Read on Twitter
This reminded me to share: I’ve been doing research lately on #PrEP clinical indicators for women and am APPALLED at some of the criteria. One is just “high # of sex partners.” Wtf? What’s “high”? More issues 
. https://twitter.com/urdadssidepiece/status/1357031710169432069
2-There’s little consideration to vaginal vs. anal sex positions, or even partner gender. Just “multiple partners” (what about WSW partners?). And “condomless vaginal/anal sex.” Um, there’s a BIG difference there for HIV risk? This strikes me as lazy.
3- one had “history of inconsistent conform use” as a criteria. What does that even mean?? What about women not sex w/ condoms because they, idk, want to get pregnant? Does “history” include 10 years ago? This is just shaming, plain and simple. And disregarding women’s lives.
4-Also, “commercial sex” is sometimes a criteria, which is just...no. Sex work is not inherently high risk for HIV. Focus on the behaviors, not the groups! So stigmatizing!
5- the others all rely on knowing partner’s HIV status, or getting tested for HIV/STI, both of which necessitates women thinking of themselves as at risk. Less than half of women got tested for HIV in the last year (41%).
6-I think I have a problem with...yep, literally every PrEP clinical indicator criteria for women! It’s vague, doesn’t make sense, is shaming and stigmatizing AF, and doesn’t consider obvious risk differences for women (like, y’know, VAGINAL SEX).
7-The more I read these, the more I think I kind of hate clinical indicators? HIV for women is driven by social factors & community prevalence, so why behaviors? Esp for a group that often isn’t that risky? I’m new to research about women & HIV so I might be missing something.
8-Wouldn’t the more effective intervention be equal pay, universal childcare, & end mass incarceration? This makes more sense than trying to convince women (and their doctors) that don’t think they’re at risk that they could be, which seems over-individualized and likely to fail.
