FDA ends lifetime ban on gay men donating blood

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well **** I never said this is the most important LGBT issue we face today.

The "weak" spot in my argument is very, very easily bypassed.

One can simply enforce a month ban using modern testing techniques. A month ban is still stupid but should honestly be applied for ALL people who want to donate.

Of course it's only gay men who must be marginalized.

It seems you are very laissez-faire regarding LGBT stances. That's fine, but that's not how progress works.

Battles are not mutually exclusive.

For the FDA this is progress. For now.

And don't tell me I'm laissez-faire about LGBT issues I just think battling actual HIV is more important than making sure gays can donate. More awareness about HIV will directly lead to progress in this field, and a lot faster than crying about being discriminated.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

For the FDA this is progress. For now.

And don't tell me I'm laissez-faire about LGBT issues I just think battling actual HIV is more important than making sure gays can donate. More awareness about HIV will directly lead to progress in this field, and a lot faster than crying about being discriminated.

Battling perception of HIV is part of the battle against it.

This isn't progress at all. This demands celibacy for blood donations. They might as well use a priest for the blood extractions.

There are countless ways to fix this and they picked the easiest way out. 

There's no need to be complacent. You get nothing from it. You don't have to stage mass food protests either. Just don't agree that this issue is resolved because it is not.

Unless you believe the feelings of the people in charge are relevant?

"Please the bosses so they give you scraps of food"

I don't even...

[Economy 52,844]

1 hour ago, AM98GJ said:

Can you explain why? (Not trying to start an argue I'm genuinely inquiring), I always thought they could just test the person, and find out if they're positive.

Screenings are not 100% accurate eveytime and gay men do have higher rates of the infection

 

i do not see these policies as homophobic. Theres reasons for them

[AM98GJ 3,086]

45 minutes ago, Economy said:

Screenings are not 100% accurate eveytime and gay men do have higher rates of the infection

 

i do not see these policies as homophobic. Theres reasons for them

I didn't say they were, but I certainly think they're pointless, the majority of the community is going to be excluded according to these parameters so I don't see the point 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

39 minutes ago, Economy said:

Screenings are not 100% accurate eveytime and gay men do have higher rates of the infection

 

i do not see these policies as homophobic. Theres reasons for them

Its a good mixture of both tbh  Hence the lifetime ban only being removed in 2015.

This is really only symbolic for many people.

[NONONONO 709]

About time

[Didymus 34,380]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Battling perception of HIV is part of the battle against it.

I don't think that's right. Not in this context. Your arguments so far have served to downplay the effect and importance HIV infections have and you have also downplayed the problem of people getting access to not just proper and up to date testing but also to PrEP.

To battle HIV you have to do the opposite. You have to outline its dangers effectively, which is the opposite of what you do when you want to make a statement about HIV being a minor risk for blood transfusions (which is already a crazy thing to say since it's the most dangerous transmission to be possible to occur).

You say that we shouldn't be complacent about this issue, but I ask you why. What is really more important? Making sure that people are treated for HIV or that they can donate blood despite them being at a far greater risk for contracting HIV? I think the priorities are quite obvious and I still stand by my statement that by getting rid of HIV as well as possible, the issue in the context of blood donation will develop more effectively as well.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

26 minutes ago, Didymus said:

To battle HIV you have to do the opposite. You have to outline its dangers effectively, which is the opposite of what you do when you want to make a statement about HIV being a minor risk for blood transfusions (which is already a crazy thing to say since it's the most dangerous transmission to be possible to occur).

You say that we shouldn't be complacent about this issue, but I ask you why. What is really more important? Making sure that people are treated for HIV or that they can donate blood despite them being at a far greater risk for contracting HIV? I think the priorities are quite obvious and I still stand by my statement that by getting rid of HIV as well as possible, the issue in the context of blood donation will develop more effectively as well.

You may want to educate yourself before spreading misinformation about such a serious topic.

According to the Red Cross there is a 1 in 2 million chance that donated blood will carry HIV and infect a person. You are more likely to get infected with Hepatitis B and C (both life-threatening) than with HIV. Not even a majority of gay men have HIV.

I agree that risks should be as low as possible but it's kinda nonsense to give openly gay men this restrictions while there are other certain groups who are more vulnerable too. Black people represent the largest percentage of HIV infected people regarding of their sexual orientation and there are no restrictions for black people. Should only white straight people be able to donate? The less risk the better right?

[artRaver 3,188]

5 hours ago, Cocaine said:

off topic, but if that is you in your display. you are STUNNING

Haha, I wish!

It's https://www.instagram.com/pattyeffinmayo/ 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

HIV can happen with any form of sexual intercourse. This line of thought is unwarranted and marginalizes gay men specifically.

You do understand that HIV is transmitted easier through ánál sex than vaginal sex right? And HIV is pretty much not a problem with lesbian sex, right?  This is about sexual behaviors that gay men have not about promiscuity. 

[Seeka 12,372]

3 minutes ago, just4fun said:

You do understand that HIV is transmitted easier through ánál sex than vaginal sex right? And HIV is pretty much not a problem with lesbian sex, right?  This is about sexual behaviors that gay men have not about promiscuity. 

And you do know not every gay man enjoys **** sex, correct? It is not the only way gay men have sex, or do I need to draw graphically detailed pictures I should begetting paid for, with my new illustrator?

It may be a symbolic victory, but it's a victory nonetheless. I was never planning on donating my blood anyways. I was gonna sell it. And my plasma. Why not get money for not having sex?

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

2 hours ago, DrewStevens said:

You may want to educate yourself before spreading misinformation about such a serious topic.

According to the Red Cross there is a 1 in 2 million chance that donated blood will carry HIV and infect a person. You are more likely to get infected with Hepatitis B and C (both life-threatening) than with HIV. Not even a majority of gay men have HIV.

I agree that risks should be as low as possible but it's kinda nonsense to give openly gay men this restrictions while there are other certain groups who are more vulnerable too. Black people represent the largest percentage of HIV infected people regarding of their sexual orientation and there are no restrictions for black people. Should only white straight people be able to donate? The less risk the better right?

While the gay men account for 2% of the U.S. population, they account for over 60 percent of all the new AIDS cases in the U.S. Maybe we should take a look at ourselves and our behaviors before we force a change in blood donation policies. If we force this and then HIV cases from blood transfusions rises the backlash against the gay community will be horrible. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

8 minutes ago, Seeka said:

And you do know not every gay man enjoys **** sex, correct? It is not the only way gay men have sex, or do I need to draw graphically detailed pictures I should begetting paid for, with my new illustrator?

It may be a symbolic victory, but it's a victory nonetheless. I was never planning on donating my blood anyways. I was gonna sell it. And my plasma. Why not get money for not having sex?

What percentage of gay men doesn't engage in ánál sex? Because I can tell you that over 60 percent of new HIV cases in the US are gay men and we are only 2 percent of the population. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

20 minutes ago, just4fun said:

While the gay men account for 2% of the U.S. population, they account for over 60 percent of all the new AIDS cases in the U.S. Maybe we should take a look at ourselves and our behaviors before we force a change in blood donation policies. If we force this and then HIV cases from blood transfusions rises the backlash against the gay community will be horrible. 

Stop throwing statistics around like a moron.

You can have only 5 AIDs cases. 60% of gay men having AIDS is still 3 people only. Another 40% you are content to ignore are from straight people. This is actually the correct proportion in real life.

Refer to my lengthy statistics post if you want an accurate portrayal of how statistics work.

[RAMROD 117,032]

Well, good for the gay men who are out and proud and celibate 

They don't know that many gays in closet have already donated blood anyway lmao

FDA just need to let anyone healthy to donate blood, there is no harm in that.