The information blockade in China has had numerous consequences. One we didn’t know about was that the communist regime had been banning lesbians from donating blood, based on the principle that homosexuals carry HIV.
Of course, lesbians who don’t use intravenous drugs have among the lowest rates of HIV infection—the CDC doesn’t have a single case of female-to-female sexual transmission in its records.
Well someone must have clued them in because finally, after 14 years, the Ministry of Health has lifted its ban on Sapphic plasma.
Sexologist Li Yinhe explained in a Global Times article that China learned about both homosexuality and AIDS in the 1980s, and many people simply equated being gay with having the disease. “Inadequate understanding of the two things is the main reason why ‘homosexuals’ [were] listed as a group not allowed to donate blood, as a way to prevent the spread of AIDS,” Li said. “Judging from the amendment, the country’s views on homosexuals and AIDS has progressed.”
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.
The new policy states only men who have had sex with men are barred from giving blood, without referencing sexual orientation.
Great, so they’ve progressed all the way up to our country’s ass-backward policy.
Source: Global Times via Gay Star News
TracyDom
“Information blockade” or inability to read a foreign language?
Leave it to Queerty to package its own deficiencies into a virtue of some kind.
Triple S
@TracyDom: Actually, China controls what gets released internationally of its inner workings. SO as to not give away incriminating information that they’re almost certain to have lots of.
Making up stuff is fun!
@Triple S: “China controls what gets released internationally of its inner workings.”
Uh, yeah, OK, but this ban wasn’t one of those things whose release was controlled. It was a well-known fact. It’s actually worse than TracyDom says: The info was perfectly available in English-language websites. Queerty is just, as usual, woefully uninformed.
Hyhybt
While reading this, it just occurred to me that our policy might not be quite as ass-backward as it seems. No, it’s not logical to assume that someone who last had sex with a guy in the 80’s, who’s healthy, and who tests negative has HIV anyway. But the other half is perception. If people get the *idea* that the blood supply is unsafe, and if they’re especially horrified at the prospect of getting AIDS (which what sane person isn’t), there might be a lot fewer people willing to accept transfusions… and, therefore, more lives lost.
I’m not saying that’s the real reason behind it, nor that it should override other considerations, nor… well, anything, really, other than that it’s worth thinking about if you’re in charge of setting the rules to protect as many lives as possible.