Gay blood donors?

[HAcoreRD]

Maybe paranoid idiots are concerned gay blood will make them gay? Or Gay sperm will make the would be offspring a homosexual?

all in all i'm confused. maybe the red cross are gay bashers? see what happens next time when you say "well, i fucked my boyfriend in his asshole for 7 hours last night, then i came here to give some blood. oh, no condom either." then raise your hand for a high five.

[Rocl]

I'm cool with this. I hate needles.

[Nirokun!]

And I guess I should apply to be an organ donor. People will think I have a good heart (ha) only to find out that they wont take it because (hopefully before I die here people) I do it with a man.

Now I wonder if I get some kind of tax break Time to look it up~

[archibaldcrane]

The policy as it stands now is a political decision and not a scientific/medical one...It's discriminatory to men who have sex with men

The policy as it stands now is to refuse blood from anyone who has sex with people in categories with high rates of HIV infection. It's discriminatory to anyone who fucks people in high-risk categories. It's not the FDA's fault that prostitutes, MSM, IV-drug users and people in Africa have high rates of HIV infection.

Do you really think that if MSM had HIV rates equivalent to the general population, as opposed to more than 10X the risk, that the ban would still be in effect? Or do you think that there should be no basis for rejecting donors besides tests for blood-bourne illnesses.

From a "scientific/medical" point of view, how is rejecting people who fuck people from Africa, or people who fuck IV drug users, or people who fuck prostitutes ok but rejecting MSM not ok?

[Psion]

The only reason that gay men are a higher risk for HIV is because certain SUBGROUPS of gay men are at a very high risk of HIV, no? African men, those who have many partners, unprotected sex, etc. This does not mean that ALL gay men are high risk HIV, it means that certain groups are, and are bringing the goddamn average up. Basing it on a whole catergory instead of focusing on the goddamn high risk groups is why we're upset about this. There are plenty of gay men who are low risk of HIV, and a few simple questions such as having unprotected sex or many partners would target the actual high risk groups much more accurately than banning a whole group. If gay men had a lower risk of HIV than straight men overall, then by the current logic we would have to ban all men who had sex with women from donating blood.

The answer is to clearly focus on the actual high risk subgroups, not a whole damn catergory. Averages are a pretty terrible thing to use, as even a couple high numbers can totally scew results. 0 0 1 0 0 149 29 0 0 is an average of 19.8, yet only two of those are anywhere near high and only one is extremely so, and only 3 have any numerical value at all out of 9. The current rules focus using the average when it should target the high numbers.

Also, you can't turn gay from having blood donated by a gay man, as such things are partly genetic and partly enviornmental. and by the latter i mean hormone levels and other such while the baby is still inside the womb, not being called fag and having lunches thrown at you in jr high. such preferences are basically set before you were born and having blood infused from a gay man wont change your brain, as such things are pretty much set by then.

And finally, gay sperm will not cause a baby to have a higher chance of being gay. Such things are actually part of the mother's makeup, not the fathers, and that is why gays havent dissapeared. Recent early research shows evidence of it actually being a tradeoff, the genes that make a womans child more likely to be gay if its a male also causing her daughter to be slightly more fertile and more sex crazy than normal. Its a trade off of higher risk of genes not being passed on if its a male for a higher chance of genes being passed on if its a female. Thats why gays are still around and why it is pretty steady % wise.

I remember an old article about how gay/straight preferences may be more like a slide, where say 5% or so is hardcore gay, and 5% hardcore straight, with the rest on a slide. Because of the social stigma against gays, only that 5% go toward males, and even the ones close to the gay side of the scale go straight because of that pressure, even if they might be happier with a man than a woman. Yet if such stigma were to go away, say by huge overpopulation putting a bit of a stigma against babies, and usually gays are tolerated more in big cities such as LA or san diego, the % goes a bit higher as those who would be happier with men but can go both ways feel safer to go how they please. In a sense it could be a way for nature to help balance off overpopulation, and taken to the extreme of overpopulation, it might actually swing the other way, where theres a stigma against being straight, drastically lowering a populations growth into the negative till things balance out again.

Oh, but none of this applies to lesbians, because they defy all scientific logic, at least for now. =D For some odd reason, lesbians are weird and refuse to show up any patterns heh.

[Lordwafik]

Probably because lesbians don't have penises that shoot body fluid into each other.

[ByeByeTasai]

Probably because lesbians don't have penises that shoot body fluid into each other.

Research the spreading of Blood-borne pathogens...

This all came about because the FDA and HMA are in target of a law suit for 50 Million dollars over the Factor 8 scandal in Arkansas prisons. The rules about gays donating blood were already present in the prisons but ignored, but when all of that was shut down people pressed for the rule to be made as a national standard. Blame the hemophiliacs (if you can find any left).

[Woozie]

Also, you can't turn gay from having blood donated by a gay man, as such things are partly genetic and partly enviornmental. and by the latter i mean hormone levels and other such while the baby is still inside the womb, not being called fag and having lunches thrown at you in jr high. such preferences are basically set before you were born and having blood infused from a gay man wont change your brain, as such things are pretty much set by then.

And finally, gay sperm will not cause a baby to have a higher chance of being gay.

I'm pretty sure you got whooshed multiple times by posts in this topic.

[thatwasnifty]

The policy as it stands now is to refuse blood from anyone who has sex with people in categories with high rates of HIV infection. It's discriminatory to anyone who fucks people in high-risk categories. It's not the FDA's fault that prostitutes, MSM, IV-drug users and people in Africa have high rates of HIV infection.

Do you really think that if MSM had HIV rates equivalent to the general population, as opposed to more than 10X the risk, that the ban would still be in effect? Or do you think that there should be no basis for rejecting donors besides tests for blood-bourne illnesses.

From a "scientific/medical" point of view, how is rejecting people who fuck people from Africa, or people who fuck IV drug users, or people who fuck prostitutes ok but rejecting MSM not ok?

You continue to miss the point. 50% of adults who have HIV are men who got it from having risky sex with other men. 49% of all adults with HIV are black. Should we then prohibit all black people from donating blood, too? They do, after all, make up about 13% of US population, which means there are more black men infected with HIV in this country than there are MSM (if we're to believe your made-up statistics that only 5% of the population is gay, which isn't even the same thing as MSM).

[Talus]

What if someone is getting triaged at a Lv 1 trauma center and right before they get put under, they ask for some "extra-gay" blood?

[scoobyslayer]

The only reason that gay men are a higher risk for HIV is because certain SUBGROUPS of gay men are at a very high risk of HIV, no? African men, those who have many partners, unprotected sex, etc. This does not mean that ALL gay men are high risk HIV, it means that certain groups are, and are bringing the goddamn average up. Basing it on a whole catergory instead of focusing on the goddamn high risk groups is why we're upset about this. There are plenty of gay men who are low risk of HIV, and a few simple questions such as having unprotected sex or many partners would target the actual high risk groups much more accurately than banning a whole group. If gay men had a lower risk of HIV than straight men overall, then by the current logic we would have to ban all men who had sex with women from donating blood.

Jesus people, do any of you have a clue as to what aids does to you??? maybee if you knew how shity of an insainly drawn out death that is, you would understand why they implament such a stringent risk manegment policy in this area. if you dont like that youre one of the statistical minority of homo. men that dont have unprotected anal sex after a 12 pack of zemas
then........well......tough, cuzz its not worth taking that blood to me.