"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Blarg]

I was under the impression we all knew homophobia has always been about what you do. When right wing homophobes tell you choose not being gay, they don't mean stop identifying as gay, they mean stop having sex with men.

well since sex goes down in marriage why wouldn't they encourage men to marry each other because there will be more gay man sex for those not married

[Ashmada]

I was under the impression we all knew homophobia has always been about what you do. When right wing homophobes tell you choose not being gay, they don't mean stop identifying as gay, they mean stop having sex with men.

Not always.

Anyway, that's a pretty poor argument. Correlation!=causation: there might be an underlying homophobic motivation under their "just minimising risk" line, there might not.
A trial of intention isn't the right path to go down in this case (or indeed, most).

[Mazmaz]

You're right. A correlation of gays and STDs doesn't mean that gays cause STDs (through blood transfusion).

[Julian]

Also i cringe at the "blood donation discrimination" claim.

Noone is stopping lesbians from giving blood. That is about risky behavior, not orientation.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

Yeah, because having sex means that you are at high risk.

If you want a real risk question, then asking something that would actually be high risk, like, "have you practiced unprotected sex with someone you're not monogamous with in the last x months?" (or hell, just unprotected sex in general) or "have you had sex with more than one guy in the past x months?"

Denying people the right to donate blood just because they're gay and active is silly, because that doesn't define high risk at all. Other factors on top of it do, though.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Your blood isn't legal tender or anything. No one has any obligations to accept it.

No clinic will accept my blood, either. I've never had sex with anyone, and I have no transmissible diseases. And yet, my blood is unacceptable. Are they persecuting me because I have Crohn's? No. I was pumped full of experimental drugs. That could pose a danger to anyone who got my blood. No one gets my blood. Simple as that. If you're a dude who had sex with a dude, data indicates that dudes who have sex with dudes have a higher risk of HIV than people who don't, therefore, your blood could pose a danger to anyone who gets it. No one gets your blood. As said, a straight guy who got raped in prison can't donate. It's not like it only applies if you're gay. Just only if you've done one simple, risky thing, like get pumped full of experimental drugs. Taking my blood would be a dice roll for anyone who got it. What does chemical Y do when it's been transfused? Dunno, but X gets to find out first-hand!

I'm not saying it's right, but I do think there's a good reason for it. Fighting this particular aspect of gay rights is a waste of time imo; time better spent on things like raising HIV/AIDS awareness, trying to make the whole thing moot. Or getting other rights. Like getting married, and adoption rights, big things like that. I dunno. There's plenty of injustice in the world, but this is so ambiguous it shouldn't even be on the agenda.

Edit: Also, at what point do you qualify as gay? Is it while masturbating to dudes, or do you need to have sex before you're considered gay? If it's the latter, that implies that it's a choice and therefore just stop being gay. If it's the former, being gay doesn't disqualify you from donating blood. Acting on your sexual impulses does. Much like my own action on my desire to, yknow, not have diarrhea for the rest of my life.

Edit2: Also, just spoke to my dad about it, and apparently you can still donate blood, and then at the end of the confidential part, you just check a box that says "I have a risk factor, don't use my blood." So there isn't even a social stigma attached to not using your blood.

[Restrat]

They test all the blood for HIV already

[Milkster]

Your blood isn't legal tender or anything. No one has any obligations to accept it.

No clinic will accept my blood, either. I've never had sex with anyone, and I have no transmissible diseases. And yet, my blood is unacceptable. Are they persecuting me because I have Crohn's? No. I was pumped full of experimental drugs. That could pose a danger to anyone who got my blood. No one gets my blood. Simple as that. If you're a dude who had sex with a dude, data indicates that dudes who have sex with dudes have a higher risk of HIV than people who don't, therefore, your blood could pose a danger to anyone who gets it. No one gets your blood. As said, a straight guy who got raped in prison can't donate. It's not like it only applies if you're gay. Just only if you've done one simple, risky thing, like get pumped full of experimental drugs. Taking my blood would be a dice roll for anyone who got it. What does chemical Y do when it's been transfused? Dunno, but X gets to find out first-hand!

I'm not saying it's right, but I do think there's a good reason for it. Fighting this particular aspect of gay rights is a waste of time imo; time better spent on things like raising HIV/AIDS awareness, trying to make the whole thing moot. Or getting other rights. Like getting married, and adoption rights, big things like that. I dunno. There's plenty of injustice in the world, but this is so ambiguous it shouldn't even be on the agenda.

Edit: Also, at what point do you qualify as gay? Is it while masturbating to dudes, or do you need to have sex before you're considered gay? If it's the latter, that implies that it's a choice and therefore just stop being gay. If it's the former, being gay doesn't disqualify you from donating blood. Acting on your sexual impulses does. Much like my own action on my desire to, yknow, not have diarrhea for the rest of my life.

Edit2: Also, just spoke to my dad about it, and apparently you can still donate blood, and then at the end of the confidential part, you just check a box that says "I have a risk factor, don't use my blood." So there isn't even a social stigma attached to not using your blood.

I don't even know where to begin with this. I'll try my best later when I get back.

[Kuya]

Your blood isn't legal tender or anything. No one has any obligations to accept it.

No clinic will accept my blood, either. I've never had sex with anyone, and I have no transmissible diseases. And yet, my blood is unacceptable. Are they persecuting me because I have Crohn's? No. I was pumped full of experimental drugs. That could pose a danger to anyone who got my blood. No one gets my blood. Simple as that. If you're a dude who had sex with a dude, data indicates that dudes who have sex with dudes have a higher risk of HIV than people who don't, therefore, your blood could pose a danger to anyone who gets it. No one gets your blood. As said, a straight guy who got raped in prison can't donate. It's not like it only applies if you're gay. Just only if you've done one simple, risky thing, like get pumped full of experimental drugs. Taking my blood would be a dice roll for anyone who got it. What does chemical Y do when it's been transfused? Dunno, but X gets to find out first-hand!

I'm not saying it's right, but I do think there's a good reason for it. Fighting this particular aspect of gay rights is a waste of time imo; time better spent on things like raising HIV/AIDS awareness, trying to make the whole thing moot. Or getting other rights. Like getting married, and adoption rights, big things like that. I dunno. There's plenty of injustice in the world, but this is so ambiguous it shouldn't even be on the agenda.

Edit: Also, at what point do you qualify as gay? Is it while masturbating to dudes, or do you need to have sex before you're considered gay? If it's the latter, that implies that it's a choice and therefore just stop being gay. If it's the former, being gay doesn't disqualify you from donating blood. Acting on your sexual impulses does. Much like my own action on my desire to, yknow, not have diarrhea for the rest of my life.

Edit2: Also, just spoke to my dad about it, and apparently you can still donate blood, and then at the end of the confidential part, you just check a box that says "I have a risk factor, don't use my blood." So there isn't even a social stigma attached to not using your blood.

What annoys gay and bi people is the fact that they don't even consider other factors that mitigate risk, and they lump all gay and bi people in the same category of high risk aids vectors. There is no reason why they can't ask you if you're in a monogamous relationship and if you always use protection when you have sex with another man.

If you're a gay man and you never have sex with your boyfriend without a condom and you are in an exclusive relationship, you are very unlikely to ever contract HIV. They also never ask if you've ever taken an HIV test and when, which is also helpful. Like it was said before, they already do test the blood for HIV, but since it can take time for the virus to show up in test results, particularly if you don't use the most expensive techniques available to detect HIV, you can get a negative on blood even though the virus is present, so they take extra precaution of asking for risk factors.

What gay men and bisexual men are alleging is that there are other factors that severely mitigate risk, and these questionnaires aren't even making the effort into taking this into account. And i also find it severely insulting that you're comparing your situation with that of gay/bi men and AIDs. HIV/AIDs has led to severe stigma for the gay community and it has even often been called the "gay disease", so it's more than a little upsetting for gay/bi men when they are categorically excluded from something because they might have HIV.

[Blarg]

It comes down to managing potential risk. I mean that's why black people are arrested so much. The statistics show that they are always committing crimes based on how often they are arrested so why would a cop take the risk and let a black man walk the streets or do things like drive while being black when they carry such a huge safety risk to us normal people.

[Yuri-G]

I don't know you, but I love you blarg.

[archibaldcrane]

If they can word the question and get honest answers in blind trials in a way where a certain question-answer pattern (regarding monogamy, specific sexual practices, condom use, etc) produces sexually-active people who have sex with men who have sex with men and don't obtain blood with an appreciably-higher rate of HIV, then I'm all for said questions being asked and said sex-with-MSM persons being allowed to give blood.

It would just take a lot of research, and I'm not convinced that such questions exist when applied to large-scale populations.

[archibaldcrane]

If the result of a study found that the only sex-with-MSM population to provide similarly low HIV rates to the rest of the "question-passing" population was "Have you ever had any sexual activity with a MSM without a condom: NO" "Have you ever had sexual activity with more than one MSM: NO" and said data was presented (that anyone who answers yes to either question is part of a population that has an unacceptably higher than the standard question-passing population rate of HIV-infection) - would we still be crying discrimination?

[Kuya]

What?

[Milkster]

What?

.

[Mazmaz]

Yea, that was a lot of big words. I didn't really get that :/

[BaneTheBrawler]

If you really found that comparison offensive, I think you need to get over yourself and stop being a drama queen. If you really want to go that way, I could claim offense that you would presume to be insulted by the comparison of Crohn's to Gay, because that implies that you think having Crohn's is easy.

I get it that it sucks to be excluded out-of-hand, and as I said, I don't think the policy is right... but it does have good reasons, you can easily avoid the social stigma, and there are far more important things worth fighting for at this point in the gay civil rights arena. Until this is the worst thing Gays have to deal with, it's only an annoyance, as you said. I mean seriously, think about it: The essence of this complaint is that there aren't enough questions on the forms you fill out to donate blood, which results in your blood not being used. Sounds pretty goddamn trivial compared to "I can't see the one I love while they're in the hospital" or "I can't have a child" which still happen far too often.

[Milkster]

If you really found that comparison offensive, I think you need to get over yourself and stop being a drama queen. If you really want to go that way, I could claim offense that you would presume to be insulted by the comparison of Crohn's to Gay, because that implies that you think having Crohn's is easy.

I get it that it sucks to be excluded out-of-hand, and as I said, I don't think the policy is right... but it does have good reasons, you can easily avoid the social stigma, and there are far more important things worth fighting for at this point in the gay civil rights arena. Until this is the worst thing Gays have to deal with, it's only an annoyance, as you said. I mean seriously, think about it: The essence of this complaint is that there aren't enough questions on the forms you fill out to donate blood, which results in your blood not being used. Sounds pretty goddamn trivial compared to "I can't see the one I love while they're in the hospital" or "I can't have a child" which still happen far too often.

First the bold, you're wrong about that. It's a new policy since 2010 that a patient has the right to allow anyone to see them conscious or not. No one implied that having Crohn's was a walk in the park. Can you be fired just because you have Crohn's Disease? Not the complications that occur because of but just because you have the disease. No? Didn't think so.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly...rzawo1_500.jpg

But you did and keep trivializing that certain groups of perfectly healthy people are denied the ability to help another person. Every sexually active adult is at a risk to contract HIV/AIDs, that is not in a mutually exclusive relationship while practicing safe sex as Kuya said.

You also believe that because one is gay one shouldn't be able to be themselves and enjoy the opportunities afford to other individuals because of their sexual orientation. If it's so simple to chose not to be gay, I think most people would take the option that isn't filled with a life of fighting an unnecessary but necessary uphill battle. Honestly, you've lost all credibility with that statement.

[Correction]

I could claim offense that you would presume to be insulted by the comparison of Crohn's to Gay, because that implies that you think having Crohn's is easy.

This is besides the point, and I don't think it's very constructive to think this is a personal matter as much as it is one of conducting good medicine based on doing the proper science. Homosexuality as an auto-disqualify for blood donations is not based on very good (or very current) science, and leads to bad medicine. The stigma can be worked around under the status quo as you said, but there's no reason why proper science and medicine can't trump everything.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

There's no way in hell that image is entirely accurate.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Oh, nice. Point still stands, though. Bigger fish to fry, etc.

Also, you thought I was being serious when I said to just choose not to be gay? That wasn't my assertion at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which is why it was phrased the way it was. Re-read it.

And yes, I am trivializing it. Because it's fucking trivial. Someone saying "No you can't give CPR you're gay" is denying the ability to help someone. "We can't use your blood because you might have a higher risk of HIV and our forms aren't detailed enough to ask" is not. Opportunity? To do what? Go in and donate blood? You can do that. They'll just throw it out later. No one knows its yours, because by that point its all serial numbers. You feel important because you gave up your lifeblood to help others, everyone else agrees you're an awesome dude. Blood goes bad and gets thrown away all the time. Does that diminish the contribution of the people who gave it? No. Symbolic gesture and all that.

Petition to have the forms ask more specific questions if you really care so deeply, I doubt you'd find many opponents, but don't call it discrimination. That trivializes everything that actually IS discrimination.

Edit:

This is besides the point, and I don't think it's very constructive to think this is a personal matter as much as it is one of conducting good medicine based on doing the proper science. Homosexuality as an auto-disqualify for blood donations is not based on very good (or very current) science, and leads to bad medicine. The stigma can be worked around under the status quo as you said, but there's no reason why proper science and medicine can't trump everything.

I agree. However, outdated science being used in one of the thousands of questionairres used by hospitals every day is hardly discrimination. It is, at worst, an annoying clerical oversight that results in waste. It should be treated as such.

And yeah, I wasn't actually offended. Was merely pointing out that if we're going to go all drama queen, I could find a reason to be offended, too.

Edit2: Have you ever put "Have Crohn's Disease, now well controlled" on a resume as an explanation for why you haven't had a job in 5 years? No? Let me tell you what happens. Nothing happens. Then you realize what's going on, take it off your resume, and hope you don't have to explain why you haven't had a job during the interview for the next job. We can go down this road, but it's a very shitty road.

Edit3: Also, that's a perfect example of a bigger fish.