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 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