Talk:Men who have sex with men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Definitions 2 Down low 3 Maybe we should merge this with Bisexual. 4 Other Aspects 5 Rewritten article 6 Transgender/Transsexuals 7 Academic/Clinical Usage 8 WOW 9 MSM as contruct 10 M2M instead of MSM? 11 references 12 Why this article is {{disputed}} 12.1 Reasoning for this category's existence 12.2 Applicability Internationally 13 As suggested 14 Merge? 15 Down-low

[edit] Definitions

The material on identity and relationship with 'homosexuality' is needlessly confusing. Surely what we're talking about here is simply a category of people defined by their behaviour. We needn't wade directly into the mud of 'identity', except perhaps if we want to handle the relationship between identity and behaviour in a separate section. --Nmcmurdo 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with defining these people by their behavior is that you're not simply defining people by behavior, or this would simply be called "people who have sex with men." The moment you attempt to restrict this group to "men", the clarity of the issue as only a behavior goes out the door. Given a limited knowledge of the biological, and social aspects that seperate men from women, it is typically assumed by societies that the definition of "man" is clear, but as you can read below, I have already addressed that issue.

Give me any non-self-identitifying definition of "man", and I can show that it is logically invalid, biologically invalid, or simply bigotted. Thus the "mud" of identity is actually the only real way to define "man" at all. The only reason why someone would advance the assertion that identity has nothing to do with this article, are those that would have this article define "all transsexuals" as MSM, despite the information given below, that there are MTF transsexuals who never have sex with men, and there are FTM transsexuals who are clearly not even adequately addressed by such a definition. --Puellanivis 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I find that to be largely tendentious nonsense. The subject itself is intrinsically behavioural: it describes action. That is logically prior to the question of how a 'man' or any other word within the subject is defined. To be encyclopaedic, we should not leap immediately to one way of defining a man (self-reported identity), and dismiss other legitimate views.

The contention that any other definition but self-identification is logically invalid is absurd and clearly not one that anyone who has studied philosophy would arrive at! I would contend that strict self-identification is tantamount to solipsism, hardly a mainstream philosophical perspective! The unique logical validity of self-defined identity may suppose the possibility of private language, so your claim to logical demonstration would stand in opposition to one of the twentieth century's foremost logicians, namely Ludwig Wittgenstein! (An absoulutist view of self-identification is a form of the 'beetle in the box' argument presented by Wittgenstein. --Nmcmurdo 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the details that we covered in the lower secton? I present to you the case where a transsexual is married to a man, and is in "deep stealth", meaning that she has not told him at all that she was formerly a male, and he would have no idea that she had been (don't scoff, it is a documented real occurance!). There are many who would attempt to classify the man, with whom she is married as a MSM, even though he has no idea that she had ever been a male, and would thoroughly agrue with you that he has ever slept with a man! Thus, the existence of perception is absolutely vital to this definition. As the husband would certainly never account that any such "behavior" as you would define it would qualify to him. The "behavior" as you define it, itself requires the perception of the "man" to be that the person with whom he is having sex is a man.

The original assertion of this article and that you are trying to make is that the quality of "man" is definitive, binary, and absolute. The existence of intersexuality demonstrates that this definition is not definitive, nor binary, nor absolute. You can attempt to assert all of the philisophical jargon that you want, but you cannot deny physical evidence, which is exactly what I am asserting. Study of intersexuality, and human sexual development, human sexual dimorphism all demonstrate that the conception of "male" and "female" is a social, and perceptual construct. I invite you to actually study the evidence over which you are attempting to argue, because even the most philsophically enlightened person can not argue against physical evidence. --Puellanivis 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming far more about my views than I've actually said. I have two related points. First, that the topic in question is not necessarily bound to an adherence to the concept of self-reported identity, and that to do so is unencyclopaedic. Second, that it is absurd to assert the logical invalidity of all other definitions of the word "man" but that based on self-reported identity.

I agree that the example is conceptually difficult. My view is that a range of interally consistent interpretations of that situation are possible, such that the choice betweeen these arguments cannot be made on a strictly logical basis. The arguments must admit of some strictly non-deductive premises (adductive, inductive etc.) It should be clear then that I'm certainly not advocating a "definitive, binary and absolute" definition of "man". And my reference to Wittgenstein is based upon his fundamental recognition that any word is a "social construct"; indeed it is precisely because of this that Wittgenstein argues that nothing that is exclusively self-defined (such as his example of the 'beetle' in the box) can have meaning.

To conclude, whilst there legitimate arguments for doing so, we don't have to "wade into the mud" of self-identity, and basic encylopaedic principles demand that.--Nmcmurdo 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the view of a sexologist, there are at least eight factors, that determine sex. The five biological ones are chromosomes, hormones, gonads, internal sexual and reproductive organs, and external sex organs. The social ones are gender of rearing, gender role, and gender identity. If all of these are in allignment (as they most often are) then there is no question of gender, and in fact, because the most significant number of people have all eight of these factors in allignment, we are prone to believing that that is the only way that things occur.

But, let us take a look at all eight of these features. And remember, that taking a logical stand-point, the existance of a single counter example is sufficient to show that something is not certain. I will not argue that by far these are all relatively accurate indicators. My position is that none of them work for all cases. Chromosomes? There are 46,XY females, and 46,XX males. Chromosomes do not overide hormones, they just give a strong propensity. By far, hormone levels are the most accurate biological indicator, although CAIS shows that hormones are not necessary accurate in defining sexuality. Gonads? CAIS again. Internal sexual organs? CAIS. External sex organs? Intersexuality shows that external sex organs are not always sufficient to indicate gender. As for social ones? Gender of rearing, we already have documented cases of botched circumcisions where the parents decide to feminize the child, although the child rejects this assigned gender, despite being raised ni that gender. Social ones? It's already immediately apparent that social gender cues are not accurately indicative. Gender Identity is the only thing that no one can argue about.

I would honestly like to hear why you feel that you can argue with the presentation of physical evidence? Consulting the article Man, they list sexually dimorphic traits of males. Deeper voice (androgens), taller height (later exposure to estrogen, and not guarenteed), faical hair (androgens), diamond shaped public hair pattern (I've not heard of this described as a sexually dimorphic trait before, it would be attributed to higher androgen levels, as women with CAIS have almost no pubic hair), increased body size overall (androgens, and muscular development), less subcutaneous fat (less estrogen), increase ni overall body hair (this is called androgenic hair, because it's cause by androgens!), male pattern baldness (caused by a recessive genetic condition in the X gene, which is triggered by DHT, an androgen), coarser skin (androgens, I can only guess), darker skin tone (never heard of this, androgens likely), and *gasp* a higher level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, allowing for muscle development.

So, by the encyclopedia entry for males, which God, I would think would be more encyclopedic than this article, since it has more examination, and review, admits that really the only differences are developed from hormone levels, at least externally. The moment you try to begin saying that there is a psychological element to being a male, I can easily counter with the issue that self-identification is the only reliable psychological indicator that you could use.

I continue to assert that any attempt to classify a MTF transsexual, if they truely identify as a female, as an MSM in any way, signals a person's desire to assert a world view upon transsexuals that classifies them as the gender that YOU want to assign to them, regardless of what gender should be assigned to them. --Puellanivis 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting material, but the argument is a non-sequitur. That a group of people (sexologists) choose to define a concept (maleness) according to eight criteria, the validity of seven of which can be questioned, does not verify the unique definitional quality of the remaining eighth criterion. Reductio ad absurdum is very easy: after your objections to the original seven, let's add in my 'beetle in a box' objection to the eighth. Perhaps you would then argue that we have proven that it is strictly impossible to define maleness, QED? No, because once again the argument does not logically follow from its premises.--Nmcmurdo 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, my affirmaton is that you cannot define "maleness" such that you can apply it universally to seperate all males from all females, and I present a definition of maleness which is accepted by the very people who study that which defines that property (sex, and gender), and then show how each of those properties carries with it flaws, such that none of them, even in combination can accurately seperate all males from females, and you tell me that my conclusion does not follow from my premise? Wait wait wait. P_{1 ... 8} = { the seven properties addressed above }; ∀i(∃x(x satisfies P_i and is not considered male)) This all does not imply ∄i(∀x(x satisfies P_i, and is considered male))? Because I'm pretty certain that I can mathematically prove that the two statements are in fact equivalent. Honestly, you're going to find it hard to find me assert anything that isn't really just at heart a tautology.

I will not deny that you present yourself as literate and intelligent, but you're attempting to assert a subjective opinion, and subjective criteria of what defines "male" against that which is presented by those who actually study this particular field, and have better reason to validate their findings of who is a male, and who is a female. You seem to me, to be attempting to assert a philisophical argument that denies physical evidence, but no philosopher could ever truly suceeded in arguing against given physical evidence. Even a cynic, who denies the actual existence of the physical world, must account for why we percieve the physical world that we do.

Your proposition that "self-identity" should not be included in this article requires an alternative. What biological factor can you present that would distinguish a transsexual MTF from all other females, and yet not distinguish them from being a male? I have already shown that no such biological criterion exists, as all given physical, biological distinctions between men and women are not actually affirmative distinctions between males and females. If you attempt to suggest that there are psychological conditions that define males from females, then how can you deny the assertion that self-identity as male or female is absolutely critical in evaluating a psychological condition of an individual? Do you assert that there is some permanent psychological trait that defines men from women, that cannot have misformed during development in order to produce a female personality and identity despite all other criteria? Considering that biologically, conditions exist that if any one of them fail to express themselves sufficiently the biological development of the person is female. What criteria do you propose for this? Or would you seek to introduce some entity inside of us that defines us as male or female, that cannot be changed, cannot be malformed, cannot be in conflict with your subjective opinion of male and female? All this simply to assert your personal subjective opinion that is already contrary to experts of the study of that field? --Puellanivis 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're once again reading far more into my views than I've actually said. My point is not that self-identity should not be discusssed (although I personally think it's flawed), but that we should not regard it as a necessary part of the subject. In other words, there are other valid approaches to the topic, other than that based on self-identity. I disagree with the usefulness of strict self-identity, but I agree it should be covered in an encyclopaedia article; it should be presented alongside the other legitimate approaches to the topic (which at present are not well covered). --Nmcmurdo 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What other legitimate approaches are there to the topic of defining "man"? The IOC (olympic commitee) has already dealt with this problem. They attempted to impose genetic testing on athletes, only to find that they were excluding all the 46,XY females, even though particularly in the case of CAIS females, they were at a disadvantage to the average 46,XX females, because at least the 46,XX females could react to testosterone, and build up more muscle than a woman with CAIS could. They had to relent, and redefine their cut off of what a "man" is. Now, for a transsexual, or woman with male gonads, they require at least surgerical removal of gonads (as most countries do, in order to change one's legal gender, by essentially international concensus, namely, if a MTF wants to have a passport say that they are female, they must be anatomically female), and that their hormone levels be in an equivalent range expected for the average 46,XX female. Thus ensuring that the transsexual would not be naturally producing testosterone, which would grant them an unfair advantage against other women.

Should we base this article off legal gender? Considering that effectively, legal gender is just an official stamp by the government approving your gender transition? I know a particular transsexual who is not changing her birth certificate until she decides she would like to marry a male, as having the legally male gender allows her the ability to marry a female, even though she could at any time request a change of legal gender, and thus no longer be able to marry a female, and only be permitted to marry a male. Obviously, legal gender is just as useless as any other subjective definition of gender, and even more so, because the legal definition of female and male changes from one jurisdiction to another. (Within the state of California, one can legally change their state-defined gender at will, and without hassle. Within the state of Washington, a letter must be provided by a therapist who is currently seeing the transsexual, who vouches for the transsexual that such a change is appropriate for them.)

In truth, no matter what system one chooses for dividing male from female, it will necessarily be subjective as already indicated above, no objective criteria exists to positively seperate male from female with absolute accuracy. (The only remaining criterion which does 100% seperate male from female in the opinion of the person themselves is self-identification, which duh, is literally defined as seperating male from famel based on the opinion of the person themselves.)

If you have a suggestion for an alternative method for dividing male from female, I ask you please to start a new section in the discussion, and list such systems that you feel should be covered in the article, and we can examine them for their validity. In any case, few MTF transsexuals will allow any offensive definition of "male" which would classify them as male to enter this article, I being among them.

It should be noted that any attempt to define a difference between "biological females" and transsexual MTFs will fail, and attempting to declare a similarity between "anatomic males" and transsexual MTFs may fail. Although, such a definition would be logically valid, if you define "anatomic male" as those who have male external genitalia, thus including post-op FTMs and excluding post-op MTFs, but you have to consider that there are transsexuals, who have no choice but to have unsatisfactory external genitalia for the time being, because they are either too young to concent to such surgery, or they have yet to fufill the 1 year RTL requirement stipulated in the Standards of Care. Thus, should one consider an MTF who has yet to have surgery as being an MSM if she absolutely does not permit sexual contact with her masculine genitalia? Should we not count those MTF transsexuals who are intending to get surgery as soon as they are able to, despite the fact that they classify as "anatomically male"? Should we only exclude androphilic transsexuals if they are practicing abstinence, or is mere desire sufficient to include them?

Lay any of those differentiation systems out, and I will show that each one will be so seriously complicated and require so much tedious clarrification that the subjective self-evaluation of the individual is the only thing that makes sense to spend anytime explaining in this article. Not to mention the men (and women) that exist, who are engaged in a sexual relationship with a MTF, who only see a female in that person, and basically ignore the fact that she still has male genitalia. If a man had a girlfriend, and only ever had oral sex, and anal sexual penetration of her, would you declare him a MSM? Because that's essentially the only difference between such a male and their MTF girlfriend. Considering that if they ever broke up, he would not be looking for a man to have in a sexual relationship, nor another MTF, they're simply looking for a female for an intimate relationship. Yes, those men who target MTFs for sex as a form of fetish, are definitely engaging in MSM behavior, because they are targetting the MTFs particularly for the history that they were at one point male, and in fact, many of them lose interest in a MTF once she has had surgery.

So, anyways, if you have another system of differention that you would like to see discussed in this article, present it here in the talk page, and we can discuss that particular system specifically, instead of debating on philisophical terms the generals of a definition behind a man or a woman. Especially as I have already explained above, that there is no objective criterion to seperate male from female, thus no matter how we choose our system, we must choose a subjective judge either universally, or on an individual basis. --Puellanivis 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies with the section 'MSM as a construct'. My suggestions would be, the following order:

• The section should begin with etymology. This would, I hope, clarify or at least organise some of the discussions that follow.
• To what extent is the phrase used as an analytical tool by psychologists, anthropologists etc.? And to what extent is it tag of 'social identity'?
• Reference other wikipedia articles on the defintions of sex, gender and sexual behaviour (which should be the primary repositories of this information).
• Discuss the relationship with other related concepts (such as 'homosexuality')
• Discuss some paradoxical or conceptually testing cases (such as the transexual case).

The article should avoid apparently contradictory statements such as "It is possible for only one member of a sexual encounter [presumably an encounter involving a man having sex with a man] to be having sex with another man." This appears to assert the irreflexivity of the MSM concept - a highly unusual linguistic form, which if meant needs to be explained and qualified.

The article should avoid casual hypothetical examples such as "she most certainly would not" or "[she] may even become quite upset." This is not encylopeadic material.

The article should avoid tendentious statements that presume prior unstated assumptions, such as "There is no homogeneity among the MSM population other than them being males." --Nmcmurdo 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Begin with etymology? The etymology of which word? Because etymology relies on only a single word. As such, and phrase's etymology can easily be broken down into the words involved in the phrase, in a similar manner to saying that "111" is composed of three ones. Personally, I'm one to believe that the term "Men who have Sex with Men" does not need to be examined etymologically, unless you're thinking of a TOTALLY different topic than etymology. I mean, what good would it do to show the etymology of "man" in this article: "Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu" How exactly would this be useful?

I can't argue with showing how the phrase is used as an analytical tool by such people, but I have no idea who actually uses it, but the problem will come about that it could only really be used for a biased purpose. Your later point about "here is no homogeneity among the MSM population other than them being males." is a good example of why it's a useless classification. While you state that it's an unstated prior assumption, perhaps better would be to clarrify it that "people studying MSM have found that there is no consistent defining feature about MSM, except that they are males." This is because many heterosexual males have had a sexual encounter with another man, and never repeated it, or that there are men in prison who rape another man, but since it's all about power, and not sex, they do not see it as threatening their heterosexuality, and once removed from the prison environment, will not have sex with another man. Literally, the classificaton as a MSM can tell no one anything about another person, except that they are a male, and have at one time had sex with another man. Wow, so incredibly useful...</sarcasm>

Consulting Irreflexive_relation, your statement of "This appears to assert the irreflexivity of the MSM concept" No, it's asserting that the binary relation is not reflexive, not that it is irreflexive. I said it's possible that only one person in the sexual encounter could be a man having sex with another man. And the difficulty in this still lies in the deep stealth transsexual female, who is married to someone. Even if you classified all MTFs as transsexuals, he would never know that she was a man, how can he possibly count as a MSM, if he has absolutely no way to tell that she is a transsexual. There are gynecologists who even after a thorough examination cannot tell that a transsexual was not born with a vagina. You cannot account for all cases while demanding reflexivity.

To point out a particular note in the Reflexive Relation page: A common misconception is that a relationship is always either reflexive or irreflexive. Irreflexivity is a stronger condition than failure of reflexivity, so a binary relation may be reflexive, irreflexive, or neither. To which, I am absolutely dumbfounded... I find that your entire argument lacks an signifcant value, and that you attempt to make yourself sound knowlegable by using uncommon words, such as "irreflexive" and "etymology" and you state that the claim that this binary relationship is neither reflexive nor irreflexive as if it should be "contradictory." To which you call it a "highly unusual linguistic form", which it most certainly is not, as it is a perfectly grammatical sentence, and does not use any unusual grammatical features of English, such as topicative phrasing, and by no native-speaker standards would they label it as ungrammatical, or even questionably grammatical. Linguistically, nothing is neither wrong nor unusual about something merely because it is a contradictory statement (this is a lie) or makes no sense (colorless green ideas sleep furiously).

You assert continuously that this article is full of fallacy, or that I make falicious arguments, but you fail to even use terms correctly. Do you think that your biligerent forcefulness would convince me to stop my argument? You use terms that I have a very strong background in, and have immediate reason to doubt your correct usage of these terms. Linguistics and Math are immediately my fields of study and interest.

It is clear to me now why I seem to so entirely misunderstand you constantly, and that is because you are not actually saying what you intend to say, because you're too busy pulling out big words, and obscure references that only hinder the understanding of your argument. And by far, when you do use big terms you are using them incorrectly, thus setting the stage where I am expected to divine the meaning of what you intended to say, because what you actually said is not what you truely intend to say. I must say that I am through with this discussion. I am certain that I will not ever be convinced that your position is correct on merit and value of the argument itself, or upon the logos of the argument, as you consistently intend on asserting against the reality of evidence. Your inability to say accurately what you want to say, and neither to use words correctly as they are actually socially defined, and your attempt to use vague and obscure references and jargon in what I can only imagine is an attempt to baffle me, has not helped your credbility, and I will never be convinced that the merit of your argument needs to be addressed simply because you are convincing. Neither is your constant assertion that transsexuals born as males are unequivicably male, and that self-identification as female is insufficient to declare one's self as female is not winning any votes over here either from an emotional stand-point, pathos. You literally have failed on all three primary points of argument to assert any influence that you are, or ever will be correct.

As this is a wiki, it's time for you to either put up or shut up. (Or continue to whine to the walls, your choice.) When I took issue to this article, it was a horrible logical mess, and bigotted and biased. After polishing it up, so that it would not be offensive anymore, and it actually takes proper account of transsexuals, I supplied that edit to the page. I don't recommend that you apply your edit directly to the page, as it would likely provoke a firestorm of reverts. Instead, you are freely able to post here in the discussion, what you think this article should say, and look like. People will either collaborate with you to make it better, or they will refuse it. If it is deemed better than the existant version, we would supplant it. Asking me or anyone else to do this work for you, is entirely against the spirit of a wiki. It should be obviously clear to you, that I

would be unable to produce a version that you would be happy with, as *duh* the version that I'm happy with is the one that you are specifically taking argument against!

As such, I will not enact your changes, and I highly doubt that I even could... etymology of "men who have sex wth men"? I don't even understand what you're trying to say there, because it does not make any actual sense. It's like asking for the chemical formula for cake. Anyways, since no one else can produce an article fitting your specifications, supply us with an alternative proposal, and we will evaluate it, or improve upon it, or refuse it. That's how a wiki works. Not by having a pointless philosophical argument about "blah blah blah you would argue with a major philosopher." You know what? I'm arrogant enough that I will argue with any major philosopher, Socrates, Plato, who ever. They're all wrong if their arguments deny physical evidence! So, I leave you with this: "I will not write your article for you, please do so yourself." --Puellanivis 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this debate has generated a couple of helpful clarifications to the article, although I wonder if it’s worth the cost in terms of ever-more shrill, one might say desperate, rambling responses such as the one above! Two quick clarifications. It should be perfectly clear that the ‘etymology’ I meant applied to the term as a whole, not the individual words. The correction on the use of ‘irreflexivity’ is right – apologies, it should be non-reflexive - but the further interpretation is not. The phrase in question is either contradictory or using a highly unusual type of language that should be explained (If I said “two ducks were swimming together in a pond, but it is possible that at least one of the ducks was not swimming in a pond with a duck.” – this is either based on very unusual definitions or it is a straight contradiction.)--Nmcmurdo 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There exists no such thing as an etymology of a phrase, unless that phrase has become a lexicalized unit, which "men who have sex with men" certainly has not. Please actually look at a definition for a word before you try and use it in an argument.

The phrase in question is not contradictory and does not use a highly unusualy type of language. Your example is using something where there is a reflexive relationship, and you are attempting to show my analogy that the other statement doesn't make sense. Recall though, that this article is currently defining a man as one who self-identifies as a man. If one person in a sexual encounter self-identifies as a man, and percieves his partner to be a man, then he is having sex with a man. If the other person self-identifies as a woman, then by mere definition she is not a man, and thus cannot be a man having sex with another man. All of these definitions are laid out earlier, and later in the article.

As I said before, you do not seem to understand what you are talking about. If you want your considerations taken, write your suggested replacement to this article, or sections and they can be evaluated on an individual basis. Please don't continue to go on about how I'm making "contradictory statements", which I am clearly not. For your further clarification, I will team up two people from the lists. One who is an MSM, and one who is not an MSM, and hopefully you can work out how they end up in sexual relationships: "Males who engage in sex with MTF transsexuals under the belief that they are males" with "Any woman, including MTF transsexuals, regardless of any other factors." (Nota Bella: for future reference, you should at least attempt to actually read, and understand a person's or article's definitions before you make any proclamations about it, and for heaven's sake, don't just assume your own definition, or else you're commiting Equivocation.) --Puellanivis 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, MSM is either a lexicalised compound, or it does not merit an entry. I would not expect, for example, to see Wikipedia entries on 'boys who kick balls', 'postmen who wear large shoes' or 'ducks who swim together in ponds', unless these phrases begin to act as independently meaningful units. As soon as that happens, it's instructive to explore the origin of the phrase itself. In fact, I'll put my initial objections on the line there. If it can be shown that its usage as a distinct phrase has always carried with it the assumption of self-reported identity, then, whatever objections I or anyone else may have to the underlying thinking, it's not worth exploring other perspectives directly, except perhaps in a 'criticism of...' section. That assumption should be explicitly stated at the outset, however, as it would be far from obvious.--Nmcmurdo 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lexicalized compound exhibits certain grammatical features that fortunately mean that you don't have to be subjective, and it's not "in my view, ___ is a lexicalized compound". For instance, given that "peanut butter and jelly" is a lexicallized compound, if you are talking about two of them, would you talk about "peanut butters and jellies"? Or would you talk about "peanut butter and jellies"? Linguistics indicates that the later case is the one that happens, because PB&J is lexicalized. Now, is the plural of "a man who has sex with men" a) "men who have sex with men" or b) "man who has sex with mens"? If the term MSM were a lexical compound, the later would be the case. The plural of MSM being "men who have sex with men" can only be performed if the component is not a lexicalized compound, as the lexicalization of the compound will prevent you from entering into the compound in order to pluralize any part of it irregularly. Feel free to put the article up for VfD, I certainly won't object. --Puellanivis 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What biological factor of humans can you present that seperates a transsexual female from all other females? I have already shown that no such biological critera exist.

Removed the sentence But in reality this phrase is meaningless, because if you have sex with men, you're gay. from the end of the article. Whoever wrote it is a moron who (A) didn't even read the article, (B) for some reason thinks women who have sex with men are gay, and (C) apparently disbelieves in the existence of bisexuals. --Ketsy 01:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw this article title scroll by on CDVF and was sure it was garbage. Imagine my shock to discover that it was a reasonable and useful article. Congrats! --William Pietri 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Down low

I recall hearing on SVU or something that a number of men who have sex with men but don't regard themselves as gay, especially African-American men on the lowdown do not use condoms because they feel doing so would make them gay. Can anyone confirm the veracity of this claim? If true, it's well worthy of inclusion in the article, especially for the implications of this to the spread of HIV between these inviduals and to their partners Nil Einne 17:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The term is actually "down low". Here's a tSan Francisco Chronicle article that I happened to see about it, and it turns out there are plenty more media articles about it. Go to it! --William Pietri 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe we should merge this with Bisexual.

It seems a bit odd to have a whole article for it.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!

How so? What about gay men, they aren't bisexual yet they are men who have sex with men? Hyacinth 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This page does seem to repeat material that would other wise be in bisexual and gay, though. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By definition, this article is talking about men who aren't bi or gay. It's talking about same-sex male behavior by guys who don't identify themselves as gay or bi, so merging it with those articles would be silly. This is talking about behaviors and the way some people see themselves, ie: not as gay despite same-sex contact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.27.198.172 (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Other Aspects

I think the phenomenon of prison rape should probably be discussed, if it can be done so sensitively and in an encyclopedic manner, since this seems to be a main area where "men who have sex with men" is quite distinct from homosexuality in general.

Some mention should probably be made of the Red Cross's use of this term with regards to who can give blood since this is another example of the activity of man-to-man sex is held as distinct from the homosexual orientation. --Chesaguy 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This articel is not very good at all. There is a huge amount of resources available about MSM. It also ignores Asia where same sex relations are common. A lot of work is needed to improve it. Roger jg 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten article

I have entirely rewritten this article as it was not reflecting the complexity and breadth of the topic. I have kept some of the info from the first article but have removed the long discussion on the low down as it is only one category of MSM and should be discussed in the relevant article. Also it was narrowing the MSM sexual behaviour to one limited category. I will endeavour to add more references and more on this subject.Roger jg 11:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to add a section on MSM and the society where the suggestion about the Red Cross using MSM could be added. However, it should be more about how societies perceive MSM and how MSM "fit" into society. That's were facts about MSM being often married could be mentioned.

Another section about sexual role and its perception in sexual relationship is needed. I could write something but it would be based on my knowledge of the SE Asian example. Though I believe it would be more or less the same everywhere some may perceive it as being to narrow.

A section about MSM and HIV/AIDS would be useful too. If someone wants to help?Roger jg 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender/Transsexuals

Ok I get your point that transsexuals m2f are men in the purely biological sense. Even if that this the definition we adopt for discussing this topic there are still questions about including transgender or transsexuals in this article.

Could you explain why "transsexuals" and "transgendered" people are included as men who have sex with men. Do you realize that many many transsexual and transgendered, biologically male people do not have sex with males. A majority of transsexuals (at least in the USA) would be considered bisexual asexual or heterosexual with respect to their birth sex. Then there are the transgendered and transsexual biological females. What of them? Perhaps you shoudl reword this part.

I will admit that people who fit the description you are looking for exist. They are called various things in various sources. Perhaps you should be more specific. Mentioning the Katoey and the Hijira of south Asia is a good start. You could also mention the "Travesti's" of Brazil... But that would be too nitpicky. Perhaps you could simply cover all of those groups by saying "male to female transsexuals who prefer men." As a matter of fact I will put that in the article and see how it fits. --Hfarmer 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's also cover what it means to be "biologically" or "anatomically" male. Women with Androgen insensitivity syndrome have female external genitalia, but have testicles, and lack Müllerian Ducts (the upper vagina, uterus, etc), there are men who have Müllerian Ducts, there are women who do not have Müllerian Ducts, there are women who don't have either form of gonads, but rather just a small gonadal ridge. This article is entirely almost useless, as it presumes a definition of "male" that does not necessarily exist. Is someone with a 46,XY karyotype automatically male? What about those with 47,XXY, I don't suppose that they really count as males, since they are not genetically male.

Anatomical? What about post-operative MTFs? They are anatomically female now, NOT male. (The law gives them the legal protection to use any female restroom they want to, considering that they now have female genitalia.) If you want to assert that a post-op MTF is still a male because she cannot produce, there are women again, who do not have Müllerian Ducts and have essentially the same anatomy as a post-op MTF, and if such a woman were to get ovarian cancer and have an oopherectomy, then they would have EXACTLY the same anatomy as a post-of MTF.

Biologically? I've already pointed out that "biological male" and "biological female" don't actually exist in any sort of concrete binary system that this article is attempting to assert. Genetic? I've already covered AIS, natal? Ok, so only if you were born and assigned a male identiy are you a MSM. So, if we take an FTM, who then sleeps with a gay man, who has no interest in sleeping with women at all, does that make "her" an MSM, and him not an MSM? What about the male partner of a MTF? He sees her as a female, and in some cases, despite being married to her, may not even know that she was ever at one point a man. Is he suddenly an MSM, because he slept with her? And then to cover the topic raised by HFarmer, what about the MTF who is a lesbian, and never has sex with a man ever. Is this transsexual simply not an MSM?

This whole grouping is logically flawed in so many ways it's useless, and is just an attempt by some person to advance an agenda that somehow any sexual contact between who ever they regard as male with another person who they regard as male (regardless of any information provided to those participants) that they are now labelled as "different", and is just homophobia with a pretty PC bow on it. Or, it's an explanation for others to label themselves or identify themselves as something other than bisexual, or as having homoerotic encounters, as they view some denigrating social stigma upon such terms, thus they must try and seek out some other term which does not have such a stigma upon it�. Then, lump in other people, who may or may not fit any true definition of "man" in with them, so that they can attempt justify the label.

I can't even think of how to clean up this article so that it's not a travesty upon logical, realistic, and non-contradictory categorization. But starting with a definition of what you consider a "man" to be would be a darn good start. Then we can discuss how valuable, or accurate such a definition would be, and seek one that doesn't fly in the face of real evidence. --Puellanivis 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your points. The trouble is they all deal with intersexed individuals. Transsexual/transgender =/= intersexed. AIS and all that are intersex conditions. XXY is a condition that many many transsexuals have. It is not a intersex condition (it is not anatomical in relation to ones external genitalia at birth).

I personally define a biological/anatomical male thusly: A Male is one who was born with a Y chromosome and the external genetalia of a male with no intersex condition present. A M2F transsexual is a male who lives as a female. Transsexuals appear female, act female, and are refered to verbally with female pronouns.

Therefore in a sense a M2F transsexual is a male who has sex with men if she is homosexual/androphillic (choose which word you prefer). Men who have sex with them do not consider themselves gay and in general are not considered gay.

Personally I would stricken any mention of transsexualism from this article but I can see the point of the people who put it here. I personally have come to accept that to some people I will be male no matter what I may do. Cest le vie. --66.92.130.180 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

These sections of the article were bigoted and unsourced nonsense, seemingly based on personal opinion alone. The claims as they were contradict legal definitions in most Western states, legal precedents in numerous countries, and much modern medical and gender theory. If claims are going to be made in this article based solely on the work of Bailey, then this really does need to be placed into context, since the previous version suggested some sort of widespread agreement with his lunacy. Rebecca 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 75% of that emotion. Especially as far as transsexuals are concerned. A transsexual goes as far as technology will allow to become anatomically female. However the broader term "transgender" includes CD's, DQ's, gender queers, and a range of other males who do not self identify as females. As well as transexuals who do. Puellanivis was correct in saying that a working definition of a male for the sake of this article is in order. In other words "yes it does".

I expect in the morning someone of the other maintainers of this article. The one who rewrote it will come back and have reverted the total removal of transsexuals from this article. Like I said as far as I am concerned I could do without it.

Who the heck said anything about Bailey? The idea that transsexuals m2f "once a man always a man" is not his idea, not new, and will probably never go away. :-( That's life,s__t happens. --Hfarmer 10:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the transgendered here, but it should probably mention the specific elements of the transgendered community who identify as men, because it isn't all of them. I still don't see the point of trying to come to a definition of man for this article, since a male as it applies to this article also applies to every other article on Wikipedia. As for the subject of Bailey, I mentioned it because you added a primary link to one of the core elements of his theories. The "once a man, always a man" idea may never go away, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, seeing as no one has provided a reliable source for including them in any discussion of "men who have sex with men". Rebecca 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have with this article's defnition of male is that it is *not* in concensus with what "also applies to ever other article on Wikipedia." Your responses to so much of this stuff shows just as much bigotted hate as I want to see removed against us. Jesus Christ lady. I accept that to some people I will always be always be viewed as a male, I don't have to look hard, because ONE OF THEM IS MY SISTER. As far as "intersexed" there are males who have AIS but only the the point that they are infertile, while they are intersexed, no one would claim that they are not "men", the same with the other end of the spectrum. As for a biological/anatomical male requiring a Y chromosome: Sexual differentiation points out that there are XX males. Biologicial/anatomical/genetic all fall short of defining someone as a male, and I have never seen any sufficiently accurate definition of "male" that would include all natal males and absolutely no FTMs, and the same for women seperating MTFs from natal women. The only definition that has any sort of "accuracy" at it is "natal female" and "natal male", which runs into the problem that you assign people to an unchanging group based on how their genitalia looks when they were born, and this "natal female" means that all MTFs are more passable as female than some subgroup of "natal females" (as FTMs would still be "natal females".)

Logically, and scientifically, there exists no real bases to establish any sort of "male" vs. "female" except when describing actual conception. From a scientific view point, males and females are so similar, that the only true groups that you can make are fertile females, fertile males, and EVERYONE ELSE. If you're not exchanging genetic material to make a baby then "gender" as it applies is entirely a socially created construct, that is wavy, subjective, and often times only used only to futher discrimination. The fact that this article previously failed to provide any sort of consistent view of males other than a subjective "if I say so", is why I demanded a definition of male. The article on pornography doesn't say that it includes all nude art, even though some people would classify even some non-nude art as pornographic! When it comes down to it "pornography" is a subjective definition, as is the term "male" in the previous article. "These people are males, just because I say so/the author says so", that doesn't work. If you're going to dictate to me that some woman is a male, you better have a darn good reason why, and be able to defended it. Not just push your fingers in your ear and shout "nanananana!!! I can't hear you!"

This classification is at least somewhat useful, in that it is a non-self-identifying group of people, because you can ask a guy "are you homosexual or bisexual at all" and he could honestly say "no", even if he has had sex with another man. But it should not, and cannot be consistently used against those who would never identify themselves as males. This is the clarrification I was looking for, not some bland assumption that the authors actually knew what they were talking about, and using the same "male" that all other articles on wikipedia was. To assume that they're talking about the same "males" that we are, is a blatant fallacy, and leads us no where, as we're arguing with different definitions of "male" in the first place! The complete exclusion of "transsexuals" is just as poor a choice as the first position that it includes all transsexuals, because clearly transsexual men who are homosexual would clearly fit in this group! --Puellanivis 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You say transsexual men who are homosexual. The problem is, as was pointed out repeatedly by the BBl controversey is that to most people outside the Transgender/transsexual community that means male to female transsexuals who prefer men. That is the cold reality I have come to accept. Just as you have come to accept that some people will never see you (or me or any other TS) as our target gender I have had to accept that to some I will just be a really really gay guy. I have also come to accept that for some reason the fact that I live as a woman will make that more tolerable to some people. Now that's not my reason for being transsexual. That's nobody's reason for being transsexual. There seems to be no reason (or even emotion) behind bening transsexual. However that is the way the world will see us.  :-(

I do agree with the latest edition as of this writing that lables a man who has sex with a TS and sees them as men as a man having sex with a man. I mean. If a guy is having sex with a post op stealth TS then is he a MSM? If he is then how so? Afterall he thinks he is having sex with a natural born woman.

All of these odd issues are why there should be nomention of transsexualism in this article. It is just a special topic that it derserves it's own articles and has articles aplenty already. --Hfarmer 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why "transsexual man" is ambiguous, is why in the article I avoided using anything but MTF and FTM. I just do not accept that transsexallity should not, and cannot be worked into this article. People who primarily will be editing this article arbitrarily will attempt to include transsexuals to include MTF transsexuals. If it is explicitly defined in the article that you are talking about self-identifying males, and only self-identifying males, then any such edits can be reverted as being against the purpose of the article. If you leave the definition of "men" out of this article and just leave it assumed, then anyone can come along and add to the text "a butch woman who likes men". At this point they need argue that the definition of "self-identified man" is invalid, incorrect, or not useful before they can just label someone a MSM.

I'm wondering why this issue is even murky. Is it that other editors are not understanding the importance of establishing a common basis of definitions, etc before you can have a reasonable argument? Perhaps, we may need editors to review Socrates and Plato, and fundamental rules of philosophy in order to understand how arguments are best to be handled? I've had discussions with one particlar person, where he fundamentally refused to recognize the existence of "true" and "false", and allowed for the existence of "contradiction", and you would be entirely surprised at how much we can discuss once we laid out those ground rules, and came to an agreement. Everyone else gets stuck in a big shouting match with him that he won't accept their evidence as true. The lunacy here is that they are trying to get him to assert something about what they are asserting that he doesn't even believe! This is why I said the article needed to define "men", because the blanket assumption that "man" is self-explanitory is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever seen. How can anyone even attempt to make such an assertion as a transsexual, because of the ready and available number of people who would assert to their death that self-identity does not define your gender. "Men" had to be defined this article simply to come to a discussion of the very basis of this article: MEN who have sex with MEN. If you come across this article and it disagrees with your definition of "man", then why the hell would you sit there and say that "men" doesn't need to be defined?

I do think this article is misleading about mainstream usage of the term. Yes, transsexuality is covered under the umbrella of the definition, but the common usage of the term is to refer to the simpler case of non-transsexual men who have sex with non-transsexual men but may or may not consider themselves gay. The term was basically invented to cover that case, because of a discovery in the medical profession that using the word "gay" in surveys and questionnaires was missing a large number of people who engaged in same-sex sexual behavior but didn't self-identify as "gay". --Delirium 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the intro that I wrote was confusing. Trying to account for all cases that would be undeniably MSM, but exclude those that should not be considered MSM is pretty hard to do. Your description of transsexuals that self-identify as male works fairly well. It's clear that any such complete explanation will be overly complex, in as much as gender identity itself is incredibly complex. Your simplified version though is sufficiently accurate so as to cover the greater number of examples, and yet remain very simple.  :) Good job :) --Puellanivis 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic/Clinical Usage

Have now included some material on the academic origins of the term. A full discussion of these concepts took place in a number of different editions of the American Jounral of Public Health last year. It began with the article by Young and Meyer (which criticised the use of the concept, although I've only used the part of the article that describes the usage of MSM / WSW as behavioural categories - the rest may merit inclusion in a "Criticism of ... " section); a variety of responses from other authors followed (some of which may also merit inclusion in the article). --Nmcmurdo 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good add.  :) This looks much better, and actually helps the article out a bunch. I like to see how constructive input can be done, when people stop bickering about things ;) From a clinical view in this manner, then there are certainly distinctions to be made against self-identification. Namely, pre-operative transssexuals that engage in anal sex, are certainly at the same health risks as a man receiving anal sex (as is a woman receiving anal sex). A post-operative transsexual that engages in purely vaginal sex stands about the same level, if not less susceptable to HIV and sexually transmitted diseases as a natal female. (Natal females have a delicate balance of internal bacteria that they need to be careful not to upset, a post-op female needs to clean her vagina regularly in a way that is typically determined to be unhealthy for a natal female. Although, no studies have been done on this to my knowlege, so at this point, it would be OR)

So, now that there's a base and a reason for the definition of the term, a more enlightened discussion can be had about it. And as I noted, for risk of sexual diseases, the correct term would probably be to seperate out those who receive anal sex, those who receive vaginal/neo-vaginal sex, and the actual sexual behavior that causes the actual risk... considering that women can engage in just as risky sexual behavior as a man who has sex with a man, and in fact, the only reason why more women are infected with HIV in America, is that straight men generally don't have the disease, because at this time a straight man is highly unlikely to contract HIV. But a woman engaging in vaginal intercourse with someone who is HIV positive is at a very high change of contracting disease, and engaging in anal intercourse? Well, there's nothing about being a man that makes it particularly likely to spread HIV, the very act itself puts you at high risk.

So, as we mentioned before, the poor decision of "behavior" is what's causing this. They want to identify a group of people who are in a high likelihood of contracting an STD, which in America is definitely any man who engages in sex with other men. But if HIV were originally distributed randomly among the population, "women who have sex with men" would be the highest risk category... As it stands, a transsexual MTF who has sex with a male partner who would otherwise be dating a girl, would be at no significantly higher risk of contracting a disease than any other woman that he were dating. Pre-op, or post-op. Of course, this sort of classification becomes VERY sticky. --Puellanivis 03:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, there is more in that particular journal that may also merit inclusion. Young & Meyer actually address the point you make above about behaviour and go a little further. Indeed, they suggest that the widespread clinical adoption of the 'MSM' concept has tended to obscure analysis of actual behavioural risks (e.g. anal sex as opposed to sex with men), whilst neglecting the socio-cultural dimension that can also be clinically important (e.g. in explaining why 'lesbian' intra-venous drug users have higher HIV prevalence than other intra-venous drug users).--Nmcmurdo 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

When I initially rewrote this page I could not foresee that it would generate so much debate! As someone who is in regular contact with MSM and sometimes work with them, I'd just like to point out that the philosophical/ethymologycal/foot massage (no offence there) meaning of MSM does not weight much in our everyday life ! My perpsective is that of people who actually know and work with /for MSM and my intent was to give a simple and honnest representation of Men who have sex with men in different society, context, occasion. MSM is just an "in"convenent term for a group of people at higher risk of contracting HIV. Keep your energy for fighting HIV/AIDS! Thanks for the improvement Roger jg 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand, is that you attempt to place transsexuals in this group, while not all transsexuals are at the same higher risk of contracting HIV. Post-operative transsexuals, who have sex with men, are certainly not at any higher risk of contracting HIV than heterosexual females. And also, there are numerous transsexuals (even pre-operative) who never have sex with any men, because they are attracted to females. There is easily also a group of pre-operative transsexuals, who engage in no more risky sexual behavior than a woman who engages in anal sex with a heterosexual man. While I understand that MSM is an inconvenient term to group people at hgher risk of contracting HIV, the determination of "who is a man" is sticky, and there exist people, whom you would classify as male, who have sex with men, but their activities put them in no way at any greater risk for contracting HIV. --Puellanivis 07:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSM as contruct

I disagree with the statememnt that to be part of the MSM group, one needs "fundamemntaly to perceive himself as a man." How people perceived themselves is irrelevant since the concept describes a sexual practice (within a context etc...). MSM is sex between men (as genetically defined). That they don't look like men (Thai Ladyboys) or don't feel like men (Hijras) is irrelevant.

Then the following sentences "It is possible for only one member of a sexual encounter to be having sex with another man..." is completely unclear to me. I don't understand this sentence or what it tries to illustrate. Clarification welcome Roger jg 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your genetic definition fails, as women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are still genetically male, but they should not qualify in any definition of MSM that is well formed. There are also post-op transsexual women who have sex with men, but do not engage in any riskier behavior than the average woman. This is why it is necessary to qualify and define the definition of "who is a man".

That sentence is perfectly clear. Let me give you an example. Take a pre-op transsexual woman who does not engage in any risky sexual behavior, and she begins dating a man, who does not engage in risky sexual behavior. They become attracted to each other and begin to engage in sex. Although, at a later point, the woman realizes that he fundamentally percieves her as a male, due to some inaccurate definition of masculinity (such as the misguided notion that genetics determines sex conclusively), and she breaks up with him as a result of this perception of her. He liked the sex that he had with what he felt was a him, and immediately goes out seeking pre-operative (or non-operative) transsexuals in a form of a fetish, who (I will grant they do exist) engage in risky sexual behavior. The pre-operative transsexual however, goes on to have her surgery, and begins dating another man, and then marries him, and engages in typical female sexual behavior for the rest of her life. To claim that she qualifies as an MSM, simply because her genes say she is a male, is ridiculous, while to label her former partner's behavior as anything but MSM would be important.

Likewise, take for example a virilized person with a karyotype of 46,XX (genetically female), who has a male self-identity, but no male gonads, and people just thought that he had cryptochidism, until his condition was accurately determined, but he's also attracted to men. To suggest that he would be unable to be classified as an MSM on the account that his genetics say that he is genetically female, denies the situation that he is in, and the actual behavior that he engages in, and the HIV risk group that he is associated with.

In any case, in order to have any significant impact upon the HIV susceptability that a person has, it has to be a more or less regular behavior. Let us say that HIV contraction rates of MSM is 90%, and HIV contraction of MSW (for the male) is 10%. If he has 100 partners, only one of them male, and only one time, and all other partners he has sex with at least 10 times, that gives us an occurance bias for those percentages closer to 10% than 90%, and thus not a significant risk group to qualify for any reason as an MSM, even though he has engaged in homosexual behavior at least once.

The entire basis of this grouping is entirely flawed in the first place, as much as saying that homosexuals have HIV/AIDS, and homosexuals do not. In Africa, HIV is an everybody disease, even men who only have ever had sex with females. Remember the 3 H's of who gets HIV/AIDS? Homosexuals, Herion addicts and Hatians? We know why they were at a higher risk now, and not that HIV/AIDS is restricted solely to those people. The perception that a classification of MSM as useful for anything, is ridiculous. Especially, assigning this grouping to people outside of the US, where HIV risk rates are entirely different.

And all of this entirely ignores that women who engage primarily in anal sex are just as likely to contract HIV/AIDs as MSMs anyways. And then, women are simply more likely to contract HIV/AIDs than a man in the first place, should we make a classification of "women who have sex with more than one man"? Just to have a category to group women who are at a higher risk of contracting STDs, and/or HIV/AIDs?

This is entirely just a logical category that people are picking up to discriminate against homosexual behavior, the same as they were able to discriminate aganst homosexuals in the first place, just now they need a politically correct reason to their classification, not just "oh, well, he's gay." It's like people racist against blacks changing from "blacks are poorer because they're black" to "blacks are poorer because they don't try as hard"... only the truely non-racist say "blacks are poorer because they are in a socially disadvantaged situation".

If this category is intended to be used to classify people based on HIV risk, then let's dump ALL non-American groups from it, explicitly state that it is an American/Western Culture-only standard, and that the risks of HIV will vary from culture to culture, such that the classification of MSM is entirely useless in Africa, where all sexual behavior is risky, regardless of who is engaging in it with whom. --Puellanivis 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that this sentence is "perfectly clear" is a little silly. I discussed its usefulness earlier - which I think is dubious. But whatever we think about the underlying meaning here, I think it's difficult to argue that it's clear, never mind perfectly so. --Nmcmurdo 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the use of "perfectly clear" there was rhetorical and hyperbole. I don't think that it's perfectly clear, but many of the simple assumptions that people make typically make the sentence appear to be wrong, even if it is perfectly valid, or even true. Physics is full of things that if you hear them, you think "Pff, that has got to be totally wrong." But low and behold, it turns out to be correct, it just turns out that your basic assumptions about how the world works were wrong. Not your fault, it's typical observation... we're used to things getting hotter because they're closer to heat sources, not because they're recieving more direct light rays (not to mention that the scale is a significant factor with seasons, also) Someone above asked how two ducks could be in a pond but only one of them be a duck in a pond with another duck. The problem with that, is that there is an implicit assumption that there is an objective criteria for labeling things a duck. Turns out, that one of the ducks could have imprinted with a goose, and would argue (were it able to) that it were certainly not a duck in a pond with another duck, because it weren't a duck!

I'm sorry that the logical statement that I made violates typical assumptions about human gender, and thus tends to appear to be a contradiction. I have accepted that it need be reworded, but at this time, I cannot think of a better way to reword it to make it better, and thus is the reason why I have not returned it to the page yet.

But the entire sentence is truly moot my argument anyways though. The assertion for MSM as a model is that it allows for a convenient construct that allows one to group people of similar HIV risk together. My point is that the actual behavior that is typical of MSM (anal intercourse) is risky itself, not simply being a man who has sex with a man. In fact, some would say that if you are a man, and you engage in oral sex with another man, you would fit the criteria of MSM, but if MSM serves to cluster HIV risk values, then a man who only gives oral sex to another man is not at the same risk level as a typical MSM. Risk factors also vary depending on culture, climate, and location, as I mentioned, in Africa, if you are having sex, then you are at high risk for getting HIV, regardless of how careful you are, or any other factor of your sexual partner. Should researchers in Africa make a construct of "People who have sex" as a risk category for HIV? Would MSM have even a single valid criterium in Africa?

If you want MSM as an HIV risk category, then you cannot immediately just dump every person who is male and has sex with another man in this category, especially if they are not part of the United States, or other western culture where HIV is primarily only risky for those who engage primarily in receptive anal and/or vaginal sex. In order to establish a group of people outside of the western culture as valid for this category, you would need to show how this risk category applies to them.

But if I'm wrong and this is not just an HIV risk category, then there are aspects that intrude and make this issue cloudy murky, and beyond simply "behavior", as there are a hojillion edge cases, and grey areas that make this category a nightmare to attempt to apply for anyone who is anything but cisgender. --Puellanivis 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember when I spoke of just accepting that to most people Transsexuals like us will just be really really gay men and that we should just accept it. This is one of those times. Accept it and move on to more productive things. I don't think a well crafted arguement by Johny Cochrane could convince this guy we are not strictly MSM. Telling the person that transsexuals exist, lots of them who were always attracted to women... if that undisputable fact is lost on him then nothing will change his mind. Well I'll take one more crack at it.

Roger. "Men who have sex with men" Seems to be refereing to specifically "male bodied people who engage in anal sex with other male bodied people". Looking at this that way. Then we can make the defintion that sexually active pre/non operative "Homosexual transsexuals" are MSM. That seems to be the TS's you are thinking about and work with being at increased risk for HIV infection. I mean I realize that the transsexuals you have worked with have probably all fit that description to some extent. Plus are economically disadvantaged on some level. So your attitude is no surprise. I suggest that you open your eyes to the larger transsexual community. Realizee that not every TS would meet even the loosest definition of MSM. (For the record I personally object to TS women being called men but what can we do about it? Such is the way of the world. ) --Hfarmer 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hfarmer I did not comment on TS.Roger jg 06:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I misread but what the fact that someone engage or not in risky sexual behaviour has to do with MSM??? I don't really see the point in nitpicking about highly theoretical rhetoric on this subject, such as as women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome which certainly not represent the vast majority of MSM. We all agree that MSM is a loose concept and that is what the article should say and not enter into a long and rather useless definition of what a man is. Beside I don't think that most "men" (for the sake of simplification) go into a lenghty debate about their feeling and perception of their masculinity when they are having sex.Roger jg 06:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should *not* classify as an MSM, despite your intentions, as it appears, that you seem determined to place them as an MSM: "such as as women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome which certainly not represent the vast majority of MSM". A woman with AIS has a vagina, and is likely to engage in sexual variations no different than any other woman. So, why would there be any justification for placing them into a grouping that refers specifically to men? They are neither more likely to contract HIV than any other woman, nor are they by any reasonable defintion a "man", so why would you attempt to group them as an MSM? --Puellanivis 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M2M instead of MSM?

Male to male or M2M is also usually used to rever to men having sex with men. Is MSM more commonly used in the states? Berserkerz Crit 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

There are a few references to this article, they only need to be inserted properly in the text. I am not sure why there is a factual challenge here. But there is space for improvements. Roger jg 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why this article is {{disputed}}

I will lay out the grounds why I entered that part of the text.

[edit] Reasoning for this category's existence

There are only two possible reasons for the existence of this construct:

1. We are creating a construct that describes an at-risk group outside of self-definition (this view is presented by proponents for this article)
2. We are creating a group in order to describe people who engage in what we percieve as homosexual activities as "homosexuals", with a term that's been gerry-mandered specifically to include them. (this view is presented by opponents of this article)

I think we can all agree that the second reason for this article is patently discriminatory, and if this is the actual basis for this construct, then we should treat this article no different than any article dealing with a derogatory construct. I however do not feel that we should even promote this article, if this is the reason for this construct in the first place, as it is an entirely subjective view point constructed to promote discrimination.

If the first reasons is the most valid of the two alternatives, and becomes no longer a subjective standpoint, but rather an objective standpoint. Thus, we can validly discuss it outside of the realm of "this is just a person's attempt to discriminate against others."

The problem with this first reason though, is that defining a man for the context of this article becomes immediately convoluted, because the at-risk behavior that you're refering to is not males have sex with males, but rather having anal penetration. This at-risk group would include females, active homosexuals, pre/non op transsexuals that engage in sex with men, and transsexual that would engage in anal sex.

This at-risk grouping seems to provide a more direct correlation to actual behavior, which can be directly linked to risky behavior for the spread of HIV and other STDs, while the blanket term "Men who have sex with men" runs into a difficult situation that the proposed "simple" behaviour being described is actually tied intrinsically to the identity of the two participants, such that it becomes a classification of dubious reasons, namely a strict classification of an at-risk behavior (anal sex) where the identity of the participants is explicitly stated (male and male), thus automatically restricting a valid at-risk behavioral construct to such a narrow area that by its name seems to be intended to draw an immediate association to homosexual men.

It is a known fact that HIV has a lower chance of spreading through oral intercourse than through vaginal intercourse through which HIV has a lower chance of spreading through anal intercourse. Presume if you would, a man who has sex with other men, who only performed blowjobs, or recieved blowjobs. Should he be labeled in the same group as MSM due to at-risk behaviour? Certainly not, as he does not perform the central at-risk behavior central to this whole issue: anal penetration.

Thus, is my position on why this article is disputed. There appears to be no valid reason to make this criteria, as the particular at-risk grouping that covers the intended group of this category, and others who are equally in the same at-risk level, would be "People who receive anal penetration". Otherwise this category serves simply as a method to discriminate against any person perceived to be a homosexual, but only under the auspice of being a medical category.

[edit] Applicability Internationally

The second reason that this article is disputed, is working under the premise that this article is about a particular at-risk group, which is valid, and free of any claims of discrimination, or unjustified application.

Assuming that this category is perfectly valid as an at-risk group, it's important to note that at-risk groups change based on where you are in the world. While homosexuals here in the United States are more at-risk than heterosexuals, the same is simply not true in Africa, and other places around the world. At this point, defining MSM against a culture where HIV is not only prevalent among homosexuals, but also among heterosexuals, such that women are more likely to have HIV than a homosexual man, then this categorization fails to improve anything.

Looking at the CIA world fact book: the United States has an HIV prevalence rate of 0.6%, while Germany has a HIV prevalence rate of 0.1%. Should we start up an article "People who have sex with Americans", as this is a statistically higher at-risk group for HIV than "People who have sex with Germans"? I don't think that's necessary.

So, even assuming with all Good Faith that this article is not simply just veiled discrimination, we should not include any specific groups of people without cited research and evidence that they are in the same at-risk group as MSM in America/the UK/the Western World, and document specifically what geopolitical areas this term is applied to specifically, and note that anyone outside of that boundary has no cited evidence justifying their inclusion with this group. Otherwise, you're just blanket applying an at-risk category to people who are not in the same at-risk category, and thus breaking the only good reason for even including this category in the first place. --Puellanivis 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Men having sex with men? That sounds really gay to me. Zomghax 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Puellanivis, I'm impressed by your discussion of the article. I think the article should much more directly discuss MSM as a "risk category," and should include a lot of the text you've written here. This article is a great opportunity to deal with some of the thornier questions of MSM as Western shorthand for "non-standard gay." As you point out, if this article really were "just about behavior," it's not just the category "men" that's problematic, but "sex" as well. The article should discuss the mismatch between "MSM," anal penetration, and contracting HIV. Good job. I've added the "worldwide view" box. Citynoise 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As suggested

As suggested much of the material hashed out in this talk page is now included on the article itself. Stated explicitly, the article is a risk-factor category primarily for describing virus and bacteria propogation. Also detailed is that risk-factors vary between cultures, and that application of this term may not work outside of western-culture (as supported by a particur given paragraph placed by a proponent of the term). Wording has been changed to make it more clear where the division is in cases of ambiguous gender.

The article specifically states that the term is best applied where gender and sex are clearly unambiguous as is the case in close to 99% of cases. (It's presumed that the prevalence rates for transsexuality, and intersexuality is near-to or less than one percent.) It makes specific note that the term should be avoided where the sex of the individual is ambiguous, as classifying anything as anything against their behavior is inappropriate for any category defined as a behavioral category.

Proponents may still argue that MSM is entirely a strictly behavioral grouping, and may attempt to apply a specific determinator upon ambiguous individuals in order to classify them as male, or as female for the purposes of this category, but that goes beyond the scope of this classification. This classifcation is based on a specific set of behaviors that may not be shared by people that one might otherwise choose to label as a man. Genetics is not sufficient, genital appearance is not sufficient, existence of gonads is not sufficient, and hormone levels of the individual are not sufficient. Whether the proponents of MSM as a valid term like it or not, but because the term is tied by definition to a secondary condition (male), they depend entirely upon the definition of male, and inherit all of the sticky issues that exist regarding ambiguity of genders and sexes.

I must admit however that from a medical and epidemiological view, that any individual who participates in behaviors that are essentially equivalent to MSM behaviors, should be classified as an MSM. So long as you can apply the definition "man" to the person. --Puellanivis 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I have followed your dissertion fully or in which group I could or should be put, but i like the new introduction. Roger jg 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Shouldn't this page be merged with homosexuality? As a man having sex with another man would make both men homosexual, or at the very least bisexual. (Animedude 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

No it should not. There is a difference between homosexuality, and bisexuality, and having sex with other men. It's known to occur that men when removed from females, will look for substitutes to simply get over their urges. Conflating this particular issue with homosexuality, is just as bad as the MSM article that was here before, where it simply was a facade article saying that it was classifying people based on behavior, but in truth was just subjectively assigning people into a group with homosexuals. --Puellanivis 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No. 'Homosexuality' and 'bisexuality' etc. are peculiar concepts emanating for 19th century Western psychiatry. They are thus not suitable generic headings for many other aspects of human sexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmcmurdo (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Down-low

An editor has removed the link between this expression and the African-American community. From the article on down-low this appears to be mainly based on a political stance promoted conspicuously by the author Keith Boykin in his book Beyond The Down Low: Sex, Lies and Denial in Black America. If most US editors, I'm not one, feel that American culture empirically connotes this term to said ethnic/cultural community, I think the link should be reinstated. __meco 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is unnecessary. Down-low is MSM regardless of the ethnic or racial history of the individual. There being no need for the link to be explicit, I do not see a purpose in it being mentioned with a phrase such as "especially in African-Americans." African-Americans practicing down-low are no more or less MSM than a Caucasian practicing down-low. --Puellanivis 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to address the focus of my posting, this being whether the term, not the practice, is predominantly linked to African-American males. __meco 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)