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 They did not provide a specific timeline for implementation, but said that they “anticipate issuing updated draft guidance in the coming months.”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.
 
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.
HIV tests are almost 100% accurate
After 3 months
1670046128773.png
 
I would be ok with this if they checked every damn pint.

Unless they are doing this I'd rather bag my own, or go without. I do not want turbo-aids just because some nigger shot me at a gas station in SF and the only available blood has aids, hep, and monkeypox. Fuck off.

Just push me out of the bay in a burning longboat.
 
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.
Because it's not about "gays giving blood". It's about a group of ideologs who don't understand the word "no". It's possible for a group of people who are not part of a community to use said community to further their own power push. The CIA did it when they backed the Afghan mujahideen.
brave_YE2rDha6uF.png
 
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".
Did you tell him that instead of trying to hog all the HIV, gay people should get AIDS at the same rate normal people do?
 
yeah but there's more shit than just AIDS out there man
I was just talking about AIDs because it's the one that always gets brought up. They can't even effectively test that, so that should be enough to not take the blood.

Because it's not about "gays giving blood". It's about a group of ideologs who don't understand the word "no". It's possible for a group of people who are not part of a community to use said community to further their own power push. The CIA did it when they backed the Afghan mujahideen.
View attachment 3988575
Agreed, but I wasn't asking in a general sense. I want to know the reasoning individual gays feel so strongly about this. I know the answer for that is likely "they are just outraged about the current thing because they are easily led sheep", but I'd be interested to hear them attempt to articulate a reason. Watching cognitive dissonance melt people's brains is funny.

Did you tell him that instead of trying to hog all the HIV, gay people should get AIDS at the same rate normal people do?
He just denies there's any statistical difference. He does that with any stat that does not say every group is 100% equal. He also believes the US is deeply homophobic still, so that should give you an idea of how disconnected this person is.
 
Hmm, weird how Black hetero women have such high rates of HIV infections.
Really actives the almonds.
1670052611431.png
Agreed, but I wasn't asking in a general sense. I want to know the reasoning individual gays feel so strongly about this. I know the answer for that is likely "they are just outraged about the current thing because they are easily led sheep", but I'd be interested to hear them attempt to articulate a reason. Watching cognitive dissonance melt people's brains is funny.
Because they're useful idiots. Large amounts of media propagation and peer pressure has led them to care about Current Thing because Current Thing is important. Why is it important? Why, because they're talking about it, of course! If it wasn't important, they wouldn't be wasting their time with it! So, if they're talking about it, it has to be important. It's no different to how the media ran pointless fluff pieces when the Panama Papers dropped until everyone forgot about them.
1670052984743.png
 
Last edited:
I

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.
Canada bans payment for blood donation and yet the same thing is happening here - people whining about 'discrimination' because they're not allowed to donate possibly pozzed blood. So money is clearly not the motivation up here for that.
 
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.
It can be screened quite accurately when viral load has reached a certain level. It takes a while to get there. Unfortunately there is a "sweet spot" where transmission is possible but detection may not be. It's because of that window that they take other precautions besides testing, like the lifestyle questionnaires.

I

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.
It's illegal to pay someone for a blood donation in burgerland. The only exception, used by those plasma donation centers you see in the hood, is for donating plasma that is going to be essentially frozen and divided into micro-portions and used pharmaceutically. They already let anyone who can stay upright for an hour donate. ANYTHING that is directly transfused into another living person it is illegal to give compensation for above the value of a free donut. This is a result of the first round of the AIDS-in-the-blood-bank-system crisis. Gays would give blood for cash on the way to the bar, they were some of the more prolific donors in big cities because they'd use the cash to finance their "lifestyle." And the blood nonprofits knew this and would market accordingly. The FDA slapped the shit out of them after the deaths from AIDS of hundreds of thousands of hemophiliac kids who were dependent on the (dirty) blood supply to live.
 
Giving one set of rules to some people, and another set of rules to others, based purely on identity, is blatant discrimination,”
But it’s not based on identity. It’s based on the factual, data driven and established knowledge that gay men have astronomically high rates of some diseases that are fatal and blood bourne diseases. Trannies even higher. How high? Colossally high. 61.9% of black transgender women (gay men remember) had HIV in one CDC study, with 42% of trans women being HOV positive
But muh prep! No no and no. It will eventually lead to resistant strains, it only reduces load it doesn’t cure and to transmit to an innocent child who has a transfusion would be a terrible thing. And no that kid can’t just go on prep. It fries your liver and kidneys.
There are good reasons gay men aren’t allowed to give blood. It’s bugger all to do with identity and all to do with risk.
 
What if this "AIDS destigmatation" and increasingly lax restrictions of spreading HIV knowingly is actually to stop the supercomputer that got the virus instead of just another big pharma scheme?

 
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
Blood is a weird thing because it's really about the ethical and safety issues. Most blood centers and governments find that if blood could be bought, it would lead to more quality control issues (which yes is ironic considering they're just allowing the high risk to donate easier now) and people taking advantage of such a system for easy cash. Imagine all the O+/O-/AB blood types that aren't financially well off, they'd be killing themselves if we monetized blood donations. It's also the fact that your body takes a good amount of time to properly replenish the blood you lost through a donation. Compared to plasma donations, they can be more serious is done improperly or if the donor didn't allow their body to replenish properly after some repeat donations within a given month's time.

Plasma on the other hand yes, is something that can be a transaction, because plasma usage is specifically linked to the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of plasma donation centers are for-profit companies, so yes you as the donator are entitled to some of the money this industry will obviously make money from. Purely because of plasma's direct usage in pharmaceuticals, it's put through extensive sterilization/purification to process it into the very medications needed. Whereas blood is directly taken from the donator, and into an awaiting patient who needs it. I also should mention that plasma donations aren't as harsh on the donor's body because you're hooked up to a centrifuge that processes your plasma out from your blood, which then that blood is cycled back into the body as the fresh, plasma-rich blood goes into the machine. In fact, you can do two plasma donations in a 7-day period if you space your appointments out properly, and it also depends on the specific donation center too.
 
Back