Gay rights, coming out, blood donation and discrimination.

I.J.

First off, Im a male college student still trying to come to terms with my sexuality. It has been incredibly difficult as I am stuck in an archaic, men should be "men", homophobic family. Im worried about people's perceptions, sneering, all the usual. I've only recently started to take my sexuality seriously where as before I could hide and not care what people said about homosexuals. Now I do care and I have told a few friends Im gay which is going fine. My course involves a lot to do with equality around gender, race and sexuality etc...

...HOWEVER, today during a class I was in coversation with two people who dont know Im gay. Somebody mentioned something about general donating blood and I spoke up and made the point that homosexual men are not allowed to donate blood. One person immediately and swiftly said, "thats because they are a higher risk" and briskly wanted to move onto something else. I got them back to the subject and said that straight people are also a great risk because of promiscuity. Then the other person said, in an aggressive manner, "statistics show that gay men are more likely to have a high risk of disease and that there are a lot less gays in monogamous relationships than straight people". I really was shocked at the generalisation. As I said we are all supposed to be educated in understanding identity, equality and being aware of "othering".

These people don't know I'm gay but I think they know now because it was clear how upset I was by their reactions which to me were callous, not directly to me, but at gays. I really couldn't believe that people could be like this. It was like my first interaction with discrimination and I feel it is discrimination because its an argument labelling all gays at being at risk of disease and that their blood is useless and not looking at each human being as an individual. As I am trying to come to grips with my sexuality, this has really set me back. These two are intelligent when it comes to a lot of the other things such literature but this has left me cold as regards to what people out there really think of homosexuals, if they can just generalise like this. I had to get away from them soon, and going against the men being men image pushed on me, I did break into tears because it was my first interaction with some sort of negative reaction towards gays in an enviornment thats meant to be open, modern, pc and educated in equality. I don't know what to feel now, what to think. Its so difficult for me to accept being gay but Im trying so hard but now I face this type of thing. If it was just a case of being called "a fag" I probably would have just thought "bigot", but these people are supposed to be the open minded accepting educated. Also, I don't really know all the details and facts regarding gay men and blood donation to challenge them but all I know for certain is that the generalising was completely wrong.

Beruthiel

There are plenty of educated bigots out there.
There are plenty or racists, homophobes and xenophobes.
It will be a while before that kind of thinking is removed totally from the planet.

You may have helped make them think.
Don't allow that kind of crap to set you back.
They maybe the 'smarter' bunch but from my point of view, they are still young and have an awful lot to learn about the big wide world.

Boston

It's sudo ignorance rather then discrimination. They've just enough information to get things arse ways. I can see this was somewhat traumatic for you, however there is no getting away from the fact that we are statically more likely to have diseases such as HIV. For example in 2008 97 of the 178 new HIV infections where from men who have sex with other men, considering we make up 10% - 15% of the population, that's a staggering statistic. It's important as you come to terms with your sexuality to keep these kinds of things in mine for your own health and future well being.

As for monogamous relationships, I think there's alot of them, its just easier to spot the bed hoping young'uns. This thread was an eye opener for me personally.

Iwasfrozen

I think you completely over-reacted.
As the above poster shows Homosexual people are more likely to have an STI such as HIV. However instead of doing a bit of reasearch you flew of the handle at the first mention of your Sexuality.

From what I have read you are very immature and owe those people an apology.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you completely over-reacted.
As the above poster shows Homosexual people are more likely to have an STI such as HIV. However instead of doing a bit of reasearch you flew of the handle at the first mention of your Sexuality.

From what I have read you are very immature and owe those people an apology.

In the same way I and others cut you some slack perhaps you might cut someone else some slack when they're clearly having a hard and emotional time of it? Creating a hostile atmosphere is bad.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

In the same way I and others cut you some slack perhaps you might cut someone else some slack when they're clearly having a hard and emotional time of it?

I do not need anyone to "cut me slack".

Boston wrote: »

Creating a hostile atmosphere is bad.

Surly you must agree that the OP is clearly in the wrong.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I do not need anyone to "cut me slack".

Nevertheless, it would be nice if you cut someone else some.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surly you must agree that the OP is clearly in the wrong.

I agree with no such thing. His problem is with the notion that somehow a statistic can sum up who he is and his worth to society. "Statically gays are blah, therefore you are blah". I can see why he'd find such logic offensive.

MagicMarker

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that what the 2 guys said is correct?*

OP, regardless of whether or not this is true (they obviously think it is), it doesn't sound like the men you were speaking with had any ill feelings towards homosexuality (based on your quotes).

I personally think you're over reacting.

*If it's not correct, then I'm sure if you mention this to them they would (I hope) rethink their position on gay people giving blood.

schween

So because there were 97 gay men infected with HIV that year, this justifies denying the hundreds of thousands of others the opportunity to donate blood?

Also, 97 gay men, 81 heterosexual men. It's hardly a massive difference to justify it. Sure we might as well ban all heterosexual men too, they're not that far behind.

The OP was more offended as he said by the tone and ignorance of his classmates. I don't think he's overreacted.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

I agree with no such thing. His problem is with the notion that somehow a statistic can sum up who he is and his worth to society. "Statically gays are blah, therefore you are blah". I can see why he'd find such logic offensive.

Nobody said anything about the OP's worth in society. (Whatever that means) The OP's classmate was mearly expressing his opinion as to why Homosexuals are not allowed to give blood.
His friend may be right or he may be wrong, I don't know and it doesn't matter.

The OP is very immature and should apologize to his class mates.

MagicMarker

Can gay women give blood?

Boston

MagicMarker wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that what the 2 guys said is correct?*

OP, regardless of whether or not this is true (they obviously think it is), it doesn't sound like the men you were speaking with had any ill feelings towards homosexuality (based on your quotes).

I personally think you're over reacting.

*If it's not correct, then I'm sure if you mention this to them they would (I hope) rethink their position on gay people giving blood.

It's more complicated then that.

schween wrote: »

So because there were 97 gay men infected with HIV that year, this justifies denying the hundreds of thousands of others the opportunity to donate blood?

Also, 97 gay men, 81 heterosexual men. It's hardly a massive difference to justify it. Sure we might as well ban all heterosexual men too, they're not that far behind.

The OP was more offended as he said by the tone and ignorance of his classmates. I don't think he's overreacted.

Did you read part of my post and then stop? Considering there's about 8-9 times as many heterosexuals, yea, I think they're really far behind. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous

Nevyn

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can gay women give blood?

Yes.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nobody said anything about the OP's worth in society. (Whatever that means) The OP's classmate was mearly expressing his opinion as to why Homosexuals are not allowed to give blood.
His friend may be right or he may be wrong, I don't know and it doesn't matter.

The OP is very immature and should apologize to his class mates.

For someone who wasn't there you seem to know a lot about it. His friends being in the right or the wrong is far from irrelevant, it goes to the crux of the matter.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can gay women give blood?

Any male who has had sex in any form with another male is banned for life. Doesn't matter what you identify as.

Red IX

Boston wrote: »

For example in 2008 97 of the 178 new HIV infections where from men who have sex with other men

schween wrote: »

So because there were 97 gay men infected with HIV that year, this justifies denying the hundreds of thousands of others the opportunity to donate blood?

Also, 97 gay men, 81 heterosexual men.

You are assuming that all of the 178 instances of HIV were men. Which is obivously incorrect.

I'm a perfectly healthy 24 year old, and I live in France. I am not allowed to donate blood here because of the Hep C fiasco in Ireland (being a resident during the BSE crisis also blacklists you). I can accept this, even though it may be considered by some backwards folk to be racist.

Now you can argue that while gay men have a significantly higher chance of getting HIV, it is very possible for it to happen to hetrosexuals also. And to some extent you are right. But if you actually look at the figures in depth you will see that the most likely person to get HIV is a gay man, followed by heroin addicts, and THEN hetrosexuals.

Quite frankly, although rules like this can come across as discrimination I for one am happy to see this rule stay in effect.

Boston

Red IX wrote: »

You are assuming that all of the 178 instances of HIV were men. Which is obivously incorrect.

Sorry, I seem to have caused confusion;

178 instances of hetrosexual infection
97 instances of MSM infection
[FONT=verdana,arial]258 instances of male infection.

That gives 161 heterosexual male infections.
[/FONT]

Source HPSC

[FONT=verdana,arial][/FONT]

I.J.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you completely over-reacted.
As the above poster shows Homosexual people are more likely to have an STI such as HIV. However instead of doing a bit of reasearch you flew of the handle at the first mention of your Sexuality.

From what I have read you are very immature and owe those people an apology.

How did I fly off the handle? You weren't there. Plus I have nothing to apologise for. I said nothing to them about it. I was only obviously upset by how I looked and my quietness. I see their claims as total generalisation. Thats not a step forward for equality.

Nebit

i would just like to say that there is a still a large need for blood in ireland and due to the strict rules in this country a lot of people cannot donate.

instead ireland imports blood from countries such as spain, which has less checks on blood and i believe gay men (in spain etc) can donate, therefore if your getting blood in ireland by chance you could be getting it from a gay man anyway.

As if anyone with an STI would be stupid enough to give blood. and even if they didn't know, all blood is checked for STIs, so i really can't see the reason for having that rule.

AND i think the OP was only stating his opinion, as was the other person.

jady88

I.J. wrote: »

How did I fly off the handle? You weren't there. Plus I have nothing to apologise for. I said nothing to them about it. I was only obviously upset by how I looked and my quietness. I see their claims as total generalisation. Thats not a step forward for equality.

You didn't fly off the handle, unfortunately however the statistics do indicate that gay men are more at risk of infection. Although the statements were a generalizing and from how you described the exchange it is clear the individuals were less than sensitive the best thing you can do to advance equality is inform yourself.
Gay men are more at risk of HIV so it is essential that you protect yourself and don't end up as another statistic for ignorant people to trot out at will. BTW the huge majority of STDs, and the enormous growth in STDs in Ireland came from heterosexual couples and in particular young heterosexual males.

Boston

Nebit wrote: »

i would just like to say that there is a still a large need for blood in ireland and due to the strict rules in this country a lot of people cannot donate.

instead ireland imports blood from countries such as spain, which has less checks on blood and i believe gay men (in spain etc) can donate, therefore if your getting blood in ireland by chance you could be getting it from a gay man anyway.

As if anyone with an STI would be stupid enough to give blood. and even if they didn't know, all blood is checked for STIs, so i really can't see the reason for having that rule.

This is the type of post which leads to miss perceptions. Spain doesn't have less checks then we do, their system of screening blood is far more advanced. They do bar fewer people from donating blood, but due to having much better system the quality of blood products is superior to that of Ireland's.

I remember hearing a stat (maybe true, maybe false) that it would take ~ 6bn euro capital investment to bring our system up the the level the Spanish have and even at that we would still need to import the vast bulk of our blood products.

I.J.

The main point out of this for me though is how people were happy to attack homosexuals. Whether they are ignorant or not would even be beside my point. They took delight in shouting this opinion with a sense of disgust for homosexuals. It was very difficult for me to be taking that vibe. I know thats the real world but it was the fact it was on this course which deals heavily in equality and it was a two against one scenario.

However on the issue of blood donation. Why is it that a STD free gay man is still not allowed to donate blood? From what I am reading there is total discrimination against gay men. It could be years since a gay man had sex and still he is not allowed to give blood despite it being clean. If a woman has sex with a man who has had sex with a man she's banned for two years but if a man has sex with a man he's banned for life. It is very clear discrimination that only gay men are banned because even if I am fine I am still banned just because x number of other gay men have STDs. That is NOT equality, that is plain old discrimination. That IS generalisation and unacceptable.

Reflector

Boston wrote: »

This is the type of post which leads to miss perceptions. Spain doesn't have less checks then we do, their system of screening blood is far more advanced. They do bar fewer people from donating blood, but due to having much better system the quality of blood products is superior to that of Ireland's.

I remember hearing a stat (maybe true, maybe false) that it would take ~ 6bn euro capital investment to bring our system up the the level the Spanish have and even at that we would still need to import the vast bulk of our blood products.

Boston we need a source?

The system is terrible discriminatory. People should be entitled to donate blood if they want. The system should judge people individually as in if you are a person who engages in risky sexual behaviour than you should not be allowed donate if you don't than you should. A blanket ban is just wrong and also I would think that more gay men have had an std screen than straight people but this is mostly anecdotal.
A guy when I was in college went in to the blood bank with a test result from an std screen which showed that he was negative for any STIs and he still wasn't allowed donate.
I.J you were right to be annoyed, your classmates are ignorant and are just regurgitating what they've been told.

Dwn Wth Vwls

This used to be on the Irish Blood Transfusion Service website:

Q. Why does the IBTS not accept donations from men who have sex with men?
A. In line with all blood transfusion services in the developed world, the IBTS refuses to accept blood donations from men who have had oral or anal sex with another male. This policy was first introduced in the early 1980s when it became apparent that HIV could be spread by blood transfusions, and at a time when gay men represented the largest identifiable source of HIV transmission. The introduction of the ban on gay men was adopted before a test for HIV infection in blood donors was developed, and was very successful in reducing transmission of HIV from transfusions.

This policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatory against gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk of HIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men to the exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increased risk of acquiring HIV. In recent years heterosexual females have overtaken IV drug users and homosexual men as the largest group of new HIV cases in Ireland.

The IBTS accepts that they are being discriminatory; we discriminate against several groups in the community insofar as we refuse to allow them to donate blood on the basis of perceived increased risk of spreading infections through blood transfusion. These include anyone who has ever been injected with non-prescribed drugs, anyone who has engaged in sex for which they have been paid with money or drugs, people who have lived in Britain or Northern Ireland between 1980 and 1996 (because of the vCJD risk), people who have been in prison in the previous year, and several other categories.

Q. But what about testing?
A. While the testing currently used by the IBTS is the most sensitive available, no test can reliably detect HIV infection in the first ten days after someone has become infected. This means that a person who donates blood soon after becoming infected with HIV can transmit the infection even if the test for HIV is negative. For this reason all persons who are identifiably at increased risk of HIV are excluded. (Most of the heterosexual females who developed HIV infection in recent years would have been rejected as blood donors on the basis of residency in sub-Saharan Africa or other identifiable risk.)

HIV in the West appeared first among gay men in the eighties and had spread widely in the gay community before the nature of the threat was appreciated or understood. This indicates that men who have sex with men may constitute one route in the future through which a new disease, transmissible by blood transfusions, could find its way into the community before it is detectable. While heterosexual activity also represents a significant route of transmission now, the extensive spread of HIV through heterosexual activity in the West was considerably slower, and occurred predominantly after the disease was understood and methods to prevent its spread had been identified.

Q. Why can't you evaluate gay men on the same basis as heterosexual people?
A. It is arguable that the total ban on men who have had sex with men should be replaced by exclusion on the basis of activity rather than gender preference. Up to a point the ban is on the basis of activity – someone who is gay but has never had oral or anal sex with another male is not banned from donating blood.

Nevertheless it is true that the blood transfusion community uses a very blunt approach to the problem – but at present we know that this approach has been successful in the past, and is likely to provide the best level of protection to patients in the future should a new but similarly insidious form of infection appear again. Viruses can cause lethal infection with latent periods longer than ten or fifteen years. If a time limit were to be set so that men who had had sex with men in the past could be reinstated as donors after a period of abstinence, then that time limit would likely be very long.

The United States has recently modified its ban on gay men, to men who have had sex with another male at any time since 1977. This means that gay men are accepted if they have been abstinent throughout the last 26 years. It is possible that the Europeans would consider such a move in the future; however the practical consequences are likely to be minimal.

Q. Is the IBTS policy on gay men donating blood likely to change?
A. It remains possible that one or more of several new developments may enable the ban to be lifted at some stage in the future. Several groups are attempting to identify chemical treatments for blood that would destroy any undetected viruses in it. This would provide protection against new infections that we cannot yet test for, as well as against early stages of familiar infections that escape detection by the testing strategies available to us.

If these approaches to chemical treatment of blood prove their worth, then it should be possible in the future to lift the total exclusion of men who have sex with men from donating blood.

I.J. I think you need to work on not taking things personally. What other people think is just their opinion, it doesn't change who you are. There is nobody in the world that someone somewhere doesn't hate for whatever petty reason they have, be it race, religion or anything else. You just have to accept that it doesn't matter and be yourself.

Cabbage Brained

Boston wrote: »

It's more complicated then that.



Did you read part of my post and then stop? Considering there's about 8-9 times as many heterosexuals, yea, I think they're really far behind. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous

I think that is a pretty misleading statistic to quote. Surely gay men are much more likely than straight men to get tested? Which in fact would lend credence to the argument that heteros shouldn't be allowed donate blood, as I'm almost certain they are less likely to know they are positive.

That said nobody should be banned. There should just be much more comprehensive testing procedures in place. In Norway they offer it to you every time you visit the GP.

Goodshape

You're also excluded if "you have spent 1 year or more, in total, in the UK in the years 1980 to 1996"
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/blood-and-organ-donation/blood-donation#rules

...so that's me out anyway.

The rules are strict and do seem a bit unfair on the face of things, but I can accept that they're based on broad statistics rather than prejudice.

Your classmates may have just been tired of the argument?

Boston

Reflector wrote: »

Boston we need a source?

The system is terrible discriminatory. People should be entitled to donate blood if they want. The system should judge people individually as in if you are a person who engages in risky sexual behaviour than you should not be allowed donate if you don't than you should. A blanket ban is just wrong and also I would think that more gay men have had an std screen than straight people but this is mostly anecdotal.
A guy when I was in college went in to the blood bank with a test result from an std screen which showed that he was negative for any STIs and he still wasn't allowed donate.
I.J you were right to be annoyed, your classmates are ignorant and are just regurgitating what they've been told.

A source for what, the information about the Spanish system? Before I go searching for sources, do you actually doubt the validity of the statement.

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

I think that is a pretty misleading statistic to quote. Surely gay men are much more likely than straight men to get tested? Which in fact would lend credence to the argument that heteros shouldn't be allowed donate blood, as I'm almost certain they are less likely to know they are positive.

That said nobody should be banned. There should just be much more comprehensive testing procedures in place. In Norway they offer it to you every time you visit the GP.

No test is 100% certain, no combination of tests are 100 certain. The idea is to reduce risks. You don't nor should you have an absolute right to donate blood.

Cabbage Brained

Boston wrote: »

A source for what, the information about the Spanish system? Before I go searching for sources, do you actually doubt the validity of the statement.



No test is 100% certain, no combination of tests are 100 certain. The idea is to reduce risks. You don't nor should you have an absolute right to donate blood.

The idea is to rationally weigh up risks against rewards. If we banned everybody from donating blood then nobody would contract anything through transfusions. Likewise we could make the speed limit 5 mph everywhere and that way we would have no more road deaths.

Considering that blood donors are very much in demand, I'm not sure how wise this decision is.

Iwasfrozen

I.J. wrote: »

How did I fly off the handle? You weren't there. Plus I have nothing to apologise for. I said nothing to them about it. I was only obviously upset by how I looked and my quietness. I see their claims as total generalisation. Thats not a step forward for equality.

You have your immature behaviour to apologise for, What your classmate said was true and un-biased but you in your one-eyed view could only see this as an attack on your sexuality. Which it wasn't.
What's more instead of openly debating with your classmate the merits and de-merits of the ban you huffed like a told off child.

Goodshape

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have your immature behaviour to apologise for
[...]
What's more instead of openly debating with your classmate the merits and de-merits of the ban you huffed like a told off child.

Were you there?

Cabbage Brained

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have your immature behaviour to apologise for, What your classmate said was true and un-biased but you in your one-eyed view could only see this as an attack on your sexuality. Which it wasn't.
What's more instead of openly debating with your classmate the merits and de-merits of the ban you huffed like a told off child.

I wouldn't have bothered defrosting you.

Boston

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

The idea is to rationally weigh up risks against rewards. If we banned everybody from donating blood then nobody would contract anything through transfusions. Likewise we could make the speed limit 5 mph everywhere and that way we would have no more road deaths.

Considering that blood donors are very much in demand, I'm not sure how wise this decision is.

They're medical professionals weighing up all the risks and being extremely conservative. More then likely as a direct results of what happened in the 80s and 90s from hepatitis. I have never subscribed to the notion that this ban is homophobic in nature and you'll get no where with the IBTS be arguing from that stance.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have your immature behaviour to apologise for, What your classmate said was true and un-biased but you in your one-eyed view could only see this as an attack on your sexuality. Which it wasn't.
What's more instead of openly debating with your classmate the merits and de-merits of the ban you huffed like a told off child.

He explain that it wasn't what was said but how it was said. This isn't an opportunity for you to soap box.

Goodshape wrote: »

Were you there?

There does seem to be some real transference issues going on here. IWF is reading huge amounts into this.

Cabbage Brained

Boston wrote: »

They're medical professionals weighing up all the risks and being extremely conservative. More then likely as a direct results of what happened in the 80s and 90s from hepatitis. I have never subscribed to the notion that this ban is homophobic in nature and you'll get no where with the IBTS be arguing from that stance.

Yeah I'm sure fear of litigation is the main driving force behind the decision.

Boston

Precisely, and you know, its something you never hear mentioned in any of these talks about how to change policy.

snappieT

The IBTS quote above said that HIV testing is not reliable within 10 days of contracting HIV. There are other cases (accupuncture), where they insist that you wait for a certain time after getting the treatment and giving blood. I presume this is for the HIV/blood infection reasons.
Surely the same could apply to gay men: no giving blood if you'd engaged in sexual contact with another male in the past month, or whatever.

(I'm ruled out anyway due to transfusion, but hating that I never got a chance to give blood because of the no-gay rule)

Nebit

thank boston! i stand corrected:rolleyes:
never really connected the hepatitis scare

Aard

IJ, I get what you're saying. The first encounter with such ignorance is a real slap in the face. I had been out for about 3-4 years before it really happened to me (at our 6th year spiritual retreat of all places). I'm afraid I wasn't as gracious as you were, and instead started effing and blinding and slamming doors.

My advice is not to waste your powder on these people. Even if you come out with logical arguments, they have an uncanny ability to ignore sound facts only surpassed by their stubbornness.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I.J. wrote: »

However on the issue of blood donation. Why is it that a STD free gay man is still not allowed to donate blood? From what I am reading there is total discrimination against gay men. It could be years since a gay man had sex and still he is not allowed to give blood despite it being clean. If a woman has sex with a man who has had sex with a man she's banned for two years but if a man has sex with a man he's banned for life. It is very clear discrimination that only gay men are banned because even if I am fine I am still banned just because x number of other gay men have STDs. That is NOT equality, that is plain old discrimination. That IS generalisation and unacceptable.

I think if you read more about it or talked to doctors in the field you'd change your mind. The consequences are so devastating you have to be discriminatory.

The same goes for Sub-Saharan Africans so its not just an anti-gay thing. There's no ban on gay men, its simply a ban on men who have had sex with men. If I was raped tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay.

I can understand how offensive the ban must feel, and I empathise with you getting upset about those guys taking delight in sneering at homosexual men, that must be tough.

jady88 wrote:

BTW the huge majority of STDs, and the enormous growth in STDs in Ireland came from heterosexual couples and in particular young heterosexual males.

Erm, how does that work? Surely females would be required to spread stds in a heterosexual population?

I.J.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think if you read more about it or talked to doctors in the field you'd change your mind. The consequences are so devastating you have to be discriminatory.

The same goes for Sub-Saharan Africans so its not just an anti-gay thing. There's no ban on gay men, its simply a ban on men who have had sex with men. If I was raped tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay.

Thanks for the response but I have now discovered that even a man who is completely free of STD is banned, simply if he had sex with a man and no matter when it was. I don't get why a woman who had sex with a man who had sex with a man is cleared after 2 years but a gay man gets a lifetime ban. I have read it can take up to 10 months for infections to show up in a report. So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

Thanks for the response but I have now discovered that even a man who is completely free of STD is banned, simply if he had sex with a man and no matter when it was. I don't get why a woman who had sex with a man who had sex with a man is cleared after 2 years but a gay man gets a lifetime ban. I have read it can take up to 10 months for infections to show up in a report. So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

In short, infection vectors. Theres no such thing as completely free of an STD. Every test has a margin or error. .0000001 is not the same as zero. Anal sex is inherently more risky then vaginal sex and that is reflected in the numbers. Yes it's discrimination, so is a lifetime ban based on where you were born.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

In short, infection vectors. Theres no such thing as completely free of an STD. Every test has a margin or error. .0000001 is not the same as zero. Anal sex is inherently more risky then vaginal sex and that is reflected in the numbers. Yes it's discrimination, so is a lifetime ban based on where you were born.

How about a woman who has had anal sex? Is she banned for life? What about all the women who perform oral sex with men? I have seen nothing about these people being banned. If every blood donation is checked why does it matter what the lifestyle of a person is?. What I'm glad to find in my searches is that there are huge numbers campaining against such discrimination.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I think the quote from the IBTS on the previous page explains it pretty well to be honest. They admit it's blatant discrimination and they apologise for that, but they're just trying to minimise risks. If they were really desperate for blood they'd probably change their policies.

dny123456

Personally i'm quite happy the discriminate, as the reasons they do it, are good. i.e. for safety of us all with regard to blood transfusions..

I often wonder though, I've been carrying around a organ donor card for years... was/is there any point? Would they take a gay mans kidney/liver/heart etc?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

I think that is a pretty misleading statistic to quote. Surely gay men are much more likely than straight men to get tested? Which in fact would lend credence to the argument that heteros shouldn't be allowed donate blood, as I'm almost certain they are less likely to know they are positive.

I'm not sure about that. Seen a lot of threads on boards from gay men saying they were too scared to get tested in case the result was positive. Also, if you're taking anti-HIV drugs and they are successful its quite unlikely you'll pass on the virus to partners. This suggests to me a lot of HIV infection is passed on without either party being aware.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8068074.stm

Refelctor wrote:

The system is terrible discriminatory. People should be entitled to donate blood if they want. The system should judge people individually as in if you are a person who engages in risky sexual behaviour than you should not be allowed donate if you don't than you should. A blanket ban is just wrong and also I would think that more gay men have had an std screen than straight people but this is mostly anecdotal.

How exactly would you define "risky behaviour" ? If they did it this way they would probably consider all msm activity risky and I don't see how they would narrow it down.

I.J wrote:

So why not put a time frame on it? This goes for all people. If every donation is checked why ban gay blood? If I had sex once with a man 10 years ago and am completely free of STD and always have been I am still banned. If a lifetime ban only applies to gays that is discrimination.

Is anyone who's upset with the current rules going to be appeased by a 10-year ban? Would you give up your sex life for 10 years to donate? Would anyone?

How about a woman who has had anal sex? Is she banned for life? What about all the women who perform oral sex with men? I have seen nothing about these people being banned.

Anal sex is riskier but the main problem is that as a group men who have sex with men have overwhelmingly higher rates of HIV transmission.

If every blood donation is checked why does it matter what the lifestyle of a person is?.

The donations are checked by humans. Humans make errors. There are procedures in place to limit errors for something of this importance but it can't be guaranteed. Therefore it makes sense not to let high-risk group blood into the system.

Therefore they don't let ex-IV drug users(even if they've tested negative), commercial sex workers(even if they've tested negative), people living in the UK during the BSE period, women who received blood during the hep C scare(even if they've tested negative), people who have spent time in Sub-Saharan Africa(even if they've tested negative) etc donate

What I'm glad to find in my searches is that there are huge numbers campaining against such discrimination.

I doubt it will change until the level of HIV transmission amongst men who have sex with men reduces to the same level as that amongst the general population. It would be illegal for the health industry to accept any blood from any high risk group.

Perhaps they should put their complaining efforts into combating the sub-culture of promiscuity amongst a minority of gay men(saunas, orgies etc). That's what's stopping other gay men from being able to donate.

I.J.

I didn't say anything about a 10 year ban and I didn't say anything about giving up a sex life. If a test clears a straight person after a year or so, why not let a test clear a gay man after a year or so? Just take a straight woman in the same position as a gay man. What really is the difference? Anal sex is riskier as you say but what about those gay men who don't have those overwhelmingly high rates? This is still unjust discrimination because, as i said, if a woman has anal/oral sex she can go ahead but a man can't. Even if the woman has had a lot more anal/oral sex than men. The fact is, from what I see, its an old fashioned rule equated with the 1980s belief that ONLY gay men get Aids. There might be discrimination in many areas but I do not accept homosexuals being treated any different to heterosexuals. Locations and experiences with drugs etc.. are one thing but ruling out one type of human being is totally unacceptable. If things are to be equal I say either put a ban on anybody who has had anal or oral sex if these are the risky ways to receive disease or put gay people on the same level as straight people, test everybodys blood, throw out whats useless and keep what tests consider fine. Human error comes into everything but that still is no excuse to discriminate.

Reflector

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

How exactly would you define "risky behaviour" ? If they did it this way they would probably consider all msm activity risky and I don't see how they would narrow it down.




Perhaps they should put their complaining efforts into combating the sub-culture of promiscuity amongst a minority of gay men(saunas, orgies etc). That's what's stopping other gay men from being able to donate.

I would define risky as having unprotected sex with multiple partners. If you don't do this then you should be allowed donate. gay or not.

I don't agree in your second statement. I believe in free choice and these saunas serve an important function. it would just bring it out onto the streets. But if you are having sex regularly in a sauna maybe you shouldn't donate. But if a straight guy was visiting prostitutes he would be allowed donate.

Tricity Bendix

I.J. wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a 10 year ban and I didn't say anything about giving up a sex life. If a test clears a straight person after a year or so, why not let a test clear a gay man after a year or so? Just take a straight woman in the same position as a gay man. What really is the difference? Anal sex is riskier as you say but what about those gay men who don't have those overwhelmingly high rates? This is still unjust discrimination because, as i said, if a woman has anal/oral sex she can go ahead but a man can't. Even if the woman has had a lot more anal/oral sex than men. The fact is, from what I see, its an old fashioned rule equated with the 1980s belief that ONLY gay men get Aids. There might be discrimination in many areas but I do not accept homosexuals being treated any different to heterosexuals. Locations and experiences with drugs etc.. are one thing but ruling out one type of human being is totally unacceptable. If things are to be equal I say either put a ban on anybody who has had anal or oral sex if these are the risky ways to receive disease or put gay people on the same level as straight people, test everybodys blood, throw out whats useless and keep what tests consider fine. Human error comes into everything but that still is no excuse to discriminate.

I'm not an expert, but I doubt its the type of sex that's the problem; we're not discriminated against because we've had anal sex with a man, we're discriminated against because men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to have HIV. If so, your man/woman comparison isn't valid.

I.J.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I'm not an expert, but I doubt its the type of sex that's the problem; we're not discriminated against because we've had anal sex with a man, we're discriminated against because men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to have HIV. If so, your man/woman comparison isn't valid.

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Tricity Bendix

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Oh my yes.

Rev Hellfire

Reflector wrote: »

But if a straight guy was visiting prostitutes he would be allowed donate.

Would he ?

I mean just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean its automatically allowed. I'm pretty sure that if someone said they've been frequenting brothels the reply wouldn't be, "sure that's grand, roll up your sleeve".

MagicMarker

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

As a gay man you should really educate yourself on these issues.

I.J.

MagicMarker wrote: »

As a gay man you should really educate yourself on these issues.

Uhhh.. do you not think thats whats happening now? Education is part of what this thread is about. We are always learning new things. If it wasn't why is there so many question marks in my posts? I would be interestered to know what it is about women that they don't get infected with diseases through anal/oral sex as easily as men.

Nonetheless, even if that example is not to be used, it still doesn't stop the fact that there is discrimination. A promiscuous straight men who doesn't use protection is still allowed to donate while a mongamous gay man who uses protection isn't. Still doesn't sound just to me.