The thing is - if the premise is true that sex workers had an active role in preventing aids, then it's pretty easy to see that sex workers are predominantly low-status women and hence that their role and status make this a more extraordinary achievement.

The fine article mentions that gays, transgenders, and IV drug users were involved as well.

"Transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. Try "trans people" instead.

Calling a transgender person "a transgender" and a group of transgender people "transgenders" is similar to calling an Indian person "an Indian" and a group of Indian people "Indians".

I've yet to see any rule on such language apply across all LBGTQ populations without issue. Don't speak with such authority on issues which has no authority.

There are differences in usage. For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”. The adjective “transgender” seems to work similarly.

> For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”.

Only because the established term was "a Frenchman". There is no such established term for the group under discussion.

What's wrong with that? I'm a Spanish man and I wouldn't be offended at all if I were in a group was referred to as "Spaniards" or "men".

I was arguing that both are equally correct.

I've found that true for many things though which don't make sense if you put men instead of women or white instead of black. Like "This entrepreneur group is for women only", change women to men it becomes extremely sexist. I guess that's just how the world works.

Theres a reason minority groups are singled out in those sentences. Those minorities do not have equal amounts of traditional forms of power.

It's like saying that a political change could not have happened without it's grassroots supporters. It also happened because of politicians, but that doesn't matter, and it's not interesting - because 100% of political changes involve politicians (even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming through it.) The involvement of grassroots supporters in some particular one is a noteworthy exception.

People dont find the singling out of any group to be an accepted popular opinion, even though it is, for some groups.

The consensus neglects the majority and minority powers of different areas. But I find the power imbalance to be a more encapsulating definition of in/sensitivies

If 99% of the time, only politicians are involved in drafting and passing a law, and 1% of time time, grassroots organizers and politicians are involved in passing a law, would you say that it's fair to describe one of the 1% laws as only possible with grassroots involvement?

That actually does seem reasonable...

I think "extremely pissed" is either hyperbolic or histrionic in this case. The "without women" line is a micro-aggression at best.

If that is actually rage-inducing, I’d suggest you’re probably spending too much time on the Men’s Rights or red-pill subreddit.

As far as I’m concerned it’s a mild frustration which doesn’t even merit an eye-roll.

If you spend your days looking for outrage in every corner, you’re bound to find it, but it isn’t a very pleasant life.

Maybe let it go.

Do what you like. You’re the one who started with describing themselves as "extremely pissed" over the subtitle. I know you might not believe this, but women in some parts of the world are still treated as minorities in 2018. Pointing that out, doesn’t damage their position.

I do agree that the subtitle is a a mindless platitude. Of course the spread of a sexually transmitted disease through heterosexual populations in India couldn’t have been prevented without the participation of 50% of the sex at. But again, I can’t even muster an eye roll over it. It’s dumb, but there;s dumb shit everywhere. My position is to ignore it and move on.

The thought that someone is "extremely pissed" about a trite and trivial girl-power cliche is pretty silly to me. That’s so much energy to spend on something so dumb.

Who’s got the time for that?

But whatever, it’s a Sunday, you can spend it how you see fit. If being extremely pissed at a throwaway line vacuously giving credit to women is what you want to do today then go for it.

Have a happy Sunday fella! (You know, or not, depending on what you’re looking for)

The best comparable subtitle imo would have been: "it wouldn't have happened without sex workers."

Why? There are sex workers, and there will always be. Even in jurisdictions where it is prohibited, it is merely pushed underground and continues, but with less protections and chance to mitigate downsides.

You might as well then have a subtitle" It wouldn't have happened without humans".

Don't think you guys read the article, at least the last three paragraphs.

I don't see what point you're trying to make. If I chose to switch a word in one of your sentences with what's usually considered its opposite, then used that substitution to accuse your sentence of not making any sense, would you think I'm making a valid point?