US Some queer men in the U.S. may soon be allowed to donate blood

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Link (Archive)

Some queer men in the U.S. may soon be allowed to donate blood​

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is planning to allow monogamous gay and bisexual men in the U.S. to donate blood without abstaining from sex. Advocates say it’s an important step—but that it doesn’t go far enough.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journalreported that the FDA is drafting new guidelines that would allow monogamous gay and bisexual men to donate blood anytime, according to people familiar with the plan. Currently, sexually active gay and bisexual men must abstain from sex for three months before they’re allowed to donate blood. The proposed change would replace this deferral period with an individual risk assessment, the efficacy of which has been the subject of a recently concluded FDA-funded study.

In a statement, the FDA said it believes the findings of that study “will likely support a policy transition to individual risk-based donor screening questions for reducing the risk of HIV transmission.” They did not provide a specific timeline for implementation, but said that they “anticipate issuing updated draft guidance in the coming months.”

According to the sources who spoke with the Wall Street Journal, the new policy would not assess donors based on their gender or sexuality. Instead, it would first ask potential donors if they’d had any new sexual partners in the last three months—if they answered “no,” they would be free to donate. If they answered “yes,” they would be asked whether they had anal intercourse in the last three months. If not, they could donate. If they had, they would likely be asked to wait three months before donating.

A similar policy change recently took effect in Canada. In April, Health Canada announced that it would remove its three-month abstinence requirement for queer men in favour of individual risk assessment, and the new guidelines were implemented in September. However, some have criticized the current policy for continuing to single out queer men by screening for anal intercourse, without factoring in condom use or PrEP.

The FDA’s new policy comes at a crucial time for blood donations in the U.S. Earlier this year, the Red Cross announced a national blood crisis, and America’s blood supply remains critically low. A 2014 study by the Williams Institute estimated that lifting the blood ban on queer men would mean an additional 360,000 donors, which could help save over a million lives.

The U.S. instituted its first blood ban on queer men in 1985, at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Amidst heightened stigma and fear of HIV transmission, the FDA barred queer men from donating blood, for their entire lives. That ban was sometimes applied to trans women. In 2015, the FDA lifted the lifetime ban, instead requiring that queer men abstain from sex for a year prior to donating blood. And in 2020, due to the dire blood shortage caused by the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA shortened the abstinence period from one year to three months.

These policies, which single out gay men, bisexual men and some trans people, have been heavily criticized since their initial implementation. In April of 2020, over 500 medical professionals signed an open lettercalling the three-month deferral policy “unscientific” and urging the FDA to reverse its “historic discrimination.” Earlier this year, 22 U.S. Senators wrote a letter criticizing the policy, which they said was based on “inaccurate and antiquated stereotypes.”

Advocates and medical organizations expressed tempered support for the potential policy shift. Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, an LGBTQ2S+ advocacy organization, says the reported change is “an important step.” However, she says that GLAAD “will not stop advocating for the FDA to lift all restrictions against qualified LGBTQ2S+ blood donor candidates.”

“Giving one set of rules to some people, and another set of rules to others, based purely on identity, is blatant discrimination,” she said in a statement.

Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association, called the news “encouraging.” “We have urged the FDA to use rational, scientifically based deferral periods,” said Resneck in a statement to CNN.

While guidelines may remain imperfect, this kind of change from the FDA would put them in line with a global shift away from sexuality-based blood donation policies. The U.S. would be joining countries including the U.K., Austria, France, Greece and Canada, which have already done away with donation guidelines that single out queer men.
 
It should be illegal to force blood of unknown origin onto people in emergency situations because of shit like this. Three months no-dooking punching prevents nothing. I don't want any homosexual blood forced on me. Either find blood of an unvaccinated heterosexual or let me die.
 
I stopped donating blood once California made exposing others to HIV a misdemeanor. It may just be confirmation bias, but I've been donating since 17/18; and my blood is kinda rare so I had the idea that the life I save might be my own. But after that law was passed, three times in a row I got called in for a STD check. The way they do it is they batch blood by types, then test the batch; if anything pops they call the batch donators in. I got pissed that it was three times in a row and decided it was gays being fucking malicious, so fuck you, you're not getting my blood... this only solidifies my decision.
 
Can we at least ban anyone who got the clot shot? I fully expect in the next 5 years, blood from people who didn't get the coof juice is going to go for a premium. In fact, if I had to guess, the reason they're going through with this change is because more and more people are going to demand blood from people who didn't get the clot shot and they need to widen the net.

Pay up, retard.
 
2022: Some queer men in the U.S. may soon be allowed to donate blood
2023: HIV rates in the U.S. are skyrocketing. Here's why that's not a big deal.
2024: Climate change, white supremacy linked to HIV outbreaks
2025: Harris Administration unveils new plan to curtail HIV misinformation
2026: The American population has been cut in half since 2022 - we need immigration more than ever to fill the gap
 
Some people cannot give blood because of history of cancers like leukemia. Is that really fair? Isn't it proper to center the rights of the individual over humanity at large even though the potential for harm significantly elevated? YOU FASCIST FUCKING LEUKOPHOBES WILL PAY FOR THIS@@@@W
 
After reading this shit again...

These policies, which single out gay men, bisexual men and some trans people, have been heavily criticized since their initial implementation. In April of 2020, over 500 medical professionals signed an open lettercalling the three-month deferral policy “unscientific” and urging the FDA to reverse its “historic discrimination.” Earlier this year, 22 U.S. Senators wrote a letter criticizing the policy, which they said was based on “inaccurate and antiquated stereotypes.”
Those 500 professionals need to have whatever licensing they have, revoked.

Per the CDC (because we all know science is settled);

2019 was the 6th year in a row per a rise of STDs.
There were approximately 1.9 million reported new STD cases in 2014, 2 million in 2015, 2.2 million in 2016, 2.4 million in 2017, 2.5 million in 2018, and 2.6 million in 2019.

Science continues to be racist, with blacks continuing to "annihilate the world, sexually" as Tariq Nasheed so eloquently put it.
In 2019 STD rates for Hispanic or Latino people were 1-2 times that of non-Hispanic White people

In 2019 STD rates for American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people were 3-5 times that of non-Hispanic White people

In 2019 STD rates for African American or Black people were 5-8 times that of non-Hispanic White people.

The CDC also has this cute little page telling you not to be discriminatory against gays.

While also telling you their new batch of blood donators made up ~83% of all reported STD cases.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.

For a total non-sequiter, I'd like to submit into evidence that when trying to legalize gay marriage in California; Jews were the only demographic that came out in majority to refuse the bill (refuse the bill meant making it legal).

Fuck it, I'm with Kanye, Hitler did nothing wrong.
 
Why is this such a big deal for gays? This comes up all the time, but I've never heard an explanation as to why it is so important gay people are able to give blood. I couldn't imagine giving a fuck if I was barred from donating for some reason.

I know a fag who makes a big shit about this every time it comes up. I always point out it's due to the high HIV rate, and his response is always something to the effect "it doesn't matter why, you don't compromise on equality". If I take that at face value, he is saying killing people is an acceptable cost to make faggots feel good about themselves. Shit like this is why I hate them all, even the non-grooming fags would still gladly infect a child with aids just so they can feel good about themselves.
 
Real talk, how can we set up a smaller-group blood donation service?
After what happened with that baby in New Zealand, it feels like there's a need to take proactive action.
☢️Hey glowfriends, this is not an attempt to advocate nor encourage any particular action.☢️

You know that wouldn't ever work. Ignore all the logistical issues for a minute, if you tried to set this up the government would crush it. You cannot fix the system within the system, there is only one sort of proactive option that can fix this. It's not going to happen though, people are still fat and warm. No one is going to mind a couple aids babies. Just part and parcel of living in a LGBT friendly society.
 
I'm having trouble understanding this in any other context than selfish, narcissistic people who do things that make their blood risky to transfuse want to feel good about themselves at the expense of others. I mean, a mentally well person wouldn't want to foist their possibly pozzed blood on innocent anons, right? RIGHT? Why are these idiots calling it a "right" to donate blood and crying discrimination when people don't let them make randos into unwitting bug chasers?

I suppose if they've reached the point where the blood can be accurately screened and thrown out if it's actually pozzed, then no harm no foul? But I don't have that much faith in humanity.
 
I always point out it's due to the high HIV rate, and his response is always something to the effect "it doesn't matter why, you don't compromise on equality". If I take that at face value, he is saying killing people is an acceptable cost to make faggots feel good about themselves.
A telling sign of decay in any society is the acceptance of homosexuality. Imagine some little kid who needs blood after getting in an accident gets HIV because of this. I mean come on, and instead of pushing back against letter people stuff, you have members of BOTH parties voting to keep gay marriage legal when you have things like THIS going on.
 
I'm having trouble understanding this in any other context than selfish, narcissistic people who do things that make their blood risky to transfuse want to feel good about themselves at the expense of others. I mean, a mentally well person wouldn't want to foist their possibly pozzed blood on innocent anons, right? RIGHT? Why are these idiots calling it a "right" to donate blood and crying discrimination when people don't let them make randos into unwitting bug chasers?

I suppose if they've reached the point where the blood can be accurately screened and thrown out if it's actually pozzed, then no harm no foul? But I don't have that much faith in humanity.
You ever wonder why narcissism runs rampant in degeneracy communities? I see it as a chicken or egg question; are gays inclined to think highly of themselves, or are those people who are up their own ass, more likely to look for having things literally and physically up their ass. As for screening; I'm skeptical. One of the arguments for gay acceptance and shit is how their HIV drugs make it "undetectable." Which to me means, you're not cured, the methods just can't detect it... which has me question how safe that shit really is... and if it can reactivate or whatever.

But that's me being a homophobe.
 
I
I'm having trouble understanding this in any other context than selfish, narcissistic people who do things that make their blood risky to transfuse want to feel good about themselves at the expense of others. I mean, a mentally well person wouldn't want to foist their possibly pozzed blood on innocent anons, right? RIGHT? Why are these idiots calling it a "right" to donate blood and crying discrimination when people don't let them make randos into unwitting bug chasers
If I were to take a guess, it's because 'donating' blood or plasma is often a monetary transaction and you can get paid a reasonable amount for it; I'm assuming this is still called 'donation' because 'let us buy your blood' sounds fucking wierd. A lot of college-aged types in my area do it, from what I've heard you have to sit there for about an hour and get like ~$100 a pop.

Seeing this headline I also immediately recalled that Weiner (still can't get over how on the nose that name is) managed to push through making intentionally passing HIV a misdemeanor in CA. If anything it feels like this donation ban has MORE reason to exist nowadays, not less.
 
Back