresses women in this age group seeking treatment, not new infections.

So, numbers are rising...due to what? We know that it might be due to increasing numbers of women coming out of marriage, lack of awareness or knowledge around the risks of contracting HIV. This is a group that is often left out of HIV prevention, education and research.

Here’s another thing..nowadays due the the great effective treatment HIV+ people are expected to live a normal lifespan, so of course they are going to get older and women are going to join the wonderful world of menopause, hence the reason for this study.

It’s not just due to new infections or having unprotected sex - there’s more to it. We’re living longer 😀

FWIW, now you’ve brought this study up, there’s about 8,000 people in the UK living unknowingly with HIV, so if anyone’s starting a new relationship, never been tested, been cheated on etc, please get tested for all STIs!

'choosing to go the route of sex work.'

Another interesting turn of phrase.

Womanhood is a 'right' that women should not try to police.
Sex work is a choice.

Just the little things.

^HIV rates are rising among middle-aged women in England because of unprotected sex, according to researchers.

A study found the number of women aged between 45 and 56 who needed HIV treatment is five times higher than it was a decade ago.^

I didn’t mean overall numbers (as overall numbers have dropped since peak) - but it is rising in some groups (including children) - and countries.

The word "just" is doing rather a lot of heavy lifting in the sentence.

Great link from Avert, explaining it well, and how it is not just about transgender people choosing to go the route of sex work. It is all about the context and reasons why, which include stigma and discrimination. Yes they are disproportionately affected, as are gay black African men

Just FYI, there are people from all over the world posting here, so they may not be referring to just the situation in the UK. My being cagey about my location isn't aimed at you, HIVpos, it's just that Mumsnet is watched constantly by some rather unpleasant people and has been since the Jeffrey days and Fathers for Justice doing their Batman thing, so it's wise not to reveal too many identifying details.

It’s real - it is on the rise again - but it’s grim, scary and horrible 8.04am today

As far as it slipping by this year, as far as I know it didn’t. There was a lot on the news and interviews with various activists. Also Interviews etc of Gareth Thomas and Prince Harry in the run up to WAD during HIV testing week. But then I follow all this.

I didn’t say it was on the rise. I believe that someone else said that it was in some communities.

But have you any idea why it slipped by this year with very little mention? That was my question.

And here's the result of about 30 seconds in Google (the results I'm most familiar with are for my local area, and surely you don't think I'd be stupid enough to share something that "come get me, angry people who want women to shut up! " here).

www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/key-affected-populations/transgender

What misinformation exactly did I give there? Why so keen to dismiss what is will still a hideous disease? 770000 people in one year not serious enough for you?

Nowhere have I insinuated a keenness to dismiss what is a hideous disease - although luckily nowadays a very treatable, if not curable one., so personally I would dispute “hideous disease” Nor have I said it’s not serious - of course it is, especially in many countries outside of the U.K. such as parts of Africa.

The misinformation you gave is that AIDS (or did you mean HIV?) is on the rise again, which as I already stated is untrue, so comes across as scaremongering. I quote a link showing how the numbers are reducing in the UK. There is a massive amount of work being done towards reducing the number of deaths from AIDS related illnesses and new infections. Of course not near enough, no one is denying that. It is important to try to keep detail in context.

humane rights

Having their staff get their bare arses out for promotional purposes doesn't seem very humane to me.

No that’s wearing miniskirts surely? Didn’t you study science at school 🙄

And earthquakes

I thought that caused willies to fall off?

What is the reason then?

It’s obvious; GC womens discussing women’s rights is a well known cause of AIDS.

Or children - that’s the horror story - children and babies raped as a ‘cure’. COAB...

No other reasons for it?! Please explain further

I'm interested in this, because I, too, have read that transwomen have a statistically high AIDS risk.

What is the reason then?