The problem is the American system of democracy as it is currently organized is too geared to protect the interests of the ruling class.
I compellingly agree that ranked choice or proportional representation would alleviate many of the issues we have, but, unlike many epochs of human history, we are literally running out of time.
As long as they aren't getting medical advice from you, I'm good with it.
No, like my initial comment said, number and types of partners are important, as are your partners' partners.
If you actually read my comment, you can see I'm trying to get people to look past the stigma and actually determine what kinds of risks they have and make safer sex decisions accordingly.
PrEP can have some uncomfortable side effects, and not everyone is able to tolerate it. There are very, very few things in healthcare that we can say "everyone" in a certain cohort should do, and PrEP is no exception.
Your response, which characterizes my post as misinformation, is inaccurate, as I have shown, but I do appreciate the chance to talk about sex and try to normalize it as part of the healthcare discussion 😊
I literally posted a link to an article from Stanford that shows what I'm talking about.
I'm not anti gay, I was an STI nurse for a few years. Anal sex for ANYONE carries a higher risk per interaction, regardless of whether you are the receptive or insetive partner.
My point was not to label all people having unprotected sex as needing PrEP, or only gay people as needing PrEP. My point was to look at the types of sex you have, with the number and types of partners you have, and take a realistic look at what kinds of risks for STI transmission any of those have.
For instance, if you have lots of unprotected oral sex with strangers, you aren't going to get HIV. You might get another STI, but HIV is virtually un-transmissable via oral sex. But someone reading the comment might get scared and think they need to take PrEP.
That's not entirely true. Receptive vaginal sex is much less likely to transmit the virus than anal sex (about 17x less). Insertive anal sex is more likely to transmit than vaginal sex, too, so the type of sex you have matters too.
Number of partners, and their sexual habits really matter, too. It's important to help people really understand their STI risk if we want people to make healthier decisions regarding sex.
Women of color actually have really high rates of HIV compared to the rest of the population. Working to de-stigmatize both the infection and prevention treatments is a really important part of reducing overall numbers of HIV.
Descovy, a newer form of PrEP, only had male assigned at birth participants in the study (and the number of non-cis males was very, very low if I'm remembering correctly).
The original formulation has been approved for everyone for a while, but since the new formulation was only tested with a certain population, that's all it's approved for.
I did at the restaurant I worked at when I transitioned, although I switch to initials instead of a female name. Everyone was super cool about it, just went, "ok cool."
Don't be surprised if people mess up, especially people that know you better - it can be harder for people that know you better to make that initial switch. But if your workplace seems cool with it, it probably will be.
Good luck! This is one of the most nerve wracking parts of transitioning, but also the most rewarding. Reach out if you need any help processing when it's over!
It truly embiggens the spirit of the game.
Just want to comment on the "trap is ok/not ok debate."
It's totally cool if you or your partner(s) identity as a trap. As an older trans girl, being a trap was a badge of honor. It meant not only do you pass, but you're fucking hot. Almost like a trap/not trap distinction of attractiveness (which is also horribly misogynistic and demeaning), but it was a qualifier.
So I get it, part of me likes the idea of being called that - in a private, contextual sense. But the problem is the word and the connotation it has in the general zeitgeist, which implies that a trans person (typically a trans woman) "tricks" a man into having sex with her, and then deserves whatever happens to her, regardless of how dehumanizing it may be.
It is the horrible, completely unjustifiable rationale behind the Panic Defense, and that's why it is a term that needs to be buried. Continued use of it is an unconscious signal that trans women are perpetrating some kind of deception just by existing in a man's field of vision (if, of course, she comes close enough to cis white heteronormtive standards of beauty).
Be woke. Don't say trap (except in the bedroom. And then smack my ass a little 😋).
Overall - amazing. I would stress and worry about whether or not people knew, or could somehow tell, or anytime I dressed I was so anxious whether or not someone would find out.
Not having that cloud hanging over me or in the back if my mind is wonderful.
It's not all roses though. My conservative parents and I have a strained relationship at best. My dating life is non-existent, and I've come to terms with being alone. Sometimes I question whether it was worth it, although I inevitably come back to realizing the frequency of my current doubts are a tiny fraction of the anxiety and questions I had before.
If it's safe, go for it. If it's not safe, work to get to a place that is, and go for it. We only have one life.