The campaign to force groups like the American Red Cross to overturn policies banning gay blood donations has been going on longer than this website has been published. And while Queerty has made the case before to get the FDA to allowing “gay tainted” O-neg and B-pos before, the situation in Australia has become almost comical.
There, a U.S.-based leading blood expert only last year claimed that merely a kiss between two gay men was enough to ban both folks from donating blood for the rest of their lives. (“They increase their chance of transmitting an infection such as HIV,” said former Red Cross exec Dr. Paul Holland.) Even Thailand has more progressive policies.
But for now, it’s more of the same in Australia, where news arrives that the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal said it will uphold the ban on gay blood. Gay blood activist (is there such a thing?) Michael Cain has been lobbying the organization to eliminate the ban. They won’t, claiming the Red Cross must act on “the worst case scenario,” even though the Tribunal finally owned up to the fact that all gays are not sex-addicted whores.
Says Cain: “I am pleased the Tribunal has agreed with my fundamental claim that there are monogamous, safe, gay men who have a lower HIV risk than some of the straight people who can currently give blood. It’s disappointing that they have not followed through on this conclusion by allowing these men to donate, but it’s a step in the right direction that I and other people will build on. This was a knife-edge decision in which the Tribunal erred on the side of caution, but given how much of my case it agreed with, I am confident the next time this matter goes to court the outcome will be a new policy. The Red Cross’s absurd claims that all gay sex is very high risk because gay men are all sexually irresponsible and promiscuous are now officially dead and buried.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Alexa
It’s hard to believe that people are so stupidly homophobic that they would rather let people die rather than accept blood from gay men. But then, people die because of DADT all the time.
Tyson
This always pisses me off, it is such backwards thinking – unsafe Hetro couples can get exposed to HIV just as much, plus they have screening processes from this sort of thing – don’t they?
I’m so torn, do I want to give blood to help those that need it, or do I want to do it just to SPITE their stupid policy then write a long winded letter telling them my GAY blood is now lost somewhere in their bloodbank – have a nice life – and good luck finding it
end rant
Bri
“They increase their chance of transmitting an infection such as HIV,” said former Red Cross exec Dr. Paul Holland.”
You’re kidding! A doctor said this? About a kiss? WTF?
Quinn
Whoever wrote this article should be ashamed of their sloppy work and their lack of journalistic integrity.
The American Red Cross has not advocated banning gay men from donating blood for over eight years. In fact, they have testified in front of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – the ACTUAL gatekeepers of the current ban – to repeal the measure several times in the last few years. That you would be so lazy as to spread blatant misinformation without cracking a book or loading a quick Google search is disgraceful.
Matthias
The debate is also raging in France where gay men are banned from giving their blood. We are even sometime told that we can give blood again after 7 years without homosexual intercourse!… (naaa, don’t try to find any scientific ground (nor legal by the way) for this one)
Same here, politicians are not courageous enough to draw a straight line between sexuality and behaviour!
TANK
This policy makes perfect sense to me. Even in the u.s. Why gamble with the blood supply?
alejandro
canada isnt any better..
dgz
@Tyson: yes, they do screen the blood, but i think they do it based on viral antibodies present in the sample, which opens the blood supply up to the risk of contamination by people who have been infected for 6 weeks or less, or who do not produce the antibodies for another reason.
Smokey Martini
On a positive note, the Liberal party in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) has passed a resolution to lift the ban on organ donations by gay men. This in light of a shortage of organs.
As one politician put it: “It seems to be a shift in the party in understanding that this is an issue of discrimination, not an issue of some trumped-up health issue.”
More info here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Liberals_pass_resolution_to_end_gay_organ_donor_ban-6676.aspx
strumpetwindsock
@alejandro:
Canada used to screen for ALL whores, actually. There used to be a question asking how many sexual partners you had had. I think five was enough to get you disqualified.
Now they don’t ask orientation, but they ask men if they have had sex with a man since 1977, women if they have had sex with a man who has done so, or if the donor has had sex with anyone whose sexual history they did not know (good luck with that one).
They also ask if you have been in prison.
JD
@Quinn: Yes, and we made this clear. The American Red Cross may want to admit gay blood, but America’s Food & Drug Administration won’t allow it. In Australia, however, you have a former Red Cross exec advising the government not to allow gay blood donations and, according to Cain, the Red Cross itself is telling the Tribunal to continue the ban.
Colin
When I went to college — in Boston, so I figured I was among progressives and social liberals — there was a blood drive in the first few weeks of school. I’d given blood in high school but had always just lied about the gay questions, because as a virgin there was certainly no way I had HIV. This time, instead of checking “no” on a piece of paper, I was asked all the questions by a woman. When she asked if I’d had sexual contact with another guy, I hesitated a minute and then said “yes.” I don’t know why; I guess I was feeling happy about being away from my home, a much more conservative place than New England, where I could be out for the first time without fear.
But though I told her I’d never actually had sex, she said oral sex and kissing counted as sexual contact, and offered me a T-shirt and some pizza before sending me on my way. I’m type O (positive, not negative, but I can still donate to a huge amount of people) and I know I have good blood; I’ve always been healthy. The experience hurt me a great deal and I still think about it; I hadn’t researched the laws beforehand and I just assumed they couldn’t actually prohibit me from giving blood just for being gay. Of course, I was wrong. It was the first time I felt discriminated against not by my peers, but by my elders, the people I was supposed to look up to. When I read And the Band Played On, and found out just how stupidly the FDA acted during the AIDS crisis, I wasn’t as surprised about the law, but it is still ridiculous. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Why is there no question about promiscuity? “Have you had more than __ partners in the last year?” or something like that. Promiscuity can be dangerous regardless of orientation. But straight people only get asked if they’ve bought PROSTITUTES. So I guess for us, having sex with other gay men is equivalent to a straight guy paying $300 for a corner whore. I don’t get it.
dgz
@Colin:
well, in fairness, don’t they also get asked about travel outside the country, and specifically in Africa? one might say they also discriminate against immigrants, but with almost 1/4 of the population in some west african nations living with HIV, the statistics are harder to argue with. and keep in mind, most young pos men don’t even know they have HIV.
sorry, just playing devil’s advocate.
Colin
@dgz:
Yeah, I’m not sure why I left that comment. I think it was something I needed to talk about for a while but had never really had the chance to bring up, so the Queerty readers get to be privy to it. Lucky you. 😉
Anyway, yeah, the gay exclusion is not the only blood-bank policy / question that rubs me the wrong way. I understand the need for safety, but I think their worst-case scenario fears have prompted them to enact policies that don’t always make sense. I would only have had HIV if someone had stuck me with an infected needle when I was asleep, which is a) totally implausible and b) something that could happen just as easily to a straight person. Oh well.
dgz
@Colin: don’t be sorry! it was a good comment; i’ve certainly felt the same way. in college i was in a very similar situation to yours. i still donated blood, but only to family that asked for it (via direct donation).
i just saw your comment as an avenue to further good debate 🙂
alan brickman
it still takes three months for hiv to show up…but the doctors would still use it to save alife…
Alexa
@TANK: because blood is desperately needed. Because gay men who practice safe sex are less likely to have HIV than straight people who don’t. Because people lie.
Darrien
@Colin: really great comment. Before I started having sex I used to give blood. Now I’m obviously unclean because I’m gay. You perfectly encapsulated something that has been niggling at me and then nagging at me and then outright pissing me off for several years now. I value my sexual health far more than any of my straight friends – I regularly get check-ups and every single time I’ve been clear and clean of any kind of infection or disease. But I still get the tests because I think it’s the responsible thing to do. However, my pure, clean, lovely, much-needed blood is contaminated by gayness. It really fucks me off big time that supposed experts in blood know so fucking little about blood. Anyway. Thanks for that post Colin, it was great.
jason
Australia is a horribly homophobic country. Avoid at all costs.
As for the blood policy, it’s patently homophobic. If you’re a straight guy who has anal sex with lots of whores, you get a pass. Go figure.
dgz
@jason: if you mean “whores” literally, then no, that is also prohibited.
jason
A monogamous, healthy gay man can’t give blood? And yet a monogamous, healthy straight man can? Sheesh, what a horrible piece of discrimination. I certainly won’t be going to Australia for my holidays. Seems to be a backwater. Ugly, ugly place by the sounds of it.
mike
So if you’re a straight guy who’s had a few sex encounters with different girlfriends, the Australian Red Cross Blood Bank thinks you’re OK to give. But if you’re a gay, you’re not OK. Pure discrimination. Pure homophobia.
Australia – you need to have a good look at yourself.
dgz
@jason: you’re just all about glittering generalities, aren’t ya? the rule is the same in the US. and you’re passing judgement on an entire country… but you’ve never been there. like most Western nations, they have many regions of great acceptance. Sidney’s Gay Mardi Gras is one of the world’s biggest LGBT celebrations, for example.
and most gay men who contract HIV get it from their “main partner,” so any reputed monogamy may be beside the point.
although i agree, MSM should be able to donate. my blood is awesome.
Quinn
@JD: You haven’t made that clear in this article that I see. The very first paragraph reads:
The campaign to force groups like the American Red Cross to overturn policies banning gay blood donations has been going on longer than this website has been published.
Which makes it sound like the campaign is ongoing, and yet the policies that remain do not belong to the ARC.
brian
I have no problem with the Blood Bank making decisions on the basis of promiscuity. But at least be consistent. Do not take blood from promiscuous hetero’s as well as homo’s. Currently, the Blood Bank is displaying a discrminatory, homophobic attitude which discriminates against male-male promiscuity. Male-female promiscuity, on the other hand, gets a pass.
And please don’t give me this bull about Australia being gay-friendly. It’s one of the most homophobic places on earth. One street parade through Oxford Street does not indicative general acceptance. Rather, it’s preaching to the converted and to prurient onlookers.
Tourists would be well advised to go elsewhere. Australis is horribly homophobic overall.
Alec
@brian: The question is whether you’ve ever had sex with a man, not whether you’re promiscuous. You could have experimented with oral sex one night in 1982; you’re banned for life, no matter how many times you’ve been tested.
Steve
The title of the article is wrong. It says “All gay men aren’t whores.” However, some are. And many others actually are promiscuous, and some of those do engage in unprotected sex. A much more accurate statement would be, “Not all gay men are promiscuous.”
The way the Red Cross screens blood is to take a small sample from about a thousand pints, mix the samples all together, and then run a test on the mix. If the mix is negative, all of those pints are negative. That saves the cost of testing each pint individually. But, if the result is positive, it takes a lot more testing to figure out which one (or several) of the pints is positive. They usually end up throwing out the entire batch, because they only have so many small samples to test, and they only have so much time to get all the testing done.
From their point of view, anything that they can do administratively to reduce the chance of a positive test is worthwhile, because it saves them a bunch of time and money. The time savings, in turn, saves whole batches of blood from being discarded, and helps to save lives. While it is true that “not all gay men are promiscuous”, enough gay men are that the question works as a screening tool.
A better question might be, “how many people have you had sex with in the last year?” I think they ask that one, too, and have a numerical cut-off above which they will not accept blood. Again, it is not for the reason of discrimination. It is for the reason of obtaining safe blood products within the allowed time, and at low cost.
threshold
The policy is completely ridiculous. I’m gay and haven’t had sex, so I decided earlier this year to give blood before I’m unable to (although I expect this discriminatory policy to be eliminated soon, it failed by one vote in an FDA vote and that was even after all of the fundies that Bush appointed.)
Even the Red Cross thinks that this policy is overly exclusive and recommends a change in policy.
ALL blood that is donated is tested for HIV and the tests are accurate to about 1 false negative in several million. In the meantime there is a blood shortage. Other groups have higher than average rates of HIV but it only seems acceptable to discriminate if it’s gay men.
Even more ridiculous is the ban on bone marrow donation from gay men. That’s right, if you are a unique genetic match for someone with cancer out there but have had sex with a man, too bad. I guess they would rather have the person from cancer die than get gay cooties. The person with cancer out there isn’t even informed that they have a match.
Ugh.
Moo
We can’t give blood in the UK either. There are two interesting quotes from the The National Blood Service’s position statement.
“The reason for this exclusion rests on specific sexual behaviour (such as anal and oral sex between men), rather than the sexuality of the person wishing to donate. There is, therefore, no exclusion of gay men who have never had sex with a man nor of women who have sex with women.”
“Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%.”
Thing is, I only have sex with one man, and he with me. I doubt we’re going to spontaneously create the HIV with being amorous but as long as I can receive blood donations, I guess I’m not too badly off.
Munsterbear
The reason they wont accept GAY blood is not because of HIV AIDS it is that they are afraid if you receive Gay Blood you will become Gay. Of the idea is daft but no dafter than their reasons
James
Jason, Brian and Mike all commented that Australia is very homophobic due to this ban. While I agree that it is a negative ruling, I disagree that Australia is homophobic overall.
Also consider: Australia’s ban only counts if you’ve had homosexual sex within the last year, whereas the ban is for LIFE in the USA.
Compare the two and tell me which is more accepting…
(I still think both are ridiculous, btw – the point being that Australia is no worse than USA regarding homophobia)
Alec
@James: Agreed. America is far more homophobic than Australia.
Mike
The National Blood Service (UK) still exclude any man who has had sex with another man, irregardless of their taking every precaution or being in a long term partnership.
Meanwhile any hetero who has engaged in risky practises – including intravenous drug use or sex with prostitute, or who have returned from a country with a high incidence of HIV are only banned for ONE SINGLE YEAR.
Tommy
I’m glad gay people are banned from giving blood. Because I have an excuse not to donate! The idea of sticking a needle in my arm makes me sick. I’d probably pass out if they took all that blood from me.
So now instead of looking like a selfish jerk or a scaredy cat for not giving blood, I have a legitimate excuse. Hurrah!!
Michael
I’m a gay doctor in Australia and while it annoys me that I personally can’t donate I understand and accept the law.
The purpose of the questionnaire is to remove risk factors. ie. people that are at a HIGHER risk of HIV- purely because we can’t screen quickly enough. We also reject prostitutes, people who lived in the UK during a certain period (because of the risk of vCJD), injecting drug users and a host of others. The fact of the matter is that in western nations the overwhelming percentage of people with HIV happen to be men who have sex with men (incidentally- the forms asks you if you have sex with other men, not if you’re gay, semantics aside).
The day that 50% of the population with HIV/AIDS is heterosexual is the day I’ll happily criticise the above law.