I used to write a lot of technical articles about HIV prevention and treatment. As a former AIDS activist and trained HIV educator, I have a lot of expertise in that area.

But inclusive language is quite awkward and even difficult. In the medical world, “men who have sex with men" (MSM) is standard when talking about HIV risk. It’s a problem, though. MSM includes men who don’t identify as bisexual or gay, which is genuinely important from a public health perspective, but it excludes transgender women, who are statistically at significantly higher risk for HIV than cisgender women or transgender men.

So when I wrote about HIV issues, I would try phrases like “gay and bisexual men and transgender women” or “MSM and transgender women.” But not only is that a mouthful, it could also produce hostility among people who thought that I was trying to single out or stigmatize trans women rather than include trans women. And of course, it neglects the reality of non-binary people.

Then for a while, I tried replacing MSM with “people who have receptive anal sex.”

That’s a little better, in that it at least takes gender out of the question. But there are two problems with it.

First, some people who need education on HIV matters don’t know what “receptive anal sex" means. Keeping language clear and easy to understand is critical.

Second, saying “people who have receptive anal sex" tends to dismiss the reality that HIV risk is significantly statistically tied to community insularity. (Cis women having receptive anal sex with cis/straight men are not at a statistically elevated risk for acquiring HIV the way trans women are.)

To boil it down, I never really have found perfect terminology, though I’ve worked on finding better, more inclusive terminology. I haven’t written extensively on HIV education in a couple of years at least, so it’s not a problem I’m working on actively right now. But I still would like to find better ways to use inclusive language.