Again, not that natal women have the same HIV risk as TG/TS women... but rather that the total number of females contracting HIV is the same as the total number of MSM contracting HIV.  Source? http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm Looking over the data, sorry, I correct my statement.  Being female who only has risky heterosexual sex has the same HIV contraction rate as being a male drug user.  Both total populations are unknown however.  Again, my assertion stands, many TG/TS are not males, and thus are not MSM.  Your own sources state that TG/TS groups are only "considered" "alongside" MSM, not that they actually are MSM.  As to Benji: my statements were made on my own talk page, and were not intended to be neither neutral nor unbiased.  If HFarmer wished to discuss the merits of the argument in this talk page, I would have been more than civil... however, she has consistently sought to put me in the worst situation possible and provoke me into an emotional response.  My assertion has, and always will be "I am not male, thus I am not MSM by definition of the term".  She can argue all she wants until she's blue in the face whether they are included or not in MSM statistics, but that's only making a lighter assertion, "they are included in MSM statistics", however her very own source says that they are not considered MSM, even though they may be included in MSM statistics.  I understand the difficulty in understanding the situation... they're saying they're not, but then treating them as if they are, however the fact still remains, many if not most TS/TG individuals are excluded from MSM by the very definition of the term... "men who have sex with men."