second looks

FDA Agrees to ‘Re-Examine’ Ban on Fag Blood

Under pressure from a slew of U.S. senators, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday said it would re-examine, or whatever, its policy on banning blood donations from men who diddled other men even once since 1977. Of course, the FDA also re-examined the AIDS-crazed policy in 2006 … and did nothing.

EARLIER: An Actual Reasonable Alternative to Banning All Gay Men’s Blood

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #blood #blooddonations #fda stories and more


  • Kamikapse

    I hate how edgy Queery thinks it is lately to use the word “Fag” in every 2nd headline in a sad attempt at sarcasm.

  • James Stone

    I agree with the first comment. I don’t think using that word in a headline is “cute” or “funny” at all.
    If it were related to African Americans would the headline then be..”FDA Agrees to Re-examine Ban on Ni–er Blood?”

  • guydads

    Unfortunately it is politics and not science that is a partner to the US blood policy. Dr. Charles Richard Drew (1904-1950) was an African-American physician and medical researcher. His research was in the field of blood transfusions, blood storage, and developing large-scale blood banks early in World War II. He protested against the practice of racial segregation in the donation of blood from donors of different races since it lacked scientific foundation. In 1941, Dr Drew was chosen to lead the American Red Cross blood bank program. However, a War Department directive stated that, “It is not advisable to indiscriminately mix Caucasian and Negro blood for use in blood transfusions for the U.S. Military”. Dr Drew protested against this blood segregation, which has no basis in scientific fact, and as a result was forced to resign his position. The United States Military did not end segregation of its blood supplies until 1949. Politics and bigotry of blood still continues today.

  • ChrisM

    They won’t change it. They probably won’t even give it a second glance. They’re just pretending to consider it to placate everyone.

    And when they announce they’ve re-examined it and find it is reasonable, the straight senators will feel accomplished for having made the FDA ‘reconsider,’ and it will be deemed a win for our equality that we were even given the chance to be considered as worthy as heterosexuals.

  • damon459

    Fine by me I don’t want hetero blood who knows where it’s been. I guess I’ll have to make sure to plan ahead or hope simple saline will be enough to keep me going while I make more of my own queer blood. It’s funny when “grid” first appeared nobody wanted to do a damn thing to protect the blood supply now we are doing the wrong things to protect it.

  • jason

    The guy in the picture next to the blood bag above doesn’t look like the typical donor. He looks more like a drug-fucked queen who just entered the clinic after an all night party dancing to Kylie or Britney.

  • Greg

    “Fag” blood? C’mon guys, grow up.


    @jason: Aside from that, hanging a bag of translucent red fluid from an IV pole doesn’t seem the best way to harness gravity during a blood draw. It looks more like he’s being infused a cranberry-vodka.

    Agree with the above. Queerty, grow up. “Fag blood”? Really?

  • jason

    I think I’ll come to the defense of queerty editors here. I think the use of the word “fag” in the headline was designed to indicate the perspective of those who want our blood banned. The word is used to demonstrate the sentiments of homophobes who think our blood is “diseased”.

  • gomez

    there’s a way to indicate sarcasm about homophobia but this constant gimmicky use of the word “fag” is not it. it’s cheap, offensive and gives permission for others to use it against us.

    knock it off.

  • gomez

    and what’s up with the picture? sometimes this site is so fuckin juvie. it’s embarrassing

  • sumbody

    There are certain aspects of Queerty I like, or else I’d be somewhere else. The layout is clean, it’s easy to navigate, and they give the Comments section lotsa play.


    The headline writing is nothing short of abysmal, and as many writers above have pointed out, it is done intentionally.

    Fag blood? Hmm.

    Fag blood.

    How impaired was this writer at the time?

  • PopSnap

    Picture this.

    The Internet was around in the year 1955; as well as the blogosphere. One of those blogs was called “Blackty”, and it was focused on African American issues. How would you feel if you saw this headline:

    “Restaurant to Re-Examine Ban on N*ggers”

    Would you cringe?

    Because I just did at “FDA Agrees to Re-Examine Ban on F*g Blood”.

  • Hyhybt

    @damon459: “Grid?” What’s that?

  • Hyhybt

    Ah. I’d probably have remembered, had it been capitalized.

Comments are closed.