Are gay people allowed to give blood? If not, why? and if so, are there any risks?
I believe the Red Cross just changed its mind on this so MSM can donate if they haven't had sex in at least a year.
>>5696557
Thanks mate, appreciate it.
France allows gay people to donate now, just passed recently. Less than 6 months ago, I'm sure America will do the same soon. There are no health risks at all I just think it was some anti gay people and discrimination
>>5696492
In the USA, MSMs have been outright banned from giving blood for about thirty years due to AIDS. The first reply to your OP is correct though, they're changing this right now because muh PC culture.
As one of those MSMs, I personally feel this is a terrible idea, and I expect to hear of more than one case of HIV transmission due to tainted blood taken from an MSM as a direct consequence of this policy change, over the next five to ten years.
There is a somewhat famous object lesson here. Ever watch the first two predator movies, anon? The actor who plays the predator in the first two movies is Kevin Peter Hall, a physically imposing black heterosexual man who had played basketball in college, had a gf, and was getting into the movie business. Everything was looking great for Kevin. Until one day, through no fault of his own (something that can't be said of gay guys who bareback or suck each other off), Kevin received a botched blood transfusion and became HIV positive. And this was a few years before retrovirals, so Kevin got a death sentence as well. No sooner had he completed "Predator 2" with Danny Glover, than Kevin Peter Hall who literally dindu nuffin, dropped dead of AIDS.
Can you imagine how pissed you would be? I don't wish that on anyone. Well, okay, maybe that Scarelli guy, but nobody else.
>>5696664
The previous rule was if you had any sexual contact with another man since like 1977 you can't donate. As if you are going to catch HIV from one sexual encounter twenty years ago and wouldn't know you had HIV.
There Is a severe blood shortage in the US and I doubt trying to stop this near negligible risk is helping anything
>>5696631
>There are no health risks at all
This is an objectively false PC lie.
>>5696664
The rule was put in place when we couldn't easily test blood for HIV. Now it's just a nearly useless extra measure.
>>5696664
You can get aids from girls too, it's not only dudes. That's my point
>>5696696
Well if gays can't give blood due to HIV fears then why don't they stop the blacks from giving blood for the same reason?
>>5696492
>Are gay people allowed to give blood?
Varies from place to place.
>If not, why?
STDs are very common in the gay community. Denying their donations statistically lowers the risk of a bad transfusion.
>and if so, are there any risks?
STDs are very common in the gay community. Allowing them to donate statistically increases the risk of a bad transfusion.
It's a numbers game, and by being politically correct we taunt RNGesus.
It's not about catching AIDS, it's about cost.
Every donation has to be tested, so there's no chance of getting hiv (remember you cannae get false negatives). The only problem is msm have high hiv rates, so money is wasted taking and testing unusable samples.
Nowadays though AIDS is less common even amoung msm. Combining that with cheaper testing means lots of counties are legalising it (which suits public opinion better too).
>>5696557
It's better than what it has been but their policies are still bullshit on account that they test every donation (regardless of who it was from and how many times they've donated) for blood borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.. And they still consider trans woman as homosexual men but not homosexual trans men as such.
>>5696492
I went to give blood in Connecticut and they said I couldnt if i have had sex with a man since 1979???? really?
>>5697331
And yet an African could go in and give blood and nobody would say a word.
In the UK, we can't donate blood or bone marrow if we've had sex in the last year, but we can donate everything else (tissue, liver, kidney, other organs after death).
Before anyone says that the things we can donate are lower HIV risk, they aren't, as enough blood to infect the receiver is transplanted along with the organ; the laws are just stupid and contradictory:
>Gay and monogamous with an HIV-, STD- partner = No donation allowed
>Hetero and having sex with a different girl every night, unprotected, with no knowledge of sexual health = Donation allowed
Nowadays, all blood is checked very thoroughly, so any infected blood is found, reported and destroyed. The chances of getting infected with HIV through blood transfusion are negligible, even with MSM donors. Detecting HIV hasn't been a problem for years.
P.S. In some countries, like Spain, people are assessed based on their individual HIV risk, rather than by use of a blanket ban (e.g. monogamous gays who know HIV- status of partners can donate, while polygamous heterosexuals or those who are uncertain of HIV status of partners cannot). Suffice to say, their rates of HIV transmission are no higher than any country with blanket bans (and many of them have much lower rates than the US and/or UK) and they have more blood available for the people who need it. This system is much more equal, safe, and statistically sound than blanket bans based on statistics from 30 years ago.
>>5696664
In the UK, we've had this same law for a long time, and our adult HIV prevalence is half that of the US by percentage.
Coincidence?
>>5696930
that's only true for sexually hyperactive gay men.
anyone who frequently has casual sex with different partners should not donate, no matter their sex. in the case of homosexual males we should just be less tolerant in the amount of recent partners it takes to become unfit for donation.
HIV is detectable after a year and the chance of getting HIV in a close long-lasting relationship is very little and completely comparable to the chance of a straight couple getting it.
>>5697188
as far as i know they run the same cheap HIV test on every blood sample and gay men don't have an hiv rate high enough to consider accepting and testing their blood economically unprofitable.
HIV can be really hard to detect for the first 100 days, i think that's th real problem.
>wanting to donate blood
You shouldn't even want to.
>>5697471
>that's only true for sexually hyperactive gay men.
This is the average gay man. It's understandable to be weary of getting blood from a group of people who partake in group sex in bathhouses on a regular basis. Gay men have higher rates of STDS and HIV/AIDS than straights, it makes perfect sense to treat your blood with more caution.
Lesbians? Sure, they're cool. Transbians? Sure, they're cool. Gay dudes? lol no.
>>5697471
>HIV is detectable after a year
Actually, one of the tests used on blood is an Nucleic Acid Test (NAT), which detects the presence of viral RNA. As they are more sensitive than the regular HIV tests on offer, the window period for this test is 9-14 days. Even fewer excuses to take our blood.
Abstaining from sex for 14 days is easy, and for teenage couples or people who have been together for a very long time, often the norm; 1 year is virtually impossible in a relationship.
>>5697578
See >>5697430
>In some countries, like Spain, people are assessed based on their individual HIV risk, rather than by use of a blanket ban (e.g. monogamous gays who know HIV- status of partners can donate)
Instead of banning people based on the gender they have sex with, shouldn't we ban based on the actual activity of the person?
>inb4 "they can lie about what they've been doing", without realizing you can lie about having sex with men anyway
>>5697629
>without realizing you can lie about having sex with men anyway
This is the big thing, since you can just lie, why even say you fuck men? Just say you're straight and bam you can give blood.
>>5697555
Nioce trips
One of the things that also freaks out the medical community is the prophlyactic use of aids drugs by HIV- people, who then have unprotected sex with HIV+ people.
>>5697350
Travel to africa, or being from africa bans you from blood donation here, regardless of race.
>>5696752
Infected population size and transmission rate. Men sexing men is more than all the other sex transmission rates combined.
>>5696767
The black population that donates blood is tiny, and the lowest risk part of the black population.
>>5697217
>And they still consider trans woman as homosexual men but not homosexual trans men as such.
Their policies are deliberately slow and conservative. But think about the biology and the transmission methods, the aids levels of those communities and you'll see more clearly. Also transfags are a rounding error in population size.
>>5697471
>>5697188
Cost is a very important part of it. Practices vary, but blood is stored comingled and tested again, so a positive means lots of blood gets thrown out. Getting a high risk population to donate actually can reduce the amount of blood collected.
Most places run a cheap individual blood test, and then a more thorough blood test on a larger batch.
And it's not JUST about HIV. Don't forget the Hep rates that also require loads of blood to be tossed.
>>5697890
>But think about the biology and the transmission methods, the aids levels of those communities and you'll see more clearly.
I understand that but regardless of whether or not a trans woman has ever had sex with a man or been in a relationship with a man (even if she claims and could somehow give solid evidence that she hasn't) she'll still be viewed by the Red Cross as a homosexual man.. not even a heterosexual trans woman, a homosexual man. Fuck, she could probably go to a clinic with her cis female partner (like that'd ever happen) and have sex with her in front of everyone there, and she'd still be viewed and labeled as a homosexual cis male. It's utterly ridiculous, their practices are homophobic as sin, discriminatory, and inconsiderate towards trans people.
>>5698440
You don't understand at all. Trans women are a super high risk population for AIDS, Hep, and other diseases. So are sexually active gay men. The red cross isn't making any declarations about anybody's sexuality or gender identity.
The mission is saving lives. Where is this hatred you see coming from? Do you think they're a bunch of secret papal conservatives? And it's not as if they won't accept other kinds of help that transexuals can provide. Financial, paperwork, promotion, ect. Don't project your own psychological insecurities and hangups on them and call it bigotry.
>>5698440
>I'm a victim pls halp
>>5696664
Actually, the FDA just changed that lifetime restriction to just one year since the last time you had gay sex back in December 2015. Of course, the Red Cross and such "need time to change their systems and educate their employees", so nothing has actually changed yet, but it's in the books.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm
They also changed their policy on transgender blood donation from requiring blood donations to be processed as the genetic sex to:
>The FDA’s recommendation to blood establishments is that in the context of the donor history questionnaire, male or female gender should be self-identified and self-reported for the purpose of blood donation.
>>5696492
I gave blood once, I was still a virgin so I figured it's not like I was gonna give STD's to anyone. As the years have passed I became more and more irritated with the "LGBT folks can't give blood" rule, so nowadays I wouldn't give blood even if they begged me to do it.
Which is unlikely anyway, I have AB negative blood, it's literally worthless for anything. O negatives can give blood to anyone and there are lot more of them anyway - I'll let the doctors siphon their blood.
Because you're all hypergamous scat-fixated nutcases who get buttmad that you can't do things just because. Get over it, you entitled assholes.
>>5699599
/pol/ pls go, you're spilling spaghetti from your pockets again
>>5697653
The average person knows that 1) medical providers share information, and 2) that they (that is, the average person) doesn't /know/ exactly /what/ information is shared among medical providers, just that it is, and that this makes things run more smoothly, and we accept it because we need medicine and it makes sense.
So if you lie to one, it follows that there's good odds that the lie will be reported or found out downstream, potentially making any claims process personally difficult for you (as in, denial of claims, say). So, honesty is the best policy-most of all when you're in a doctor's office, or a blood drive van, say. Because it directly concerns you and your person. The doctor's office is the little confession booth where you unburden yourself, and don't lie - because the lie will catch up to you in a more immediate way, since this is about your own body and all. This culture carries over to a blood drive.
>>5696664
All blood and blood products are tested.
Anyways, worldwide more heterosexuals have HIV than gays.
>>5696492
Yes. Any gay man can give blood anytime he wants. When they ask if you've had sex with a man in the past year just say "no"
>>5699588
>I have AB negative blood, it's literally worthless for anything.
AB+ and AB- people can use your blood.
>tfw chimera with O+ and AB+ blood types
Literally my blood is poison to all but another chimera with the exact same two blood types. Oh well, they also didn't want it because I fit under MSM, and trans categories. At least I can receive blood from anybody.
http://www.donateblood.com.au/faq/sexual-activity
It's based on risk
>If you’re unable to donate, it’s for safety reasons based on medical research. The Blood Service does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
http://www.donateblood.com.au/blood-service-deferrals
Now excuse me while I go suck some cock; donating blood is not a right. Age groups are excluded, hell if you were born or lived in UK during mad cow you can't donate.
If they found out that cishet white men have a huge blood transmittable disease rate than they would be excluded too.
>>5701304
>mad cow
With all the mad cow tainted beef, sheep, goats, and pig they had eaten, they only had a couple hundred human cases. All of them had eaten cuts high in nerve tissues like brain, stomach, etc..
>>5697890
Oh yeah that's a good point about comingling, I hadn't thought of that cos they don't do that in my country.
>>5697471
Yeah in countries that only do the virus test they wouldn't catch it at first, whereas if you do the combo test (also testing for both a protein in the virus coat and antibody to the virus) then it'll be caught. Luckily they do both where I live, in UK.
But of course not comingling and doing both these tests on every sample costs a fuck tonne, so no wonder they don't let MSM give blood.
>>5697217
They batch test. That means one infected donor destroys 100 other donations. That's a high price to pay just because one Sanfranfaggot from the highest-risk group of disease-carriers decided they needed to lie to the Red Cross to be "morally in the right."
Hell, there used to be a campaign just a short decade ago where pozfags would brag about trying to taint the blood by lying about both their status and their sexual preference. AIDs was the gay plague in the 80s. You don't just "forget" the acts of bugchasing queers in a single generation.
You're high-risk due to anal sex being a dramatically higher transmission vector than oral or vaginal. The transmen community is filled with an even higher percentage of mentally ill with staggeringly high STD rates due to their need to be fucked by as many Craigslist strangers as possible to feel "accepted as a woman."
(Bonus risk: "Dry sex..." as popular among Africans is also incredibly high risk and part of the reason they have such a huge problem, aside from gang-raping the widows after their husbands died of AIDS, and then raping their infants to try to "cure" themselves.)
>>5697471
>anyone who frequently has casual sex with different partners should not donate, no matter their sex.
Yes. Which is why straight whores and those with recent tattoos are also denied.
The Red Cross should be denying far, far more people than they do now. It's sad that the desperation for blood and liberal guilt is putting more people at risk.
I think its still waiting for approval in Portugal.
20% of American gay/bisexual men have Hiv/AIDS. While the blood is obviously tested, it can take as long as three months after being infected before you actually test positive.
It's not discrimination, it is common sense. If 20% of any group had an incurable, death virus, transmitted by blood, they should be banned from donating blood.
>>5699588
>As the years have passed I became more and more irritated with the "LGBT folks can't give blood" rule, so nowadays I wouldn't give blood even if they begged me to do it.
I like you and your reasoning. It's why I donate absolutely nothing.
>>5703919
Blacks do have a far higher rate than non-blacks. Let's ban them?
>>5703951
Higher than non blacks but not comparable to gay men. Literally 1/5 of American gay men, that's sub Saharan Africa tier
>>5696492
No because 100% of 1% of gays have aids
>>5703984
>Literally 1/5 of American gay men
This is a real and believable statistic, that is in no way off by a factor of 4; who needs citations? This statistic also definitely takes into account the age distribution and sexual activities of said men.
I am definitely, certainly, 100% sold on this.
>>5701304
>If they found out that cishet white men have a huge blood transmittable disease rate than they would be excluded too.
This would never happen, because this group makes up a large portion of the population. There's already a blood shortage, and people are still dying because medics are too paranoid to accept some blood.
Even if the risk of HIV from gay blood is significantly higher (which in lots of cases, it isn't), think about it: would you rather get HIV from contaminated blood and live for a few more decades, or die instantly because you can't get blood?
>>5700304
Of course, there is the possibility that one could just lie to all of their health providers about sexual history and activity, leading to reduced doctor-patient communication, undiagnosed STDs, and an overall higher risk of transmission to all.
When they ask you about sexual history, they ask if, within the last year, you've had coitus with a man or (as a woman) a man who has had coitus with a man. Could they not just ask if you've had sex with more than one person in the last year and if that person has had sex with more than one person within the last year? It would require the same level of knowledge of one's own sexual history and one's partner, and would exclude all genuinely risky sexual activity, rather than all sexual activity perceived to be risky as a result of half-arsed statistical analyses.
>Gay's make up a large proportion of those infected with HIV.
>Let's not now see how many of them got it through casual sex, hookups, non-monogamous sex, or partners who have recently taken part in any of the above.
>We know how to analyse population distributions.
doesn't the american red cross' impending change to 12 month deferral for homo-sex mean the only permenantly deferred groups are prostitutes and IDUs?
banning Injecting drug users makes sense. they may have a lower HIV rate compared with MSM but the Hep C rate is like 50% although if you letting one high risk group give blood 12 months after cessation of high risk behaviour you might as well let them all.
>>5704122
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
>At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.
>In 2013, gay and bisexual men accounted for 55% of the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS among all adults and adolescents in the United States.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/
>Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active gay and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don’t know it.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
