Oxford City Council trans rights plan approved amid 'intimidation'

As regards STIs/HIV and given men can contract them from women you could also quote these the other way round.

No, because women require access to medical care to prevent pregnancy.

While not intending to minimise the impact of an HIV diagnosis, just to clarify from a factual basis ... there wasn't any treatment available in the 80s so was a shit time for those diagnosed. Treatment started late meant that many develop long lasting health conditions like COPD, and then the treatment initially concocted wasn't well tolerated and left many with further health conditions like neuropathy and diabetes. The first proper treatment was in 1996 and developed over the years has become well tolerated with few if any side effects.

Dr Morris covers this in their article and how things have changed over the years. People diagnosed with HIV today live pretty much the same life as they did before other than daily meds, or injections every 2 months and regular check ups and can't pass it on to any partners.

Also, because of our sex specific anatomy, women are more at risk than men from most (not all) STIs, including HIV.

So there is an unequal burden of precautions and consequences.

ETA - just seen your other post, thanks for the info. Isn't the case that it cannot be passed on ONLY if someone is successfully participating in treatment, once they get to a certain state of undetectable viral load? There are caveats. Its not quite correct to blanket state that it can't be passed on, full stop?

LOL

So making someone a lifelong patient dependent on drugs and medical interventions at regular intervals is ok to inflict on them? If they're lucky and everything goes well? Who's up for that as their permanent future because a partner wanted to go without a condom for a fun sexual experience that lasted minutes and has no consequence at all for them, but knew what it would inflict on them, and didn't seek their consent first?

This is sounding rather like the argument that making a healthy child into a lifelong medical patient reliant on treatment for the side effects is nothing to see here.

Its increasingly bizarre.

I feel you have made a few assumptions about me and wonder at your knowledge of HIV generally.
I'm unsure what limitations and health issues I suffer from? I'm actually pretty healthy with good lifestyle measure - probably more so than my friends who have other issues going on like high BP.
Dr Morris mentions how things have changed over the years. I was diagnosed 9 years ago, take 1 small pill a day and have x2 yearly MOTs.
Having a condom-free life - not sure I'd do that personally unless in a monogamous relationship with both tested for everything. Although I can't pass HIV on I might well contract something else from them.
Having taken part in a study comparing stigma due to Covid and HIV I'm unsure what I've helped to bring about and what I'm being blamed for?
I don't know if you're aware that when taking part in research we get the opportunity to share our views? Now as far as HIV decriminalisation goes I have taken part in research facilitated by NAT - the findings were shared on their website I believe. What was interesting to find is that few people have good understanding on what the law is regarding HIV and that it is nuanced.

I think you are talking more about mutual consent - agreement on both side whether to use a condom. I have never stated that it's not ok if a woman wants to use a condom and then the man doesn't or removes it.

Is there a list of diseases that might meet the standard for GBH?

If not, doesn't it depend on the circumstances of the case?

Apologies - I usually say when on effective treatment with an undetectable viral load it can't be passed on to any partners. In practice people are advised to continue to use protection (condoms or TasP) for a further 6 months. Meds are amazingly effective for the vast majority - I was UD within the first month.

Stats-wise (provisional for 2024) - in the UK 99% of people diagnosed with HIV are on treatment of whom 98% have suppressed viral loads. Late stage diagnosis continue to be a challenge as does people not in care.

If you want to read up on it here you go https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection

So "Each case must be assessed on its own facts and merits."

My understanding of HIV/AIDS may come primarily from the news, but I do know that there is no cure for it, so the virus remains a significant public health threat.
Much like bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, viruses constantly evolve, creating a very real risk that HIV could become resistant to current treatments. The medical regimens required to suppress viral loads and prevent transmission are exceptionally strict; a single missed dose can cause viral rebound, making an individual infectious once again.
Advocating for the relaxation of legal protections and public health protocols solely to alleviate social stigma is irresponsible and a danger to public health.

From the CPS

"Should there be an issue as to whether the STI in question meets the criteria for “grievous bodily harm” the case of Golding provides guidance on the correct approach to this question.

“The phrase ‘grievous bodily harm’ means really serious bodily harm, but it is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. See R v Ashman [1858] 1 FF 88. It is not a precondition that the victim should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences. In assessing whether the particular harm was grievous, account has to be taken of the effect on and the circumstances of the particular victim. See R v Bollom [2004] 2 Cr App R 6 at paragraph 53. Ultimately, the assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards.”

Yes, there is no cure as of yet and there is a lot of work by government and other organisations to try to reach zero new infections by 2030 (thanks to Trump unlike to happen).
The news can sometimes be shamefully incorrect depending on where you read and what click bait heading they use. Usually THT or NAT step in to get it changed or to clarify.
If medication is taken as directed the virus stays suppressed and resistance can't emerge. When first diagnosed we are tested to check for any resistance to any of the meds on offer. This is just the basics - of course can be more nuanced like those diagnosed for a long time who face more challenges. Thankfully there's a new med - lenacapavir - that should help.
Regarding missing a dose - this is entirely incorrect and in no way true that the virus increase massively to infectious levels (studies showing no risk VL <200 as the benchmark). Meds are much better and flexible than they used to be with longer half lives and build up over time.

I'm not sure where I advocated for the relaxation of legal protections?

Oh Trump's to blame for something else is he.
Resistance can always emerge, it's foolhardy of humans to think they've tamed nature, the treatment pathways are just a way to manage the situation, viruses evolve just like bacteria do, COVID would be a good example of that.
The treatments have only been around for a few decades, it's taken bacteria nearly a century to evolve resistance to antibiotics, HIV is still a danger to public health, if not immediately but it will always be a danger in the long term, until a cure is found, and there's no reason to assume that one will be developed just because we want one.
Dr M is the one who is advocating for a change in law.

Aside from the legalities, isn’t all this a drain on public funds just so that some men can do what the hell they want? However good antiretroviral therapy is, it is all paid for from the NHS budget, as are the prophylactic therapies like PrEP along with the checkups and monitoring. And now Cllr Morris, whose academic work is funded at least in part by the taxpayer, wants to spend Oxford citizens’ Council Tax on creating gender neutral spaces because some misguided men believe they are women.

Thanks for your calm and informative posts, @HIVpos , I know HIV transmission wasn't the original issue of the thread, but I've learnt a lot about it from reading your posts.

Reducing stigma and lack of knowledge around HIV is important.

Reasoning should of course be evidence based and it is a no brainer to consider the changing impact of diseases as treatment evolves.

However, this motion, supported by Morris, is the equivalent of saying nobody knows if they have HIV and we should assume it has no consequences and requires no treatment and that it’s just something that some people’s identity with.

He seems to have less understanding of sex than I do of HIV, and that is not a good thing, given that he has a fair amount of power over council services.

As is helping people to understand sex.

Cuts down on the excess pet Guinea pig population.

Would also make maternity services in Oxford less traumatic. Imagine not knowing whether you might be pregnant or John Hurt in alien?

Ah yes, maternity services in Oxford.
Better NHS care at Oxford hospital might have saved 58 babies, BBC finds

Reducing stigma is a good thing.

Reducing cautious behaviour purely in order to attempt to reduce stigma, not so much.

I agree with you here! (always happy to find some common ground)

I don't think Morris is advocating the reduction of cautious behaviour at all, however. That's not the point of their article. The point of their article is about how the law needs to catch up with scientific/medical advances.

😂

I wonder how the consent of a rational person may change in the light of 'I am entirely open minded and positive about inflicting my disease upon you that will make you dependent upon frequent medication for the rest of your life - at best'?

We're into the realms of sociopathy here.