The American Red Cross is now allowing gay and bisexual men to donate blood without restrictions that specifically single out a person’s sexual orientation or gender, the nonprofit group said Monday.

101 points

And it only took… *checks notes* 40 years!

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Technically still waiting on it to happen. If you’ve had anal sex, you still have to wait 3 months. So they are still discriminating against most MSM.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

No, it isn’t. Anal sex is a known high risk factor for STDs and infections. It also applies to everyone, not just gay/bi men.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

For a lot of these people their (secular) religion is erasing real-world group differences. The fact that you can (whatever your sexual orientation) regularly engage in anal sex, and therefore be at a higher-risk of contracting STIs for physiological reasons, and therefore not be eligible to donate blood—and still be a good person is beyond their ability to square.

If we value your personhood equally then there must be no substantive physiological differences between you and anybody else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Theoretically, it applies to everyone. The anti-sodomy laws also technically applied to everyone, but were only enforced against the LGBT community.

It is good that now they will at least screening those who have heterosexual intercourse, but most MSM still won’t be able to donate with the various restrictions. Only MSM in a long-term relationship will be able to donate.

I can understand the biological reason for not allowing certain medications to avoid complications. However, they could still take blood and just keep it separate just as plasma centers that take MSM plasma do. If there really is a shortage, they should be taking everything being offered.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Not really, it specifies “new partners,” which is completely fair. People lie, and it allows time for symptoms to show up so the red cross doesn’t end up wasting resources. I don’t really know how they’d work out polycules unless they add a monogamous restriction. The three months it’s about safety since they are dealing with blood.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

You know why it started, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

You know HIV has been screenable for most of those 40 years, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

A lot of haemophiliacs got HIV. I don’t blame them for making a policy decision.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

To be a bigot? And to discriminate? That’s your rationale to ban people?

permalink
report
parent
reply
71 points
*

Goddammit! I have o- blood and the red cross called me LITERALLY everyday after I donated the first time. I asked them to only call every quarter because I still did want to donate, but that just made them call every other day. Finally out of frustration I looked for anything that would make me ineligible to donate and the next time they called, I told them I was gay. All calls stopped after that.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I found that making an appointment, no matter how far in the future makes them stop calling.

I donate plasma (AB+) as often as I can, usually 2 weekly as that is the limit here. But if you’re single the 4 month halt for having sex with a new partner is annoying because they will keep calling while they say you can’t donate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

Maybe donate your highly sought after blood and they won’t call so much

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

How about they not call every single day when you’re only allowed to donate every couple months or so or, you know, you’d fucking die

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

What if I were to tell you they don’t call unless you’re eligible to donate again?

(Also I just blocked them because I donate when I feel like and don’t need reminders)

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Trust me, this method did not work. I have donated blood 10+ times (Which isn’t a crazy amount, but I think it’s probably more than most people) because I know with universal donor blood it’s really valuable. But when you donated blood yesterday and they call you wanting more it can get pretty annoying…

permalink
report
parent
reply
70 points

Great, now I can move forward with my plan of turning everyone gay by donating blood

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Convert 10 or more and you get a new toaster oven!

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

God speed 🫡

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Can I just get a little blood? I don’t want to go full gay, I just want to be able to tell which sneakers I should wear with this outfit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not to worry, I’m working on a gay blood donation scheme that should fix that right up for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m gay as fuck and have no idea how to dress

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

not if you like having sex. lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Cue right wingers refusing transfusions. Actually, that’s fine.

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

Blood is blood is blood. I’m sure that people who need it don’t care if an absolute bigoted moron gave it to them, they wouldn’t know anyways.

Edit: I’m the moron, you meant refusing taking blood, not giving it lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

We should make it known to these people that it’s ‘gay blood’ though. What they do with their own body is up to them because I support bodily autonomy, including dying of bigotry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

The rule was very necessary in the 80s. It vast majority of HIV-infected individuals were gay and bisexual men. However, those days are long gone, and we can test blood pretty well for even very low levels of HIV nowadays.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are youIn 2006, the AABB, American Red Cross, and America’s Blood Centers all supported a change from the current US policy of a lifetime deferral of MSM to one year since most recent contact. One model suggested that this change would result in one additional case of HIV transmitted by transfusion every 32.8 years. The AABB has suggested making this change since 1997. The FDA did not accept the proposal and had concerns about the data used to produce the model, citing that additional risk to recipients was not justified. Source

We are well past the 80s and decades behind something that should have. Been corrected a long time ago. The systemic discrimination towards gay men is apparent when you look at EU models of deferment compared to the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Maybe this is a cynical take, but will conservatives refuse a life saving blood transfusion because it may have come from a gasp gay man? I mean a bunch were refusing transfusions because the blood could have come from someone that had a gasp covid vaccine.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

There are people who refuse blood transfusions because of relious beliefs and will let their children die. Of course there are some that would refuse “gay blood.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That sounds almost like the intention?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

@DocMcStuffin @MicroWave

If they want to do that, fine. They just won’t get any blood or blood products.

Problem solved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Frankly dude, the amount of people, even fairly right-wing people who will be preoccupied with this is teeny tiny. I’m sure they exist but it’s a negligible amount of people. The person obsessed with stereotyping these people is you.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 481K

    Comments