Yet more institutionalized homophobia
Last week's Postsecret included a picture of two men kissing, with the caption "Dear Red Cross: FYI - I still donate." I was puzzled, as were other readers. In the comments, we learned that because of a 22 year old FDA regulation, the Red Cross does not allow men who admit to having sex with other men or women who admit to having sex with bi men to donate blood, regardless of their HIV status. There are similar restrictions in Australia and UK.
"The ban is 22 years old - It's based on the "old days" when there was no cheap, fast, accurate HIV test - so they just banned the group at highest risk for HIV infection at the time."
"The Red Cross reversed their decision in the past 2 years, but it still needs FDA approval. All of the other blood donation centers (Memorial, etc) support gay men donating blood, and have supported it for a while. Conservatives get really angry because gays shouldn't be allowed to do anything (or maybe they're concerned that gayness can be transmitted through blood?), but there is no medical/epidemiologic reason for the continuation of that ban."
"The FDA says that, "Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors." Which is such bullshit, because they act as if just not taking the blood is better than taking and testing it. They act as if we're still living in the 1980's era where we don't know much at all about HIV and testing for it. "While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men." BULLSHIT! From the very CDC page they link to: ESTIMATED HIV/AIDS Cases by Transmission Category, for 2005. Male-to-male sexual contact 18,722. High-risk heterosexual contact 12,219. Since when is 12,000 "much lower" than a little less than 19,000? And these are just estimates...it's not even REAL DATA. I guarantee you that the real incidences of HIV in the gay and straight populations are very close. I guarantee you that since the use of condoms and safe sex education is more widespread, that THIS is the factor that should be looked at but has not. The FDA's policy is one rooted in fear and homophobia. They know they can easily change it, and that they could change it without introducing an increased HIV risk into the blood supply. However, it is easier for them to hide behind a stonewall of "we have received no scientific data blah blah blah". As if they can just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore scientific data and common sense."
"A man can have promiscuous sex with a different woman each night and still be fine to give blood as long as they're not prostitutes or intravenous drug users, and even then he only has to wait 12 months, but having protected sex with one man makes him ineligible for life."
"If you read some of the original policy documents around the issue, they casually throw around all sorts of allegations about gay male "cultural" and "sexual" practices including that "they" are inherently not monogamous. This kind of thinking is grounded in homophobia, not safety. The HIV ban also extends to individuals born in listed African countries, and is a similarly lifetime ban. Putting in place proper blood screening procedures would do as good a job (or better) than lifetime exclusions."
"The ban on gay blood might have been put in place for a reason, but the length of the ban is preposterous, and does not reflect the advances in HIV detection that have been made since the 1980s. In the US, a dude can't donate blood to the Red Cross if he's fucked a dude since the seventies. In Australia, a dude can't donate blood to the Red Cross if he's fucked a dude in the last year. There is no logical reason for it to be so absurdly long in the US. If you'd caught HIV in the eighties then your viral load would have reached detectable levels long ago."
"A few friends of mine have organized bleed-ins at the local red cross. Basically it entails a bunch of people -- gay, straight, bi, men, women, transpeople, and everybody else, going in to the red cross at once and each of them, in turn, saying that they have had gay sex. 60 in a row will make their heads spin. I encourage you to try a similar stunt. Perhaps we can do a National Tell Red Cross That You're Gay (even if you're not) Day. "
"The ban is 22 years old - It's based on the "old days" when there was no cheap, fast, accurate HIV test - so they just banned the group at highest risk for HIV infection at the time."
"The Red Cross reversed their decision in the past 2 years, but it still needs FDA approval. All of the other blood donation centers (Memorial, etc) support gay men donating blood, and have supported it for a while. Conservatives get really angry because gays shouldn't be allowed to do anything (or maybe they're concerned that gayness can be transmitted through blood?), but there is no medical/epidemiologic reason for the continuation of that ban."
"The FDA says that, "Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors." Which is such bullshit, because they act as if just not taking the blood is better than taking and testing it. They act as if we're still living in the 1980's era where we don't know much at all about HIV and testing for it. "While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men." BULLSHIT! From the very CDC page they link to: ESTIMATED HIV/AIDS Cases by Transmission Category, for 2005. Male-to-male sexual contact 18,722. High-risk heterosexual contact 12,219. Since when is 12,000 "much lower" than a little less than 19,000? And these are just estimates...it's not even REAL DATA. I guarantee you that the real incidences of HIV in the gay and straight populations are very close. I guarantee you that since the use of condoms and safe sex education is more widespread, that THIS is the factor that should be looked at but has not. The FDA's policy is one rooted in fear and homophobia. They know they can easily change it, and that they could change it without introducing an increased HIV risk into the blood supply. However, it is easier for them to hide behind a stonewall of "we have received no scientific data blah blah blah". As if they can just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore scientific data and common sense."
"A man can have promiscuous sex with a different woman each night and still be fine to give blood as long as they're not prostitutes or intravenous drug users, and even then he only has to wait 12 months, but having protected sex with one man makes him ineligible for life."
"If you read some of the original policy documents around the issue, they casually throw around all sorts of allegations about gay male "cultural" and "sexual" practices including that "they" are inherently not monogamous. This kind of thinking is grounded in homophobia, not safety. The HIV ban also extends to individuals born in listed African countries, and is a similarly lifetime ban. Putting in place proper blood screening procedures would do as good a job (or better) than lifetime exclusions."
"The ban on gay blood might have been put in place for a reason, but the length of the ban is preposterous, and does not reflect the advances in HIV detection that have been made since the 1980s. In the US, a dude can't donate blood to the Red Cross if he's fucked a dude since the seventies. In Australia, a dude can't donate blood to the Red Cross if he's fucked a dude in the last year. There is no logical reason for it to be so absurdly long in the US. If you'd caught HIV in the eighties then your viral load would have reached detectable levels long ago."
"A few friends of mine have organized bleed-ins at the local red cross. Basically it entails a bunch of people -- gay, straight, bi, men, women, transpeople, and everybody else, going in to the red cross at once and each of them, in turn, saying that they have had gay sex. 60 in a row will make their heads spin. I encourage you to try a similar stunt. Perhaps we can do a National Tell Red Cross That You're Gay (even if you're not) Day. "