The Visibility Trap: Unpacking the Controversy Over ‘Sidosa’

By Daniel Richardson
Editor-in-Chief, Archysport

In the world of high-stakes reporting, whether I’m covering a World Cup final or an NBA championship, the line between “bold storytelling” and “miscalculation” is often thin. Usually, that line is defined by accuracy. When a project prioritizes aesthetic provocation over clinical or social reality, it risks alienating the very people it intends to help. This is the central tension currently surrounding Sidosa, the new documentary by journalist Jordi Évole and actor Eduardo Casanova.

Designed to increase visibility and education regarding HIV, the project has instead sparked a firestorm of criticism. The controversy doesn’t stem from the goal of visibility—which is universally praised—but from the execution, specifically the choice of the title and the linguistic framework the creators have adopted.

The Linguistic Gamble: Reclaiming ‘Sida’

At the heart of the friction is Eduardo Casanova’s attempt to “reclaim” a word. Casanova, who lives with the virus but is currently undetectable due to medical treatment, has been vocal about his desire to adopt the term sida (AIDS) as a form of empowerment. In discussions with Évole, Casanova has argued that just as the LGBTQ+ community reclaimed slurs like maricón to strip them of their power, he wishes to do the same with sida.

To the casual observer, this looks like a standard act of queer dissidence. However, critics argue that linguistic reclamation is not a solo project. While the reclamation of social slurs happens through decades of shared cultural struggle, the attempt to “reclaim” a medical diagnosis is viewed by some as a dangerous banalization. By treating a severe historical and sanitary stigma as an “aesthetic operation,” the documentary risks trivializing the lived experience of those for whom the word sida represents a death sentence or a lifetime of systemic exclusion.

For those of us who have spent years in newsrooms focusing on the intersection of health and public performance, this is a familiar conflict: the tension between an individual’s personal narrative and the collective reality of a marginalized group.

Gender, Theater, and Epidemiological Reality

Beyond the choice of the word itself, the feminization of the term—Sidosa—has drawn sharp criticism for being “theatrical” rather than pedagogical. In Spain and Western Europe, the HIV epidemic predominantly affects men, with ratios often exceeding 80% of cases. While the virus affects people of all genders, critics suggest that applying a feminine gender to the title creates a disconnect from the actual epidemiological data.

The argument is that by framing the documentary through a lens of “queer dissidence” that ignores the primary demographic of the crisis, the creators have opted for a theatrical transgression that serves the art more than it serves the public health mission. Instead of educating the public on the current reality of the virus, the title may inadvertently reactivate outdated imaginaries that link the disease exclusively to specific identity markers, potentially fueling the very stigmatization the film seeks to dismantle.

The Defense: Visibility at Any Cost?

Jordi Évole has not remained silent in the face of this backlash. In a recent appearance on the TVE program La Revuelta, hosted by David Broncano, Évole defended both the documentary and Casanova’s testimony. During the interview, Évole emphasized that the project was born from a desire to bring HIV back into the public conversation, asserting that neither he nor Casanova have profited financially from the film and that no public funds were used for its financing [2].

Évole’s defense rests on the idea of courage—the notion that Casanova is being “brave” by putting his testimony forward. From a journalistic perspective, visibility is a powerful tool, but visibility without precision can be a double-edged sword. When a documentary focuses on “reclaiming” a term that the medical community works hard to distinguish (HIV vs. AIDS), it can create confusion for a public that already struggles to understand the difference between being HIV-positive and having a diagnosis of AIDS.

Note for readers: In medical terms, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is the virus that attacks the immune system. AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is the most advanced stage of the infection. Many people living with HIV today, thanks to antiretroviral therapy, never progress to AIDS and remain “undetectable,” meaning they cannot transmit the virus to others.

The Stigma Cycle

The ultimate concern raised by critics is that Sidosa may actually be counterproductive. By leaning into a “provocative” title, the documentary may be reinforcing the link between a specific identity and a disease in a way that feels regressive. The goal of modern HIV advocacy has largely been to decouple the virus from specific stereotypes to ensure that everyone—regardless of gender or orientation—feels empowered to get tested and treated.

When the “reclamation” of a word is seen as a stylistic choice rather than a community-led movement, it risks becoming a form of “stigma-chic”—using the aesthetics of a crisis to create a talking point, while the actual epidemiological needs of the population are sidelined.

Final Analysis

As an editor, I believe the strongest stories are those that respect the complexity of their subject. The effort to bring HIV visibility to the forefront is noble and necessary. However, the backlash against Sidosa serves as a reminder that in matters of public health and historical trauma, the “shock factor” should never supersede the truth. Whether this documentary succeeds in sparking a helpful conversation or simply adds to the noise remains to be seen.

The conversation surrounding the documentary continues as it reaches wider audiences. We will continue to monitor how health organizations and the HIV community respond to the film’s release.

What are your thoughts on the balance between artistic provocation and medical accuracy in documentaries? Let us know in the comments below.