"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Rhyis.]

Portia de Rossi is too good looking to a lesbian. I'm just sayin'.

[Qeomash]

Which part is inaccurate?

[Kohan]

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

Except it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ri..._United_States

[BaneTheBrawler]

I still think there are far more important issues than this, and that this is relatively trivial. However, discrimination is used interchangeably with persecution in the media/public forum. Throwing away your blood isn't persecution, it's waste as a result of homophobia. It should be changed, but it's not a rights issue. No one has a right to have their blood transfused. So, while it is discrimination, that's still not the term that should be used to describe it, because that word has heavier implications than this deserves. Semantics.

However, I've somewhat changed my mind. I think I over-trivialized it in that last post, and for that I do apologize. It is not a clerical oversight, it is homophobia. Bad, but again, not a rights issue. It falls under the umbrella of "Civil Rights" but that's an inaccurate term. It should be called "Civil Justice" or "Civil don't-be-a-dick-to-people" or something. Because that's how people mean it.

Edit: Hmm.. fair point, Qeo. Edited to reflect that.

[Qeomash]

I agree, it is not a big issue. There are far more important issues than banning gays from donating blood. As it is a minor issue, it should receive a minor response. "No harm is done by taking donated gay blood? Okay, ban lifted." In that the ban is not being lifted without a fight is what is making it into a bigger issue.

On the "right" word issue, I agree that it's not really a "civil right" because donating blood really doesn't affect whether or not you can do anything civic or political and doesn't affect daily life. Though, this is literally just arguing semantics. Civil right or not, it is discrimination.

[Deadgye]

It's not discrimination, we just don't want gay blood.

Like... really?

[Teryu]

I'm surprised no one has said "they don't want gay blood because it'll make people gay."

[archibaldcrane]

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.

Ok, so if you answer yes to "Have you ever had sex with a man who has sex with men?" - then you would like there to be follow-up questions such as "Are you in a monogamous relationship currently" and "have you always used a condom when having sexual relations with a man who has sex with men" - correct?

You're going to have a group of people, who desire to give blood, who answer "YES" to both of those questions, right?

Now, the key question here is: What is the rate of HIV infection in that group of people, and how does it compare to the HIV infection rate among the group of people who are currently allowed to give blood?

If the rate is still somewhat higher than the rate among people who are currently allowed to give blood - do you still let those who answer "correctly" give blood, or no? How much higher risk is too much higher? If it is shown that people who answer that way to those questions don't have a higher rate of HIV, then I completely agree, they should be allowed and encouraged to donate blood.

The point is, you have a questionnaire. Every possible combination of answers on said questionnaire creates a population of people who answers that way. You look at the HIV rates of each population, determine a cutoff point that provides the highest amount of blood with the lowest amount of HIV transfusion risk, and any population group below that HIV rate is allowed to give blood, and every population group above that HIV rate isn't.

Scientifically, this is how it should work - do you agree?

Now, the complaint you're offering is that with additional questioning you could determine a subgroup of people who have sex with men who have sex with men that would provide an equally low HIV risk to the current group of blood donors. If that's true, there should be more questions on the form. I just don't know that it is.

[Kuya]

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.

Unfortunately, i don't intend on taking your advice, and will continue to be a drama queen as much as i please. You didn't get why the comparison was offensive? That's fine, i don't expect you to understand straight out of hand your lack of perspective.

I don't think anything other than what i just bolded in your post needs to be said. The policy isn't right, and there are less excessive avenues that can be taken, if authorities are so inclined.

edit:

However, I've somewhat changed my mind. I think I over-trivialized it in that last post, and for that I do apologize. It is not a clerical oversight, it is homophobia. Bad, but again, not a rights issue. It falls under the umbrella of "Civil Rights" but that's an inaccurate term. It should be called "Civil Justice" or "Civil don't-be-a-dick-to-people" or something. Because that's how people mean it.

Edit: Hmm.. fair point, Qeo. Edited to reflect that

Well at least you're starting to get it.

[Sera]

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

Actually it looks correct. I found out recently it was still ok in VA, and I was so disturbed by that, I looked it up.


There is no way to sum this up in any other way but that its homophobic behavior, but not just for homophobia's sake. Its also laziness. Better screenings could be done, tests can be run, documentation can be asked for & required. They don't find it worth the trouble to do all that to make things equal (which is sad) so instead they just cry about how they don't have enough blood so straight people will feel guilty and donate more often. It is less effort than revamping the process to make it possible for more people to be eligible donors. So yeah, some of it is "ew, gay blood" and some is just "fuck it, this way is still kinda working for us, why bother."

And before someone says gay people could just lie on the questionnaire, straight people lie on the existing one constantly. ...Enjoy that next blood transfusion you need! Woo!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Actually it looks correct. I found out recently it was still ok in VA, and I was so disturbed by that, I looked it up.

I looked at that Wiki link and it says 21ish states outlaw it. Is the assumption that b/c it's not outlawed in other states it's okay? That's fucking crazy if true.

[archibaldcrane]

I looked at that Wiki link and it says 21ish states outlaw it. Is the assumption that b/c it's not outlawed in other states it's okay? That's fucking crazy if true.

If it's not specifically outlawed, you can fire someone for whatever reason you see fit.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

I agree, it is not a big issue. There are far more important issues than banning gays from donating blood. As it is a minor issue, it should receive a minor response. "No harm is done by taking donated gay blood? Okay, ban lifted." In that the ban is not being lifted without a fight is what is making it into a bigger issue.

On the "right" word issue, I agree that it's not really a "civil right" because donating blood really doesn't affect whether or not you can do anything civic or political and doesn't affect daily life. Though, this is literally just arguing semantics. Civil right or not, it is discrimination.

I think it's an important issue for gay and bi men.

Ok, so if you answer yes to "Have you ever had sex with a man who has sex with men?" - then you would like there to be follow-up questions such as "Are you in a monogamous relationship currently" and "have you always used a condom when having sexual relations with a man who has sex with men" - correct?

You're going to have a group of people, who desire to give blood, who answer "YES" to both of those questions, right?

Now, the key question here is: What is the rate of HIV infection in that group of people, and how does it compare to the HIV infection rate among the group of people who are currently allowed to give blood?

If the rate is still somewhat higher than the rate among people who are currently allowed to give blood - do you still let those who answer "correctly" give blood, or no? How much higher risk is too much higher? If it is shown that people who answer that way to those questions don't have a higher rate of HIV, then I completely agree, they should be allowed and encouraged to donate blood.

The point is, you have a questionnaire. Every possible combination of answers on said questionnaire creates a population of people who answers that way. You look at the HIV rates of each population, determine a cutoff point that provides the highest amount of blood with the lowest amount of HIV transfusion risk, and any population group below that HIV rate is allowed to give blood, and every population group above that HIV rate isn't.

Scientifically, this is how it should work - do you agree?

Now, the complaint you're offering is that with additional questioning you could determine a subgroup of people who have sex with men who have sex with men that would provide an equally low HIV risk to the current group of blood donors. If that's true, there should be more questions on the form. I just don't know that it is.

I still don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to figure out what i meant or something? Are you asking me or telling me that there would need to be an investigation on the hiv infection rates of monogamous gay and bisexual men who use condoms during penetrative sex? What i don't understand is why you would be asking or telling me that since it seems like such an obvious thing you would have to do.

Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me on something?

[archibaldcrane]

I want people to think about whether their claims of discrimination are based on solvable problems given the significantly elevated risk of HIV in the population of people who have sex with MSM.

Basically what I'm saying is, just because safer sex practices exist, doesn't mean they are necessarily safe enough for blood transfusion purposes.

More research should be done on the issue. I don't know whether the exclusion of ALL people who have sex with MSM is founded in good science or not. I don't know enough to say either way. Maybe research has already looked into this and has shown that no level of sexual activity/protection with MSM is enough to carve out a low-enough risk population.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

Okay

[drwaffles]

Basically what I'm saying is, just because safer sex practices exist, doesn't mean they are necessarily safe enough for blood transfusion purposes.

Just how unreliable are the HIV-detecting tests carried out on donated blood, exactly? Serious question. I'm asking because it alarms me a little that the way people discuss this issue of gay men being a higher-risk group always seems to assume that blood screening is nowhere near accurate enough on its own to determine if donated blood is safe or not (hence the "discrimination" against gay men). If the screening is indeed inaccurate enough to warrant discussions about which demographics should and should not be allowed to donate then I'd be absolutely terrified of having a blood transfusion.

[Sera]

I looked at that Wiki link and it says 21ish states outlaw it. Is the assumption that b/c it's not outlawed in other states it's okay? That's fucking crazy if true.

it is not okay, and is outlawed in those states because is discrimination. you know, the same reason you can't be fired for being black, disabled, a female, etc.

VA is a right to work state, but there are protections in place. The guidelines used to be:

prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation,sexual orientation or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.


McDonnell adopted the same phrasing, but cut out the sexual orientation part, so HIS executive order read:
prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.




So while VA is a "right to work" state, it isn't a goddamn free for all. There are rules.

[Sera]

I want people to think about whether their claims of discrimination are based on solvable problems given the significantly elevated risk of HIV in the population of people who have sex with MSM.

Basically what I'm saying is, just because safer sex practices exist, doesn't mean they are necessarily safe enough for blood transfusion purposes.

More research should be done on the issue. I don't know whether the exclusion of ALL people who have sex with MSM is founded in good science or not. I don't know enough to say either way. Maybe research has already looked into this and has shown that no level of sexual activity/protection with MSM is enough to carve out a low-enough risk population.

That's what I was saying, I'm sure some of it is the "ew, gay blood!" factor, but i'm willing to bet that it is more of an unwillingness to fund and do the proper research required to overhaul the process. It is just easier and cheaper to exclude a group in a underhandedly discriminatory manner (while hiding behind the "increased risk" involved which is implied by old or vague statistics) than it is to do the work that would need to be done to include that group. The way it seems to be is that it's still not OMG A HUGE OFFENSE to discriminate against gays (which is sad, imo) -- and they can make up the blood shortage by making their straight donors feel guilty enough to donate more often because of the "lack of donors" and "lack of blood." They just don't want to bother or spend the money.

[archibaldcrane]

I would think that even if you include questions about monogamy, number of sexual partners, and condom usage, you're still going to have to exclude most people who have sex with MSM. They are still going to be "discriminated against", even with increased questions, because of higher-HIV-risk activity.

Calling for "no discrimination" is irresponsible. Calling for "less discrimination" might be doable.

[Sera]

Calling for "no discrimination" is irresponsible. Calling for "less discrimination" might be doable.

or discrimination based on unsafe sexual practices, not sexual orientation. which should apply to all orientations