National
Monkeypox being spread through sex, not brief skin-to-skin contact: experts
Health experts weigh declaring virus an STD
Amid fears monkeypox would spread at an increased rate at the end of summer as gay men gather in close quarters for dance parties and other celebrations, health experts are starting to emphasize that the current outbreak isn’t spreading through minimal skin-to-skin contact, such as brushing up against a fellow shirtless dance partner, but rather through sexual activity and overwhelmingly among men who have sex with men.
With reported cases of monkeypox in the United States this week reaching 15,505, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control, a number of health experts who spoke to the Blade talked about outright declaring monkeypox a sexually transmitted disease as part of this messaging — although they acknowledge such a label would have pros and cons.
Juan Carlos Loubriel, senior director of community health at the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, was among the health experts making the distinction between the negligible risks of transmitting monkeypox through brief skin-to-skin contact as opposed to sexual activity.
“I’ll say that we need to provide the real facts to our community that indicates right now that the majority of the cases are sexually transmitted, right?” Loubriel said. “So transmission is not occurring by casual touch, right? That’s what we know as of today … So the majority of the cases [are] by prolonged skin-to-skin contact, and during sex there is a lot of skin-to-skin contact.”
As health experts at large are beginning to make a distinction in how the disease is transmitted, the Biden administration has also taken up messaging that downplays the risk of monkeypox transmission through minimal skin-to-skin contact.
Demetre Daskalakis, who is the face of the LGBTQ outreach for the Biden administration as deputy coordinator of the White House monkeypox task force, made colorful remarks Friday during a conference call with reporters downplaying the risk of contracting monkeypox through brief contact, quoting a senior policy adviser at the CDC who has studied LGBTQ health issues.
“I think I’m going to quote my friend Robbie Goldstein that sex involves friction, and friction seems to be how this happens,” Daskalakis said. “So, I think, that from the perspective of events, the real risk at an event is low. Of course, you have to gauge that risk based on what you’re doing, so if there’s a lot of clothes out dancing and friction, that could be a mechanism of transmission, but just brushing by someone, I’ve said this many times before, just brushing by someone is probably low or no risk.”
Asked by the Blade during the call about any consideration on declaring monkeypox a sexually transmitted disease, Daskalakis said it’s “really important that the decision around monkeypox and whether it’s designated happen thoughtfully from the perspective of other implications.”
“What’s really important from the perspective of our communication on the ground is that our harm reduction and safer sex guidance really does mention the importance of sexual transmission or the associated transmission of the virus, and also provides guidance necessary, like reminding people that condoms may have a role — not necessarily the full role — in preventing monkeypox, but also reminds folks that skin-to-skin contact in the context of sex can be really a part of how transmission occurs,” he said.
The messaging is consistent with new studies finding cases of monkeypox are overwhelmingly the result of sexual activity. According to a recent report by NBC News, an increasing amount of scientific evidence — such three studies published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as reports from national, regional, and global health authorities — has indicated “experts may have framed monkeypox’s typical transmission route precisely backward.”
“[A]n expanding cadre of experts has come to believe that sex between men itself — both anal as well as oral intercourse — is likely the main driver of global monkeypox transmission,” the NBC News report says. “The skin contact that comes with sex, these experts say, is probably much less of a risk factor.”
With evidence the monkeypox outbreak is overwhelmingly being transmitted through sexual activity and risks from skin-to-skin contact virtually non-existent, experts say discussion on whether or not to label the virus as a sexually transmitted disease are ongoing and controversial.
On one hand, designating monkeypox as a sexually transmitted disease would give the public a clearer idea about the way it’s being transmitted to allay concerns and enable the public to take appropriate precautions. On the other hand, as seen during the height of HIV/AIDS crisis, an emphasis on monkeypox being transmitted among men who have sex with men may have the effect of stigmatizing the community (and the sexual activity) as being responsible for the outbreak.
Loubriel said the issue of whether or not monkeypox should be messaged more as a sexually transmitted disease is “a very good question and also a very big debate around public health, even within the public health sector.”
“The only reason we cannot say it is just sexually transmitted is because we know as a fact that it can be spread by other various avenues like touching clothing, bedding with an infected person or towels being used by someone with monkeypox, potentially contact with respiratory secretions,” Loubriel added. “So that is why it’s probably not been named as a sexually transmitted infection.”
Joseph Lee, a professor of health education at East Carolina University who studies health inequities among LGBTQ people, said there’s “real tension” in finding the right messaging, which he said would strike a balance between being factual while not being stigmatic of the marginalized community affected by monkeypox.
“We see when we have messaging that goes to the general public…that messaging about how a particular group is doing worse triggers negative stereotypes and makes people feel less at risk than they are,” Lee said. “And really importantly, it makes the group at the worst end of that problem feel sometimes like they’re feeling fatalistic or they can’t do anything to protect themselves. You almost feel like you have to give up and you’re just going to get it anyway because the messaging is so clear, how much it’s impacting your community.”
Lee, however, praised communications on monkeypox from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, saying the agency has “very useful guidance about promoting equity in monkeypox communication that I actually really like.”
Key points in the guidance, Lee said, is messaging that monkeypox can affect anyone, while going through some of the ways the virus is being transmitted and ways the public can protect itself. The guidance, Lee said, follows the right strategy of articulating a message to the general public, then adding more specific messages about protection against the disease and risk to the communities most vulnerable.
“That’s sort of their big picture strategy that I think is actually the right strategy,” Lee concluded. “How well everyone’s implementing it across the country in our messy, somewhat broken public health system is another question.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
