The American Red Cross is now allowing gay and bisexual men to donate blood without restrictions that specifically single out a person’s sexual orientation or gender, the nonprofit group said Monday.
And it only took… *checks notes* 40 years!
You know why it started, right?
You know HIV has been screenable for most of those 40 years, right?
A lot of haemophiliacs got HIV. I don’t blame them for making a policy decision.
Again, it has been screenable for decades. Just like many other blood-borne diseases. Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Screening accuracy is lightyears better today than it was decades ago.
Also, many things on the screening test won’t kill you in the event of a false negative on screening. A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Why single out HIV
HIV never was ‘singled out’. There are numerous other behaviors and activities that disqualify a potential donor that have nothing to do with HIV.
A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Are you for fucking real? Don’t pretend it’s not still a life shattering disease.
You can’t just say, “oh well, it’s not as bad as it used to be.” There’s a vast spectrum between “it won’t kill you” and “it’s a total nothingburger” (wow, does that ever sound familiar). Now you’re immunocompromised, something you definitely do not want in this day and age. Now you risk passing it onto partners and children. Now your quality of life is degraded decades earlier than it otherwise would be.
Now imagine you contracted it, not because you voluntarily engaged in behaviors and you knew the risks, but because you received life-saving medical care. Then imagine learning it might have been prevented if the organization responsible was concerned with pandering to sexual identity politics than ensuring product safety.
This is, and has always been, about safety. Screening has improved. Research has provided more data on prevention and monitoring. They wouldn’t have changed the policies otherwise.
So…you agree with my position that Red Cross had good reason for the ban for the past several decades but choose to attack me because my argument wasn’t vicious enough? I think you arguing with the wrong person here, tbh.
It absolutely was singled out. You have to specifically say you haven’t had gay sex when you donate blood. I’ve done it plenty of times.
“Singled out” implies that that it stood alone as the only behavior that was screened for. But that’s not the case. There always have been and still are numerous other behaviors and activities screened for and denied.
To be a bigot? And to discriminate? That’s your rationale to ban people?
I’m gay.
So am I. Still don’t think a blanket ban on the LGBT was the right call
They phrased it “men who have sex with men” because that was - and is - undeniably a huge risk factor in the transmission of HIV. It was an unprecedented public health emergency and I don’t think people nowadays quite understand how severe it was. Which is great, really, we’ve come such a long way.
Communication infrastructure was nothing like it is today either, there was a real absence of information and people were extremely scared, especially gay men watching their friends die. A blanket ban was the only sane thing to do in the circumstances.
Did it need to persist so long, perhaps not, but even 20 years ago AIDS was much less preventable and treatable than it is today. And the gears of bureaucracy turn extremely slowly at the best of times.
As someone else has pointed out, this is far from the only group excluded from the donor pool. It’s not a moral judgment, just a screening heuristic at the demographic level. That’s how things have to operate at the level of public services; i.e. population-level policy.
I agree. As I said in another comment, the book And The Band Played On is a great history of the AIDS epidemic in the USA and really hammers home just how devestating it was to gay men. It’s a fact that gay men are the major risk group in the West for HIV transmission. Heterosexual sex is much less likely to spread it compared to anal sex. There was a lot of mismanagement of it, but screening was a good idea, when it was finally introduced.
Great, now I can move forward with my plan of turning everyone gay by donating blood
Convert 10 or more and you get a new toaster oven!
God speed 🫡
Can I just get a little blood? I don’t want to go full gay, I just want to be able to tell which sneakers I should wear with this outfit.
not if you like having sex. lol
Cue right wingers refusing transfusions. Actually, that’s fine.
Blood is blood is blood. I’m sure that people who need it don’t care if an absolute bigoted moron gave it to them, they wouldn’t know anyways.
Edit: I’m the moron, you meant refusing taking blood, not giving it lmao
We should make it known to these people that it’s ‘gay blood’ though. What they do with their own body is up to them because I support bodily autonomy, including dying of bigotry.
The rule was very necessary in the 80s. It vast majority of HIV-infected individuals were gay and bisexual men. However, those days are long gone, and we can test blood pretty well for even very low levels of HIV nowadays.
Are youIn 2006, the AABB, American Red Cross, and America’s Blood Centers all supported a change from the current US policy of a lifetime deferral of MSM to one year since most recent contact. One model suggested that this change would result in one additional case of HIV transmitted by transfusion every 32.8 years. The AABB has suggested making this change since 1997. The FDA did not accept the proposal and had concerns about the data used to produce the model, citing that additional risk to recipients was not justified. Source
We are well past the 80s and decades behind something that should have. Been corrected a long time ago. The systemic discrimination towards gay men is apparent when you look at EU models of deferment compared to the US.
Maybe this is a cynical take, but will conservatives refuse a life saving blood transfusion because it may have come from a gasp gay man? I mean a bunch were refusing transfusions because the blood could have come from someone that had a gasp covid vaccine.
There are people who refuse blood transfusions because of relious beliefs and will let their children die. Of course there are some that would refuse “gay blood.”
That sounds almost like the intention?
Frankly dude, the amount of people, even fairly right-wing people who will be preoccupied with this is teeny tiny. I’m sure they exist but it’s a negligible amount of people. The person obsessed with stereotyping these people is you.
Conservatives might be getting some of that gay blood. Does that work the same as eating the heart of a warrior to gain their power?
Yes, but instead of becoming more powerful, you become more fabulous.
Sign me up! Sound like A-positive to me!
Unless you’re someone who tends to B-negative anyway.
Under the new guidelines, anyone who has recently had sex with a new partner or multiple people and has also had anal sex would have to wait three months to donate
Those taking oral medication to prevent HIV infection, called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, still have to wait three months from their last dose to donate blood. People taking long-acting PrEP injections have to wait two years before donating.
Darn, so straight people having anal raw dog gang bangs can no longer donate soon after experiencing a DVDA? How is that fair? /s
I didn’t know that was still in place, since they started testing for AIDS decades ago.
In 2023. Unbelievable.
how the hell have we reached a point as a society where people would rather literally fucking die than get life saving blood from someone who thinks differently from them?
This started off when HIV was much more prominent in the gay and bisexual male population than anyone else. The Red Cross, among other organizations, decided it was better to just deny blood from gay and bi males than to check all their samples for HIV. Similarly, you can’t give blood if you were in certain locations in the '80s and '90s due to potential exposure to Mad Cow Disease. At this point, while HIV is still somewhat more prevalent in that demographic, rates have gone down significantly and HIV has spread to the other demographics. It’s also easier to test for than it was then. Repealing these restrictions was proposed quite some time ago and didn’t face any real pushback, but bureaucracy is going to bureaucracy, so it’s taken years to get this settled.
Bigots just assume the blood is always gonna be there. They don’t think as deeply as you credit them for
deleted by creator
Lol. Healthiest worldview.
Must be fun in your head
I wonder if homophobes will suddenly turn gay after a blood transfusion? /s
Bro that’s not it. It was about AIDS having spread throughout the gay community before testing was feasible.
Testing methods are still inadequate, as blood may test negative whilst infectious in the first three months
