Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is a medication that, when taken daily, can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by up to 99%. Earlier this year, NHS England announced that it was not responsible for funding PrEP, as preventative medicine was apparently out of the body's remit.

But thanks to the tireless work of the National AIDS Trust and other groups, today a judicial review found that it was in fact NHS England's responsibility to provide PrEP to those who need it most.

Unfortunately, NHS England have decided to appeal the ruling, which will delay commissioning the drug by a number of months – if it's commissioned at all.

That decision aside, the outcome has highlighted a very ugly, invasive strain of homophobia. The kind that drags our sexual behaviours into the public arena.

The message is clear. We don't deserve to live with the same, relatively minimal risk of HIV that the majority of the UK's population enjoys. Despite steady attempts to sanitise the image of gay and bi men over the past few years, when push comes to shove our sexual activities, in the minds of many, disqualify us from accessing important healthcare. While same-sex marriage might palatable to the majority, when it comes to the nitty gritty – our health and our sex lives – we're still scorned.

It's disheartening that some still view HIV as a moral judgement. But what's more depressing is that people believe that, as they're in the sexual majority, they have a right to judge what healthcare is and isn't appropriate for us.

Even if we do want to have lots and lots of unprotected sex, why shouldn't we be able to have protection from a disease that we didn't ask for or deserve?

These aren't people who have spent a month on Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, praying that an HIV infection hasn't taken hold after a condom split. They haven't watched friends and partners succumb to Aids. They don't have to carry fear into the bedroom, or let their immune systems unknowingly be attacked by HIV because they are too scared of shame and stigma to get tested. Yet for some reason, people who have absolutely no idea about our lives and well-being feel qualified to comment on the urgency of PrEP.

More from IBTimes

Demands for PrEP have also been falsely characterised as the gay community wanting a pass to bareback every man we can. In reality, what most of us want is to be able to have an error of judgement after one too many and not run the risk of contracting a chronic illness. To know that we're still protected from HIV, even if a condom fails. But even if we do want to have lots and lots of unprotected sex, why shouldn't we be able to have protection from a disease that we didn't ask for or deserve? Men of all sexualities engage in risky behaviours, but it's only when they involve another man that the moralising begins.

Critics also cite the cost (around £10-20m a year) as too much to spend on saving lives, while we currently spend £80m on paracetamol prescriptions. Why does paracetamol, which costs a few pence over the counter, deserve funding while PrEP, which costs around £40 a month to buy privately, doesn't?

Is the power of the majority so great that we can prioritise something as easily accessible as paracetamol over one of the most important steps forward in the fight against HIV since the arrival of anti-retrovirals? Apparently so. And what really stings is knowing that if the wider population experienced HIV at the same rates as us, money would be no object. Whether it's money or morals, every argument against PrEP that gets thrown at us seems to smack of hypocrisy or homophobia.

You can argue that it's just how it goes for illnesses that don't affect large proportions of the population. You can pull up arguments about drugs for rare cancers that don't get funded. But we have a right to be angry about PrEP. Our health outcomes have always been worse than those of our straight counterparts, and we're sick and tired of being deprioritised.

Josh Lee is a freelance writer covering LGBT issues and pop culture

NHS AIDS