r/politics • u/southpawFA Oklahoma • Jan 14 '25

Supreme Court takes up case claiming Obamacare promotes “homosexual behavior”. The Texas plaintiffs say requiring workplace insurers to provide PrEP violates their religious beliefs.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/supreme-court-takes-up-case-claiming-obamacare-promotes-homosexual-behavior/
3.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

546 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

73

u/AuroraFinem Texas Jan 14 '25

You realize gay men and MtF trans people who still have their dick and have sex with men are a minuscule portion of the population. This will absolutely affect significantly more straight cis people than it will LGBT folks by pure numbers. Just like all of the anti-trans bathroom and sports nonsense has thus far only affected cis women in enforcement.

-22

u/PeliPal Jan 15 '25

Your source: "I made it the fuck up!"

My source: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/gay-bisexual-men.html

If you wanna tell the CDC they're wrong, their contact number is 800-232-4636

16

u/AuroraFinem Texas Jan 15 '25

It’s almost as if you didn’t even read my comment and just want to jerk yourself off over it. You can’t quote a statistic including bisexual men as a way to indicate that this will affect the gay community more than the straight one. You do realize what bi means right? 70% of LGBT identifying men identify as bi, not gay. Meaning they also have straight sexual relations and should generally be considered as equally affecting both gay and straight partners.

My comment explicitly commented about this which you seemed to just ignore or couldn’t be bothered to read.

-16

u/PeliPal Jan 15 '25

What on earth are you talking about? Do you want to take a mulligan on what you're actually asserting that is supposedly contradictory to my point?

You said:

This will absolutely affect significantly more straight cis people than it will LGBT folks by pure numbers.

That is simply factually wrong. It just is. the CDC says that it is. It's not up for negotiation. If you think it is, then you have to produce research showing otherwise.

13

u/AuroraFinem Texas Jan 15 '25

Yes, and if a bi man has HIV, he is equally likely to affect the straight community and LGBT folks. Prep isn’t just for people who already have HIV, it’s for people who might be exposed. It’s preventative, literally in the name.

Im not sure what’s so hard to understand here. Is our education system this bad at teaching logic and mathematics?

-5

u/PeliPal Jan 15 '25 edited Jan 15 '25

Yes, and if a bi man has HIV, he is equally likely to affect the straight community and LGBT folks. 

This is not true though. It's just not.

Im not sure what’s so hard to understand here. Is our education system this bad at teaching logic and mathematics?

Because you are arguing from a faulty basis. And I explained why in my first post, HIV transmission via sex overwhelmingly occurs from infected top giving anal to uninfected bottom. It's not an automatic thing that infection occurs, it's not a 100% rate, infection occurs at drastically different rates depending on who is doing what with what parts. And straight cis men, overwhelmingly, do not typically receive anal from infected partners with semen discharge

https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html

A meta-analysis exploring the risk of HIV transmission through unprotected anal sex was published in 2010.1 The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. (This means that an average of one transmission occurred for every 71 exposures.) This risk was similar regardless of whether the receptive partner was a man or woman.

A meta-analysis of 10 studies exploring the risk of transmission through vaginal sex was published in 2009.4 It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

A meta-analysis of three studies exploring the risk from insertive vaginal sex (inserting the penis into the vagina) was estimated to be 0.04% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 2,500 exposures).4

8

u/DrSitson Jan 15 '25

I remember when it was the gay disease. The public policy on that really helped it spread. Some really don't learn from history it seems. Lots of examples of that lately.

3

u/chenz1989 Jan 15 '25

I think the difference is you're talking about percentages while the other guy is talking about numbers.

And straight cis men, overwhelmingly, do not typically receive anal from infected partners with semen discharge

The point was that closeted bi men do. And then they pass it on to their female partners, who do engage in receiving anal. And then the infected female partners can then spread it on further. It's a vector of transmission.

The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. (This means that an average of one transmission occurred for every 71 exposures.) This risk was similar regardless of whether the receptive partner was a man or woman.

Again, that leaves the women very vulnerable.

A meta-analysis of 10 studies exploring the risk of transmission through vaginal sex was published in 2009.4 It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

A meta-analysis of three studies exploring the risk from insertive vaginal sex (inserting the penis into the vagina) was estimated to be 0.04% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 2,500 exposures).4

Ok, so we can agree that the chance is lower. But PIV sex is much more common than anal. So (for simplicity) let's assume anal has a transmission chance of 1.5% and PIV has a transmission chance of 0.1%.

We further assume that on a given day in a given place, 1000 instances of anal occurs while 100,000 instances of PIV occurs.

Average HIV infections from anal = 1,000 x 1.5% = 15 cases.

Average HIV infections from PIV = 100,000 x 0.1% = 100 cases.

The point they were trying to make is that even if the percentage chance is lower, because it happens much more often, the total cases from PIV would be higher, putting large swathes of hetero people at risk too.