Transgenders irked over tests

[Shana A]

Transgenders irked over tests

BY Narissa Noor | Dec 4th, 2009 | Posted in Borneo Bulletin, FIFTH STORY

http://news.brunei.fm/2009/12/04/transgenders-irked-over-tests/

TRANSGENDERS in Brunei are crying foul as reports of law enforcement agencies conducting HIV/AIDS tests targeting the transgenders have begun to circulate among themselves.

Last Tuesday, seven "cross dressers" were detained by the Royal Brunei Police Force in a two-hour operation codenamed "Operasi Pondan" and were reportedly subject to an HIV test.

On the heels of World AIDS Day, the transgenders are outraged at what they say is "unfair" marginalisation and discrimination of their kin.

[Britney_413]

Not only is this disturbing for Brunei but the U.S. as well as some other countries are not far away from these tactics. I have been sickened for years at the way big healthcare (i.e. the pharmaceutical companies) have consistently targeted the GLBT communities here. You can't go into any GLBT venue or event without constantly being told about HIV testing, HIV medications, HIV this, and HIV that. Not to mention if someone actually stops listening to the brainwashing and actually reads the deep science behind the HIV/AIDS theory, they will find that despite millions of people getting sick and dying worldwide, a lot of the science behind treating and preventing it is still a theory and full of holes at that.

There are occasional articles in the U.S. regarding health "experts" recommending mandatory HIV testing in the U.S. at least among "risk groups" which of course mean us. This is certainly something to always keep eyebrows raised about. I don't care how much "authorities" claim to try to "help us," if money or control are factors in the equation then you have to be skeptical who really is their first priority.

[tekla]

Is not by any theory/science or statistics the GLBT community at higher risk for HIV/AIDS?
Yes.  They are.

Did not a widespread education and prevention campaign, funded and carried out, not by the drug companies, but by the community itself (because in the early days there was no government help at all, matter of fact the exact opposite, read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts for the history of the early days of the epidemic in San Francisco) dramitacally lower AIDS rates in the LGBT target population?  Matter of fact, the AIDS/HIV education and prevention campaigns did have a significant effect at changing the risk factor in the gay community from the highest to one of the lowest in the 'at risk' category, so, in essence your arguing against saving lives.   

[Just Kate]

Thank you Tekla, you beat me to the punch.  I still remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when it seemed everyday you'd hear of GBL dying off from AIDS.  Back then it seemed rare and uncommon for a straight person to get it in the western countries.  In the late 90s when I transitioned, most of the AIDS prevention drives were sponsored by the gay community, and even if not sponsored, were largely staffed by the gay community.  None of the people who lived through those difficult times want to see a repeat of that period in their history and have done a great job leaving a legacy of prevention.

[Britney_413]

I'm not going to argue HIV/AIDS itself because that is off-topic but I am arguing about the way the prevention targeting is done. In the 1980s where the bulk of infections were among gay men then I could understand the reason behind focusing on those groups. In 2009, things are different. The ratios are just not nearly as extreme anymore. No reasonable person wants anyone to go through sickness, suffering, and death but at the same time nobody likes to be stereotyped in that group either. It is very rare for me to ever hear any talk about HIV/AIDS among heterosexual circles and even rarer to hear about heterosexuals getting HIV tested and the expections are often when applying for life insurance or during pregnancy. I also don't see condoms sitting around in baskets at straight bars and they are virtually never discussed. At GLBT-friendly establishments the story is different. It is hard to even go to a club once without seeing some flyer, some announcement, or some mention of HIV/AIDS. That is going beyond simply "informing" to outright brainwashing.

People need to be careful. They need to wear seatbelts when driving, be choosy about sex, and be aware of their surroundings when out at night. Most of us agree on these things. I don't believe that people need to be reminded of these things day in and day out, though.

[Just Kate]

The average gay male has far more sex partners than the average heterosexual male.  Some estimates have put the number up to 3 times as high.  I understand that anal sex is also more likely to transmit the AIDS virus than vaginal sex.  Factor either one of those things (much less both) and you have a much higher risk group.  That group was burned once by AIDS; they don't intend to let it happen again. 

It is great that you can think for yourself enough to not need the added reinforcement of free condoms at your local gay bar, but not everyone is so blessed and those are the people more at risk of contracting and spreading it anyhow.

I think you are worked up about something that ultimately does a whole lot more good than harm.  I'd redirect those energies elsewhere.

BUT to your point, I really wish there were even MORE awareness at the straight bars, but since the AIDS prevention programs at the gay bars are largely gay driven, it would make sense that the straight prevention peeps would need to step up their prevention programs at their own bars.

[tekla]

It is very rare for me to ever hear any talk about HIV/AIDS among heterosexual circles and even rarer to hear about heterosexuals getting HIV tested

Which - oddly enough - is one of the reasons that the rate of HIV/AIDS in the straight community is now higher then the gay community despite the lower risk factors.

[Britney_413]

Obviously there needs to be balance and reason here. There are so many different risks in life whether it is driving, drugs, sex, being out at night, stress, or a number of other things. It is therefore important that information be made available to people who wish to live as healthy and risk-free lifestyle as possible. The difference comes down to solicited vs. unsolicited advice. Solicited advice is advice that you ask for. That means that if a gay or straight person would like information about HIV/AIDS then they can go online and google it, go to a library or book store and read about it, or pick up information from their primary physician. Unsolicited advice is when you are told you need to do or not do something when you never asked for their opinion in the first place. An example is if you are kissing someone at a bar and someone throws a condom down in front of you. Most reasonable people would consider that extremely rude and an invasion of privacy.

I value life but I value freedom and choice more. The information is out there for people who want it. For people who don't care or don't want, sorry to say but it is their problem. It may sound cruel but I don't believe in forced safety. This is 2009 not 1809. In 1809 it was hard to find much information on anything outside of what your local town or city knew. Your best bet would be seeking out books on something but even finding the right ones could pose a challenge. This is 2009 where just about anyone anywhere in the world can get to a computer and type their query in a search engine. There really isn't a need to "widely distribute" information to people when it is already widely available. Safer sex programs are already included in schools and many workplaces also have employee assistance programs to help them with their issues including healthy lifestyles.

Unless a bar is actually doing a fundraiser for HIV/AIDS, I really don't think the topic should even be in a bar. Again, people who want healthcare can go to a doctor to find it or search using some of the methods mentioned above. People go to a bar to have a good time. They want to socialize, drink alcohol, and potentially have a one-night stand. They already know what they are doing and they already know the risks they are taking. Attempts to stop them from doing what they already intended are basically "save your soul" attempts.

So again, I'm not against saving lives but I am against forced safety. If a person is not concerned about their life that is sad but that is their choice as a free man or woman. I see many of these aggressive "life-saving" attempts as a mask of socialism. In a socialistic (marxist) society, all of your needs and wants are decided for you. In a capitalistic society, needs and wants are left to the individual to decide (known as the pursuit of happiness). The OP is an example of autocractic techniques where people are rounded up and HIV tested whether they consent or not. That is in essence "forced safety." I would rather have a country where people make stupid choices and die and others make smart choices and live with the information made freely available than a society where everyone is forced to do things in the guise "of their own good" whether they like it or not.

I don't think we are disagreeing in terms of supporting a healthy society but that this is more of a disagreement in terms of methods and politics. Isn't freedom great, though?

Britney

[Just Kate]

In the 80s when many gay people were dying of HIV, they too had access to information about HIV, they just weren't using it.  Do you advocate returning to a time like that even if it means the kinds of losses that demographic took again?

As for "forced safety" I don't see anyone taking me to court for not using a condom, or putting a gun to my head.  I'm sorry that others' attempts to save people annoy you, but you and humanity would be better served if you ignore them.  You can always exercise your freedom and choice and not attend places that force their ideas on you if it really bothers you, but this is not a bad thing.

[LordKAT]

forced safety, like seatbelt laws?, helmet laws, smoking bans, caar door direction, speed limits, etc. we will always have laws supposedly protecting us from ourselves including laws on what drugs or med treatments we may receive.  breath alyzer is required if an officer requests it and you want to keep your license. I can think of tons more.  so I take a test and it says I'm good. yay. if it says i'm not, I can choose to not pass on the disease.  why argue the point.

[Britney_413]

There is a difference between laws that protect others and laws that protect yourself. Speed limits and DUI tests that LordKat mentioned have to do with protecting others. Seatbelts and helmet laws are an example of forced safety and I disagree with them. A happy medium would be giving adults the right to choose not to wear a seatbelt or helmet but if they choose to not wear those safety mechanisms they waive their rights to collect damages if they are injured.

It sounds like you actually support the OP's news story that it is perfectly fine for the government to force HIV testing on transsexuals and others. Ben Franklin stated roughly that "Anyone willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither" and I have to agree. Sex is a consensual activity. If one partner is concerned about their health they reserve the right to require condoms or other devices be used or to not have sex or choose what type of sex they have. If they consent to sex knowing the risks and get a disease I don't think that anyone else should be held liable. Since the HIV+ person did not force sex (rape) and while I would consider it abominable for the HIV+ person not to disclose, it is still called personal responsibility.

Forced testing is a slippery slope leading to forced treatment and even quarantine. Since again sex is a consensual activity done behind closed doors and arranged between two adults, we don't need need the government coming in and moderating adult decisions. The slippery slope can go on and on. If the government can't trust people having sex, they can conclude that they can't trust them with any other decision such as personal finances, raising children, and a host of other behaviors that adults get to decide for themselves.

If you want safety and security, there is a solution: commit a crime and go to prison where you have three square meals provided daily and a roof over your head and 24 hour security. If you want freedom then you grow up, take responsibility for your choices, and stop asking the government to customize your life for you.

[tekla]

Because of the way that a lot of disease spreads there is a very large public component to issues of general health, and most of the 'epidemic' diseases have been eradicated by a vigorous application of public health principals, principals oddly enough developed in the US to deal with Cholera.  And they do work, when's the last time you worried about getting Cholera?  Smallpox?  See, it works don't it?  So its a not a question of public health working or not, its only an issue of the best means of doing so.  Given that forced testing is a possibility, then isn't an education campaign designed to lower the rate of infection a good way to make sure that the mass testing does not ever need to occur.

P.S. I'm sure Ben Franklin would have been a huge supporter of Public Health.  He did invent the matching-grant concept and put together public (government) monies and private funds to build the first public hospital in the US using taxpayer monies to provide health care for those that could not afford it, what a Commie he was.  Unless you're quoting some other Ben Franklin.