Current Events > So dumb that gay/bi guys can't donate blood

(+) Yeah! (+)

Absolutely nothing, dont melt down at me.

Esrac posted...

It is absolutely a fair restriction, because HIV infection rates for MSM are astronomically disproportionatly high.

You can "but straight people have anal sex too!" all you want, but that doesn't matter because their infection rates aren't nearly as outrageous.

If they are out hooking up a lot. But my BF and I are monogamous and faithful, and clean We should be able to donate even though we have sex. Our chances of catching it from each other are zero if we only have sex with each other And they are going to test it anyway

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah, if we want to use scientific data to guide policy instead of individual, personal anecdotes.

I wouldn't accept "but what if I'm in a monogamous relationship" to make a policy decision about blood donation anymore than I would accept "but it was cool out today" to make a policy decision about climate change.

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate. Until that comes down, I accept that disallowing them from donating blood as justified.

Esrac posted...

Yeah, if we want to use scientific data to guide policy instead of individual, personal anecdotes.

I wouldn't accept "but what if I'm in a monogamous relationship" to make a policy decision about blood donation anymore than I would accept "but it was cool out today" to make a policy decision about climate change.

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate. Until that comes down, I accept that disallowing them from donating blood as justified.

If only there was some way to test blood for diseases and other things.. Also the infection rate isnt as high as you think.

Esrac posted...

Yeah, if we want to use scientific data to guide policy instead of individual, personal anecdotes.

I wouldn't accept "but what if I'm in a monogamous relationship" to make a policy decision about blood donation anymore than I would accept "but it was cool out today" to make a policy decision about climate change.

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate. Until that comes down, I accept that disallowing them from donating blood as justified.

Except thats just assuming all gay people have HIV. Which is pretty shitty And as its been pointed out, they can literally test the blood So, again, there is no reason to not accept out blood. Like no reason at all

Esrac posted...

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate. Until that comes down, I accept that disallowing them from donating blood as justified.

For the people that think its ok, would you also think its ok to deny blood from black people? They apparently make up almost half of the new cases? Or would you be ok if people brought a blood test.

Also, why are people so against gay people donating. In the end, we can still give blood. We just have to lie. We shouldnt have to. But the rule does nothing but show how homophobic people are. The rule doesnt actually stop gay people from donating. It just stops them from donating without lying Thats why it shouldnt even matter since they dont test people to make sure they are gay So, this policy youre in favor of doesnt actually do anything except insult people, but still unknowingly take blood from those same people without knowing. Blood that has probably saved many lives. Blood they constantly need

LinkPizza posted...

Except thats just assuming all gay people have HIV. Which is pretty shitty And as its been pointed out, they can literally test the blood So, again, there is no reason to not accept out blood. Like no reason at all

It doesn't assume all gay people have HIV. It looks at the data that says they have a much, much higher infection rate and are, as such, a much higher risk demographic. Which is true.

As for the testing it part, if I recall correctly, HIV can take anywhere from 20 - 90 days before it becomes detectable. Of course we should test it, but regulating who can donate is another layer of prevention.

I think of it like restricting travel to prevent the spread of COVID from higher risk regions. Yeah, we can just mandate mask wearing and vaccinations, but restricting travel is another layer of prevention. It doesn't mean every single person from that region has the disease.

LinkPizza posted...

For the people that think its ok, would you also think its ok to deny blood from black people? They apparently make up almost half of the new cases? Or would you be ok if people brought a blood test.

Also, why are people so against gay people donating. In the end, we can still give blood. We just have to lie. We shouldnt have to. But the rule does nothing but show how homophobic people are. The rule doesnt actually stop gay people from donating. It just stops them from donating without lying Thats why it shouldnt even matter since they dont test people to make sure they are gay So, this policy youre in favor of doesnt actually do anything except insult people, but still unknowingly take blood from those same people without knowing. Blood that has probably saved many lives. Blood they constantly need

Do you think we shouldn't have regulations regarding toxic waste dumping, just because some unethical companies will lie about how much they dump and where? "Because someone might lie or break the rules anyway..." isn't a good enough reason to not have rules, laws, and regulations.

Anyway, I'm gonna get off this ride here. Running errands and heading home for the night. Thanks for the chat.

ROBANN_88 posted...

what would the person gain from lying, though?

There's a niche of people super into spreading this shit. Very niche, but still. Imagine getting HIV like that.

Esrac posted...

Yeah, if we want to use scientific data to guide policy instead of individual, personal anecdotes.

I wouldn't accept "but what if I'm in a monogamous relationship" to make a policy decision about blood donation anymore than I would accept "but it was cool out today" to make a policy decision about climate change.

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate. Until that comes down, I accept that disallowing them from donating blood as justified.

It isn't though and many countries have changed away from such stances. You are basing your stance on outdated and bigoted information.

Many countries, my own included, now just have you as a risk factor if you have had anal sex (regardless of gender/sex of the partner) with someone new in the last 3 months. A regular partner where you are both clean is 100% fine.

Anal sex is more dangerous, yes. But that is true of anyone that partakes in it and even then it's only an issue if you are having unprotected sex with new people who haven't been tested.

Funkydog posted...

The data we have shows MSM have a very disproportionatly high HIV infection rate.

I don't have the patience to do three hours of searching for something that I already spent three hours searching for a few years ago, but not properly documenting.

Can anyone who cares enough tell me if this still holds true or it's just outdated and bigoted?

Esrac posted...

It doesn't assume all gay people have HIV. It looks at the data that says they have a much, much higher infection rate and are, as such, a much higher risk demographic. Which is true.

As for the testing it part, if I recall correctly, HIV can take anywhere from 20 - 90 days before it becomes detectable. Of course we should test it, but regulating who can donate is another layer of prevention.

I think of it like restricting travel to prevent the spread of COVID from higher risk regions. Yeah, we can just mandate mask wearing and vaccinations, but restricting travel is another layer of prevention. It doesn't mean every single person from that region has the disease.

Sure its true But that shouldnt matter if I dont have it Something they can test for. They even take a couple tubes just for testing

And regulating is not really prevention. Especially since its only regulating against gay people. Straight people have it, as well Just because gay men have it more doesnt mean to not take blood from them. Maybe more testing, but thats it There is literally no reason to take clean blood from a gay person. NO REASON AT ALL

Regulating travel for people carrying it is a layer of prevention. And even then, not that much As if its still in the country, even without traveling people, it can still make its rounds from local traveling (to work, grocery stores, etc.)

Esrac posted...

Do you think we shouldn't have regulations regarding toxic waste dumping, just because some unethical companies will lie about how much they dump and where? "Because someone might lie or break the rules anyway..." isn't a good enough reason to not have rules, laws, and regulations.

Anyway, I'm gonna get off this ride here. Running errands and heading home for the night. Thanks for the chat.

Theres a difference. All toxic waste is bad. Which is why its toxic waste. Not all gay peoples blood is bad, though. Many of us have perfect fine blood And thats the problem. Not taking our blood just because I currently sleep with one man (also HIV free) And its much different when turning away life saving blood just because someones scared that I have a higher chance to catch it when Im actuality, I have a 0% chance to catch from sex it when Im with the same partner Ive been with for YEARS

Guide posted...

I don't have the patience to do three hours of searching for something that I already spent three hours searching for a few years ago, but not properly documenting.

Can anyone who cares enough tell me if this still holds true or it's just outdated and bigoted?

Anal sex is the issue, and what has a higher chance of spreading various things. But "MSM" aren't they only ones who have anal.

And even for those that do have anal sex, it's only really an issue if you are doing so with someone you don't know is clean - basically a new partner.

Here's how the UK has it for anyone who is interested in something more up to date than what America seemingly has

https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

and specifically about men with men

https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/men-who-have-sex-with-men/

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Men who have sex with men are allowed if they haven't had sex in the past 3 months.

Thats so weirdwhat does abstaining from sex for a few months accomplish? If you have HIV its not like that will make it disappear.

Shablagoo posted...

Thats so weirdwhat does abstaining from sex for a few months accomplish? If you have HIV its not like that will make it disappear.

Its about when it becomes detectable in tests.

If they can test the blood theres no reason to have the restriction. Or is it just a matter of that its a lot of work to test all the blood in the way they would need to?

It's really strange that it's not yet allowed considering the Democrats control everything.

I heard that conservatives of Greece passed legislation to allow this.

spikethedevil posted...

Its about when it becomes detectable in tests.

Sure but how does abstinence tie into that, shouldnt blood tests be the requirement?