Oxford City Council trans rights plan approved amid 'intimidation'

And expecting that others will just embrace life long chronic illness as some kind of social duty....

there's a very good reason for stigmatising some things. I'm heavily in favour of stigmatising willingness to inflict HIV on non consenting sexual partners.

In about the same way I'm heavily in favour of stigmatising attempts to force and coerce non consenting women into having to undress and/or submit to intimate touch from men who have chosen gender identities.

There's a pattern here.

This is one of the maddest conversations I have ever followed here, and that is saying something.

So you are talking about intentional transmission by someone (man or woman) not on ART, knows how HIV is transmitted, doesn't tell their partner, doesn't use a condom (if a man, though I guess a woman might use a female condom) and transmits the virus? That would fulfil the criteria for prosecution. Although just a point regards frequent mediation, approval is currently being sought for injections every 6 months.

As oxfordfeminist said, The point of their article is not about this, it's rather about how the law needs to catch up with scientific/medical advances. This includes effective meds, U=U and TasP (treatment as protection - like the pill to prevent pregnancy however far more effective) When I took part in the National AIDS Trust study on the topic of HIV decriminalisation, as previously mentioned the stand out point made was how people have little understanding of the law and how it applies.

The point being made in terms of 'the law not catching up', is that because HIV is now treatable - as you say by making a lifelong patient out of someone if all goes well - intentionally infecting someone should not be a crime.

It's the same argument basically as the one that sex by deception should not be a crime.

I have to say, I don't agree, and I think the law is there to protect people from those with such a distorted sense of care and responsibility for the rights of others. I suppose YMMV.

I guess you're unaware of Trump's actions in massively reducing funding for HIV prevention and treatment in Africa where more than 50% of people diagnosed are women? As an example this is resulting in some women unable to access their meds giving birth to babies with HIV, or women exposed to intimate partner violence from men with untreated HIV unable to access PreP to prevent transmission.

Regarding resistance, maybe do some research on why or how it might happen. I take my meds regularly ie every day although I do miss the odd dose, have had an undetectable viral load for over 9 years now and I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Whilst a cure will take time - and people have actually been cured of HIV if you do a search though for many important reasons this would be impractical for us all - you might not be aware of all the cure research going on.

Regarding HIV being a danger - yes it will be to those unaware of how it's transmitted, don't get tested, think they are not at risk, don't use a condom or take PrEP or aren't aware of PEP (like the morning after pill for pregnancy). A lot of effort is being put into awareness of this by the government and charity organisations, also trying to reduce stigma around the virus itself and how people living with HIV might be treated.

As mentioned previously you might be misreading Dr Morris's article and the points they are trying to make.

Given your responses - lack of acknowledgement, incorrect assumptions made including attempt to shame, HIV and its treatment together with misunderstanding of the above this will be my last response to you.

Thank you - I only chipped in as HIV was mentioned and I have some knowledge of this and the law as well as taking part in one of Dr Morris's studies where we did discuss the law around passing on any infection and where stigma might play a part - it was an interesting chat. People will take from an article what they want to.

Weirdly I'm co-author on a research paper regarding stigma experienced by heterosexuals living with HIV - numbers on the rise, yet reducing between gay men, I think mostly due to increased PrEP awareness.

I think I'll be leaving it there.

Ijwym.

To be clear, I was talking about reducing the stigma of living with HIV being a good thing.

Not reducing any stigma associated with knowingly transmitting it - is she there should definitely be stigma about knowingly infecting others!

Im minded of a TV documentary in the 1990s about a very young couple in the USA- he was 14 and had HIV through infected blood. She was 16 and so far negative. They got married. Her parents said it was 'God's will' if she ended up HIV+ ! I find it difficult to believe she was honestly cognizant of and happy with the risk (which of course at the time was risking a death sentence).

There is something about power, coercion and control in all of this that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

After all, what is the benefit to the sexual recipient (whether male or female) of 'going bareback' 🤢 - not a lot, but they stand to risk an awful lot even if the chance of infection is relatively low.

What is the risk/benefit to the active male HIV+ partner of going without a condom? - no risk and he gets his jollies raincoat free.

So much risk and debate over what is essentially men not caring enough to want to protect their partner by just using a bloody condom! We all did it in the 90s! Its not difficult!

Edit for clarity and to add: most women have had a lifetime of excuses about condoms from men. This is why we are pissed off about anything/ anyone that seems to be discouraging them from taking the responsibility they were expected to take until very recently.

Sounds like they’ve defied the law. It won’t go well for them.

My thoughts precisely. Instead of women taking the hit for men’s social and political failures, educate men on being nice to them when they enter their loos!

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no evidence that transwomen are not welcome in men's toilets.

If there were, given the amount of filming that trans women do in toilets, it would be all over social and main stream media.

Its just another feelz, and trans women get no validation from using men's toilets.

As mentioned previously you might be misreading Dr Morris's article and the points they are trying to make.

Or I might not be the one misreading. Possibly because I have no reason to misinderstand his intentions.

I don't need you to respond, it's a public discussion board, I'm not in personal correspondence with you.

It just all reconfirms my opinion that 'Trans Rights' is basically 'Men Do What They Want and Go Where They Want Rights'.

Which seems to also involve 'give people HIV and not be done for GBH Rights' by the looks of it.

So progressive.

Yep.

But its all waaay more complicated than that, us silly wims just don't understand.

Except nobody can ever give any straight answers.

Agreed. Just to point out, that the motion and decision were by councillors, who are elected officials and can be voted out!

Edited to add: the councillors would have had their reports scrutinised by in-house lawyers, though, who are not elected. It would be interesting to know their side of the story.

The huge amounts of faux intellectual burble, superior air, wangling the fuck out of facts (queer theory gives lovely avenues for this) and snobbery to try to exert social pressure and evade conversation is basically all a huge fig leaf over 'me wanna do it, (while still protecting my ego from having to take responsibility, because without all this gerrymandering and confidencetrickery and social manipulation I'd have to face that I know I'm doing wrong)'.

Veronica Ivy in whatever reincarnation at the time wrote a thesis about it.

So this is another thread about men having the right to do what they want (usually involving their genitals) and women being obliged to smile sweetly and be kind?

Agreed! I suspect they’d be perfectly fine in most cases too.

🤣 Ah but what about the rights of the .14?! And they have friends in Alpha Centauri…

Update: here are the meeting docs, see item No.58.

https://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=8470

Also, my councillor says he doesn't think the working group has yet met.

There's a lot of "to the maximum extent permitted by law" in there. Almost like someone legal has had a word. Cos they're surely treading on shakey ground, aren't they?

I can't look through it tonight, will do tomorrow - just wanted to post the info here for now. I recall the councillor told me before that the issue has previously been identified by its lawyers as high-risk.

Video of the meeting, Cllr Morris's speech starts shortly after the 2hr point, then other councillors speak, lasts about 45 mins. A couple of councillors do actually mention women and complying with the law, but it's mainly about poor trans people and talk of "moral panic" etc.

Respecting the law, women's legal protections and rights is a 'moral panic'.

Yep, done with any further interest in that man, you can't reason with that sort of batshit. And he shouldn't be in a post of public responsibility with that degree of proudly held prejudice.

One of them (can't remember which) said the Supreme Court judgment was a result of this so-called moral panic. It reminded me of that notorious Daily Mail front page calling three High Court judges 'enemies of the people'. Astonishing that this motion passed with so little dissent. I thought it was mostly the Green party councillors but it's nearly all of them.

ETA: of course, there will be some of them too scared to dissent openly. Then again, the vote must be secret so they could have voted against without anyone knowing it was them??

Thanks RogueFemale
It seems the ranty man in the orange shirt, Cllr Alex Powell, is the 'spouse, civil partner or equivalent' of Cllr Morris and is an Associate Professor of Law (!) at the University of Warwick. (Their declaration of interest pages on the council website are mirror images of each others.)

It sounds like a pair of activist Cllr's then, representing their constituents of course, not their own niche self interest in any way.