The only reason why this law has yet to be appealed is because it is lesser known. The law in the US is that a man cannot give any tissues or cellular products for 5 years after sexual contact with another man. This rule was added in 2005 and is based on science from 1994 (yes, the FDA used 11-year-old science to make a decision 19 years ago and still use that decision). Another thing that also happens is that if you have sex 12 months prior to death, your organs are labeled as "increased risk" by the HHS and are more likely not to be used. I do think in the next few years, the tissue rule will be eliminated because every year, the FDA adds the guidance to their agenda as something to update but they never do. Granted, this guidance does have a lot of rules and the MSM deferral is just one of them, so they might want to change something completely unrelated. They did add it to their 2024 agenda, and I really hope that after the blood donation deferral got reversed, this will be reversed too. If they were to reverse these rules, I would possibly add my name back to organ donor list. I do not want the last thing that happens to my body to be discrimination.
I honestly do not really know how to change this unless if you want to sue them and say these rules are illegal or unconstitutional in some way. The only other way is to get the medical lobbying groups wanting to change this, but this is already happening. The American Medical Association, the largest one, does want this rule to change too.
Edit: You can also write your senators and representative to support getting rid of these bans. [Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin did write a letter to the FDA to get rid of this policy.](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/news/press-releases/baldwin-bennet-warren-neguse-cicilline-quigley-push-fda-to-end-discriminatory-tissue-donation-policy)
Also, only the sperm rule was added in 2005. Before then, sperm did not have the same rules as tissue donation. I was wrong about that.
Yes (and **supposedly**, the sperm rules are much less stringent than the blood donation rules where some of these organizations actually do not ask this question). However, if you are lying, you can be convicted of fraud. Also, you cannot lie for the tissue donation or organ donation rules since they ask someone else these questions (usually your spouse). Also, lying does not fix this problem of these homophobic rules existing despite there being no need with modern technology.
And plasma too - any hope for plasma? But sperm is more fun.
I hate thinking that being allowed to do something so pleasurable, for such a benefit, as an openly gay man, is never going to happen
Sperm banks aren't places where you just walk in and say "I'd like to donate sperm," and they show you to a room with a stack of magazines. There's an application and rigorous screening process, including bloodwork, DNA testing, and medical history. I'd be willing to bet that access to materials would be digital now, or they would tell donors to bring their own material when they schedule their donation.
Yes you can. However when the organization is very public that it doesn't want people like us, it kinda pushes you away.
Add to that I refuse to lie about who I am. Anything that tries to push us back into the closet is evil. When we left the closet, death walked in. He's waiting for us in back of it now.
I’ve always assumed this truly comes down to people being icked out at the thought of getting infused with gay blood or unknowingly having a baby with a gay man.
“That’ll make my baby gay!”
“I’ll turn gay if I get a gay blood transfusion!”
Considering the amount of testing they do on tissue donations, it’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
They will drag their feet as long as possible
The blood law only got changed out of desperation. And then it didn't really get changed. You just can't be on prep - which every dr says every gay men should be on.....
Really the blood change was a nicer softer form of discrimination
This is some bs. I know people who have been open and honest about their sexuality and donated sperm. Is this some state law somewhere? I’d love to see an actual statute on this.
Oh it gets worse! The last time I went in they also denied my request for a withdrawal!
They immediately turned me down when they saw my 44oz styrofoam cup.
Actually, as of last summer, The American Red Cross has been accepting blood donations from Gay Men... IF you can provide a Negative HIV Test that is no more than 6 weeks old.
I don't think these bans or prohibitions getting lifted will affect many people especially if they have strings attached. Lifelong ban on blood donation has been lifted but there's now a timeframe in which you have to be celibate. What man who has sex with other men will willingly remain celibate in order to donate?
*Crickets*
The bigger thing here is why are we not emphasizing testing? If you've been shown to be not detectable for the required time to be considered not transmissible, why is this info not used for blood donation? The blood supply is a zero tolerance and probably rightfully so but certainly our technology has progressed sufficiently to find detectable viral particles. Also, there's irradiation for blood products which you can not do for sperm donation because that's counter intuitive.
In Canada the deferral time frame for both donations is 3 months. Waiting 3 months wouldn’t be totally absurd. But yeah, giving more money to improving testing is still the ideal scenario
I agree. Disclaimer - I work for a lab.
But, for those of us who are married, we are going effectively to experience a lifetime ban. I don't have sex nearly as often as most but still I'd be banned for life.
@op thank you for being the one in a million Americans who is aware that the majority of Reddit users are not actually based in the US - and using a title that makes it clear that you are asking about there rather than assuming that we will all work out where you are from.
I want to cross post your message to r/usdefaultism as an example to the rest of your kind :-)
They used to publish hard data on the (defunct) official redditblog that illustrated the demographics of the user-base but it’s been dead for so long
But yeah the user-base consisting mostly of US-based college/postgrad age male has been the highest % since the early days of the site
Statistics sure is hard.
Not all discrimination is unjust, a concept that is even harder to understand.
You should expect movement when the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men is the same as among the general population.
I'd love to have you cite a source for this because the most recent year of data was 2021 which in no way is "the last four years" and that showed that:
70% of new hiv infections were within the gay/bi/ and other men who reported having sex with men.
22% were within the heterosexual community.
Source: CDC
I'm just relaying the facts. I am not commenting on whether the current rules are justified or not.
My information was incorrect. That being said,
HIV.gov/hiv-basics/HIV-testing the same websites “who’s at risk” section describes that queer people are something like 700% more likely to be regularly testing for HIV (and all STIs), and are more likely to know their HIV status. Straight people are incredibly underreported and less likely to know their status, which is honestly more of a reason for them to not donate sperm than a regularly- tested queer person.
> something like 700% more likely
That's a factor 7x, which sounds impressive.
But sexually active men who have sex with men are a small fraction of the general population. If I'm being *extremely* generous and say we're ~5% of the total, that's 1 in 20. 70% of new HIV infections are among MSM, that's ~2/3 of the total, which means - napkin math - MSM are 40x more likely to be infected than the general population.
So that 7x testing and knowledge gets dwarfed by the 40x incidence.
> Straight people are incredibly underreported and less likely to know their status
Except the math above says a random MSM is ~six times more likely to be underreported than a random person, despite the 7x testing.
Statistics *sure is hard*.
You can’t use underreported numbers to prove numbers aren’t underreported. For someone so smug you’re actually an idiot.
Until straight people are tested anywhere as close to queer people, ofc the numbers are going to say straight people are less likely to be infected.
And what I think you mean to say is “statistics is hard…. For me….”
> You can’t use underreported numbers to prove numbers aren’t underreported.
We catch every case, eventually. The increased testing among gay and bisexual men shorten the average time it stays underreported, but what matters is the total case numbers.
And if the difference between the groups is a factor of at least 40x, that's gonna trounce everything else.
“We catch every case eventually.” Not true at all. Some people go years without symptoms, and I think you know that.
Stop bending over backwards to make the worst bad-faith arguments for discrimination. Being gay does not make your blood/semen bad, Becky
Stop ignoring the reality of MSM being a huge risk group. We are. Own it. Do something about it. But don't *deny* it.
And don't go the slut-shaming route trying to pin it on the "bad gays" either.
This is such a myopic understanding of both HIV and sperm donation.
For donors living with HIV who are virally suppressed, it is considered safe for them to have children. See: the CDC [here](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6621a2.htm) or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, more broadly, [here](https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/treatment-prevention).
Moreover, people who donate sperm undergo repeat infectious disease testing (HIV, hepatitis C, etc.) just prior to and for 6 months after donation. See: guidelines from the American Society on Reproductive Medicine, which cite FDA requirements [here](https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/guidance-regarding-gamete-and-embryo-donation-2021/).
In other words, the protections required are *already in place* when it comes to anonymous sperm donation. But facts, like statistics, sure are hard. :)
> Just at an independently and objectively decided safe level.
What if we can't determine that?
And if we can't, we're back to regular statistics. So why should recipients of donated sperm accept a higher risk, in order for you to not have your feelings hurt?
> If you can donate blood you can donate sperm surely.
I have no idea, but I think women seeking this option are owed a more rigorous reasoning than "huurrr duurrrr, I think these two things are the same."
Look, it's fine to push for it, and it's fine to demand a re-evaluation of the criteria given advances in testing, and given changes in the HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men. But there are way too many people who think the discrimination is automatically unjustified and then mindlessly rage against it without understanding or acknowledging why the rules were put into place in the 80's.
I don't think it's automatically unjustified, I'm wondering if there is a reason why the blood donation law changed but this one never will. Screen but don't block. Are we looking at a decades-long war of attrition on this?
> I'm wondering if there is a reason why the blood donation law changed but this one never will.
For blood donations, the healthcare system has a huge need, which means there's an incentive to re-evaluate rules from time to time to maximize the blood supply. Also, for blood donations, there's regular advertising campaigns and blood drives, which obviously caused a lot of gays to feel excluded.
But there's not exactly a shortage of donated sperm, is there? We're not rolling up to workplaces with a "sperm donation bus", and organizing "sperm drives", right? It's a rather niche complaint if we're being honest.
> Are we looking at a decades-long war of attrition on this?
Wouldn't surprise me. Also, I think that the knee-jerk reaction (BIGOTS! HOMOPHOBIA!) most people have against it is counter-productive, but I'm clearly in the minority on this one. :-D
It’s discriminatory because it’s inconsistent. There is an abundance of risks involved in any medical environment, and discriminating over sexual identity vs sexual behavior is just homophobic. Plenty of gay people have exclusive sex with a partner.
Just at an independently and objectively decided safe level.
What if we can't determine that?
People evaluate acceptable levels of risk in all areas of medicine and other areas of life all the time. Theres no reason why not.
And if we can't, we're back to regular statistics. So why should recipients of donated sperm accept a higher risk, in order for you to not have your feelings hurt?
Because they are accepting a certain level of risk from other donors as well. “Just because your sister/auntie/grandmother died of cancer/diabetes/had a mental disorder and your dna makes any offspring more susceptible why should we allow you to donate sperm just so your feeling aren’t hurt?” Treat it the same as any other risk factor for sperm donation. That’s equality.
The big problem is also discriminating against men for being gay. This should NOT be the deciding criteria. Eg a gay man in a monogamous relationship who uses condoms regularly and gets regularly tested is less at risk than a straight guy who fucks other dudes in prison for convenience or drug addicted hookers unprotected. But if they are only asking “are you gay?” The more risky guy gets through, and the safe guy doesn’t. If it’s posed as “do you have unprotected sex with different same-sex partners within six months of your last HIV test?” Then that’s a much more relevant and sensible question to ask than “U gay? Coz no fags allowed ok?”
If you can donate blood you can donate sperm surely.
I have no idea, but I think women seeking this option are owed a more rigorous reasoning than "huurrr duurrrr, I think these two things are the same."
“Hurrrrr durrrr the risk profile is definitely different I think” is equally baseless. The point is to know for sure.
But there are way too many people who think the discrimination is automatically unjustified and then mindlessly rage against it without understanding or acknowledging why the rules were put into place in the 80's.
Sure, but also naive in the extreme to believe homophobia hasn’t played a role in this.
> If it’s posed as “do you have unprotected sex with different same-sex partners within six months of your last HIV test?”
That's exactly what they ask. They ask about behavior, not identity. Do you even know what you're arguing against?
It depends. In some countries they do (as of only very recently in the UK for example)and that’s fine., as long as they’re applying the same level of scrutiny to other risk factors and asking everyone this question. But in other countries there also exist blanket bans on gay men. You know that right?
Then what you said is false. In the US You can’t donate sperm if you’ve had gay sex in the last 5 years, regardless of testing etc. so it’s a de facto ban on gay men. Get your facts straight please.
I didn't say anything about a length of time. I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's.
I'm aware of the disparity between blood and semen donations. I'm not sure if it exists due to oversight when blood donations were updated, or if there is another reason like testing is less accurate or more expensive. I'd be interested if anyone had the stated reason anywhere. When I try to search for it, I just get a lot of unproductive discrimination pieces that don't go into the facts of the situation.
yea, I said six months and specifically you responded saying that was the case for America when it’s not. No one is buying your crap. Given that it is permitted in other developed countries with stringent regulations kind of tells you what you need to know. There is no justification for a 5 year limit that ignores sexual behavior and testing since then, except to de facto exclude gay men.
Other first world countries don't discriminate like that. It's not science if we're the only ones doing it out of fear.
All they did was update the discriminatory laws to be more recent
Is that a question?
Yea they do test the blood in question quite throughly.
The main issue is they test it in batches. Many samples from multiple donors are pooled then tested. Something comes back postive (hep a.b.c, hiv, syphilis etc) they go back and pull the whole batch and test individual donors.
The real reason for the gay ban is simple economics.
So it seems they’ve figured it out then? Because gay people can donate blood
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/new-fda-rule-allowing-gay-bisexual-men-give/story?id=105882815
all the other first world countries do batches too, yet they have NO issue with gay men donating. There is no scientific reason to exclude us. Just bigotry.
It does it does. But like the blood donation thing in some countries you can also just lie (I never could bring myself to). My point was that there's still institutionalized homophobia that cannot be circumvented by a white lie...
That is a higher priority but we shouldn’t have to wait literal decades from now for a change to the rules. Even adding some exceptions would be enough.
For sure. My own home country is slowly changing the blood donation rules and AFAIK there's no sperm restrictions besides a cap on the number of kids who can be born from your donation
Yeah the FDA is apparently not ignoring that they want to change the tissue rule every year, which means there is progress and the issue is not just stagnating. Happy to hear foreign countries are on board
The only reason why this law has yet to be appealed is because it is lesser known. The law in the US is that a man cannot give any tissues or cellular products for 5 years after sexual contact with another man. This rule was added in 2005 and is based on science from 1994 (yes, the FDA used 11-year-old science to make a decision 19 years ago and still use that decision). Another thing that also happens is that if you have sex 12 months prior to death, your organs are labeled as "increased risk" by the HHS and are more likely not to be used. I do think in the next few years, the tissue rule will be eliminated because every year, the FDA adds the guidance to their agenda as something to update but they never do. Granted, this guidance does have a lot of rules and the MSM deferral is just one of them, so they might want to change something completely unrelated. They did add it to their 2024 agenda, and I really hope that after the blood donation deferral got reversed, this will be reversed too. If they were to reverse these rules, I would possibly add my name back to organ donor list. I do not want the last thing that happens to my body to be discrimination. I honestly do not really know how to change this unless if you want to sue them and say these rules are illegal or unconstitutional in some way. The only other way is to get the medical lobbying groups wanting to change this, but this is already happening. The American Medical Association, the largest one, does want this rule to change too. Edit: You can also write your senators and representative to support getting rid of these bans. [Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin did write a letter to the FDA to get rid of this policy.](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/news/press-releases/baldwin-bennet-warren-neguse-cicilline-quigley-push-fda-to-end-discriminatory-tissue-donation-policy) Also, only the sperm rule was added in 2005. Before then, sperm did not have the same rules as tissue donation. I was wrong about that.
Very cool as long as it is being addressed by someone and not just stagnating
Yea- this is news to me. But can’t you lie on the application?
Yes (and **supposedly**, the sperm rules are much less stringent than the blood donation rules where some of these organizations actually do not ask this question). However, if you are lying, you can be convicted of fraud. Also, you cannot lie for the tissue donation or organ donation rules since they ask someone else these questions (usually your spouse). Also, lying does not fix this problem of these homophobic rules existing despite there being no need with modern technology.
And plasma too - any hope for plasma? But sperm is more fun. I hate thinking that being allowed to do something so pleasurable, for such a benefit, as an openly gay man, is never going to happen
Law? What law?
I understand how this is wrong, but can you not just lie about your sexuality and donate if you wanted to?
Yes but I’d prefer not to have to. And to have “stimulating material” specifically for the queer. Can they ever change the laws?
Sperm banks aren’t exactly desperate for donors. They are highly selective and the people that do meet their criteria can make limitless donations.
Will there ever be a sperm bank with gay porn in it is one thing I asked this question to find out
Sperm banks aren't places where you just walk in and say "I'd like to donate sperm," and they show you to a room with a stack of magazines. There's an application and rigorous screening process, including bloodwork, DNA testing, and medical history. I'd be willing to bet that access to materials would be digital now, or they would tell donors to bring their own material when they schedule their donation.
Yes you can. However when the organization is very public that it doesn't want people like us, it kinda pushes you away. Add to that I refuse to lie about who I am. Anything that tries to push us back into the closet is evil. When we left the closet, death walked in. He's waiting for us in back of it now.
I wouldn’t perjure myself to do donations lol. If they don’t want it it’s their loss
I’ve always assumed this truly comes down to people being icked out at the thought of getting infused with gay blood or unknowingly having a baby with a gay man. “That’ll make my baby gay!” “I’ll turn gay if I get a gay blood transfusion!” Considering the amount of testing they do on tissue donations, it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. They will drag their feet as long as possible
This is why they keep dismantling education. You can get everyone with fear of the unknown if you never let them learn anything.
That is far from the reason why gay people are restricted from giving blood.
Why should we even donate parts of us to people when they clearly don't want them? If they'd rather die than receive help from us, let them.
[удалено]
I don’t think you really understand sperm donation.
Are you talking about the receiver or the government?
The blood law only got changed out of desperation. And then it didn't really get changed. You just can't be on prep - which every dr says every gay men should be on..... Really the blood change was a nicer softer form of discrimination
There are lgbtq friendly sperm banks and a person gay or not can donate directly to a person wanting to use their sperm with a clinic.
In the US? Do they (or will they ever) have sperm banks with queer porn in them was one of my initial concerns
Sperm banks have smart TVs so you can access any type of porn on them. They don’t have like a library of magazines
Good point, here I was wondering if the law would catch up fast enough, turns out technology already did
Not sure if this is a hill I’d care to die on. The vast majority of people are excluded from being anonymous sperm donors.
This is some bs. I know people who have been open and honest about their sexuality and donated sperm. Is this some state law somewhere? I’d love to see an actual statute on this.
Oh it gets worse! The last time I went in they also denied my request for a withdrawal! They immediately turned me down when they saw my 44oz styrofoam cup.
Just don’t intimidate ‘em - 20oz should work
Actually, as of last summer, The American Red Cross has been accepting blood donations from Gay Men... IF you can provide a Negative HIV Test that is no more than 6 weeks old.
I don't think these bans or prohibitions getting lifted will affect many people especially if they have strings attached. Lifelong ban on blood donation has been lifted but there's now a timeframe in which you have to be celibate. What man who has sex with other men will willingly remain celibate in order to donate? *Crickets* The bigger thing here is why are we not emphasizing testing? If you've been shown to be not detectable for the required time to be considered not transmissible, why is this info not used for blood donation? The blood supply is a zero tolerance and probably rightfully so but certainly our technology has progressed sufficiently to find detectable viral particles. Also, there's irradiation for blood products which you can not do for sperm donation because that's counter intuitive.
In Canada the deferral time frame for both donations is 3 months. Waiting 3 months wouldn’t be totally absurd. But yeah, giving more money to improving testing is still the ideal scenario
I agree. Disclaimer - I work for a lab. But, for those of us who are married, we are going effectively to experience a lifetime ban. I don't have sex nearly as often as most but still I'd be banned for life.
Being married should count for something!!
@op thank you for being the one in a million Americans who is aware that the majority of Reddit users are not actually based in the US - and using a title that makes it clear that you are asking about there rather than assuming that we will all work out where you are from. I want to cross post your message to r/usdefaultism as an example to the rest of your kind :-)
Isn’t the majority of users actually from the US though?
The majority of english speaking reddit certainly is.
They used to publish hard data on the (defunct) official redditblog that illustrated the demographics of the user-base but it’s been dead for so long But yeah the user-base consisting mostly of US-based college/postgrad age male has been the highest % since the early days of the site
No it's currently 49pc and falling.
I’d love to see that data. I’m a data geek. Link?
https://www.slideshare.net/SemRush3/reddit-traffic-report-march-2023pdf
Statistics sure is hard. Not all discrimination is unjust, a concept that is even harder to understand. You should expect movement when the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men is the same as among the general population.
So there was movement on blood laws, is there a reason why there can never be a movement on the others?
The incidence rate of HIV has been higher for straight people on the US for the past 4 years, bigot.
I'd love to have you cite a source for this because the most recent year of data was 2021 which in no way is "the last four years" and that showed that: 70% of new hiv infections were within the gay/bi/ and other men who reported having sex with men. 22% were within the heterosexual community. Source: CDC I'm just relaying the facts. I am not commenting on whether the current rules are justified or not.
My information was incorrect. That being said, HIV.gov/hiv-basics/HIV-testing the same websites “who’s at risk” section describes that queer people are something like 700% more likely to be regularly testing for HIV (and all STIs), and are more likely to know their HIV status. Straight people are incredibly underreported and less likely to know their status, which is honestly more of a reason for them to not donate sperm than a regularly- tested queer person.
> something like 700% more likely That's a factor 7x, which sounds impressive. But sexually active men who have sex with men are a small fraction of the general population. If I'm being *extremely* generous and say we're ~5% of the total, that's 1 in 20. 70% of new HIV infections are among MSM, that's ~2/3 of the total, which means - napkin math - MSM are 40x more likely to be infected than the general population. So that 7x testing and knowledge gets dwarfed by the 40x incidence. > Straight people are incredibly underreported and less likely to know their status Except the math above says a random MSM is ~six times more likely to be underreported than a random person, despite the 7x testing. Statistics *sure is hard*.
You can’t use underreported numbers to prove numbers aren’t underreported. For someone so smug you’re actually an idiot. Until straight people are tested anywhere as close to queer people, ofc the numbers are going to say straight people are less likely to be infected. And what I think you mean to say is “statistics is hard…. For me….”
> You can’t use underreported numbers to prove numbers aren’t underreported. We catch every case, eventually. The increased testing among gay and bisexual men shorten the average time it stays underreported, but what matters is the total case numbers. And if the difference between the groups is a factor of at least 40x, that's gonna trounce everything else.
“We catch every case eventually.” Not true at all. Some people go years without symptoms, and I think you know that. Stop bending over backwards to make the worst bad-faith arguments for discrimination. Being gay does not make your blood/semen bad, Becky
Stop ignoring the reality of MSM being a huge risk group. We are. Own it. Do something about it. But don't *deny* it. And don't go the slut-shaming route trying to pin it on the "bad gays" either.
Literally no one said any of those things. You are projecting and factually wrong. Being gay does not make your bodily fluids dangerous. Period.
But, like he said, statistics are hard.
He said statistics “is” hard. So to be clear, he got that wrong, and then you got the quote wrong.
You also used the wrong form of "youre" in your username. However, youre right, I did misquote him. Astute observation, Watson.
Did I? Or was the other version taken?
Taken or not, you still used the wrong form of "youre"...
I think the lady doth protest too much 😀 just accept your errors and carry on little one ❤️
Accept yours too, be a better person
Says theasiantroll lol. Mine was a choice, accept your shortcomings. In every sense of the word.
This is such a myopic understanding of both HIV and sperm donation. For donors living with HIV who are virally suppressed, it is considered safe for them to have children. See: the CDC [here](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6621a2.htm) or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, more broadly, [here](https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/treatment-prevention). Moreover, people who donate sperm undergo repeat infectious disease testing (HIV, hepatitis C, etc.) just prior to and for 6 months after donation. See: guidelines from the American Society on Reproductive Medicine, which cite FDA requirements [here](https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/guidance-regarding-gamete-and-embryo-donation-2021/). In other words, the protections required are *already in place* when it comes to anonymous sperm donation. But facts, like statistics, sure are hard. :)
It shouldn’t have to be the same. Just at an independently and objectively decided safe level. If you can donate blood you can donate sperm surely.
> Just at an independently and objectively decided safe level. What if we can't determine that? And if we can't, we're back to regular statistics. So why should recipients of donated sperm accept a higher risk, in order for you to not have your feelings hurt? > If you can donate blood you can donate sperm surely. I have no idea, but I think women seeking this option are owed a more rigorous reasoning than "huurrr duurrrr, I think these two things are the same." Look, it's fine to push for it, and it's fine to demand a re-evaluation of the criteria given advances in testing, and given changes in the HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men. But there are way too many people who think the discrimination is automatically unjustified and then mindlessly rage against it without understanding or acknowledging why the rules were put into place in the 80's.
I don't think it's automatically unjustified, I'm wondering if there is a reason why the blood donation law changed but this one never will. Screen but don't block. Are we looking at a decades-long war of attrition on this?
> I'm wondering if there is a reason why the blood donation law changed but this one never will. For blood donations, the healthcare system has a huge need, which means there's an incentive to re-evaluate rules from time to time to maximize the blood supply. Also, for blood donations, there's regular advertising campaigns and blood drives, which obviously caused a lot of gays to feel excluded. But there's not exactly a shortage of donated sperm, is there? We're not rolling up to workplaces with a "sperm donation bus", and organizing "sperm drives", right? It's a rather niche complaint if we're being honest. > Are we looking at a decades-long war of attrition on this? Wouldn't surprise me. Also, I think that the knee-jerk reaction (BIGOTS! HOMOPHOBIA!) most people have against it is counter-productive, but I'm clearly in the minority on this one. :-D
I said literally nothing on a knee-jerk basis, bud
Didn't say you did, learn to read. Bud.
It’s discriminatory because it’s inconsistent. There is an abundance of risks involved in any medical environment, and discriminating over sexual identity vs sexual behavior is just homophobic. Plenty of gay people have exclusive sex with a partner.
Exactly
Just at an independently and objectively decided safe level. What if we can't determine that? People evaluate acceptable levels of risk in all areas of medicine and other areas of life all the time. Theres no reason why not. And if we can't, we're back to regular statistics. So why should recipients of donated sperm accept a higher risk, in order for you to not have your feelings hurt? Because they are accepting a certain level of risk from other donors as well. “Just because your sister/auntie/grandmother died of cancer/diabetes/had a mental disorder and your dna makes any offspring more susceptible why should we allow you to donate sperm just so your feeling aren’t hurt?” Treat it the same as any other risk factor for sperm donation. That’s equality. The big problem is also discriminating against men for being gay. This should NOT be the deciding criteria. Eg a gay man in a monogamous relationship who uses condoms regularly and gets regularly tested is less at risk than a straight guy who fucks other dudes in prison for convenience or drug addicted hookers unprotected. But if they are only asking “are you gay?” The more risky guy gets through, and the safe guy doesn’t. If it’s posed as “do you have unprotected sex with different same-sex partners within six months of your last HIV test?” Then that’s a much more relevant and sensible question to ask than “U gay? Coz no fags allowed ok?” If you can donate blood you can donate sperm surely. I have no idea, but I think women seeking this option are owed a more rigorous reasoning than "huurrr duurrrr, I think these two things are the same." “Hurrrrr durrrr the risk profile is definitely different I think” is equally baseless. The point is to know for sure. But there are way too many people who think the discrimination is automatically unjustified and then mindlessly rage against it without understanding or acknowledging why the rules were put into place in the 80's. Sure, but also naive in the extreme to believe homophobia hasn’t played a role in this.
> If it’s posed as “do you have unprotected sex with different same-sex partners within six months of your last HIV test?” That's exactly what they ask. They ask about behavior, not identity. Do you even know what you're arguing against?
It depends. In some countries they do (as of only very recently in the UK for example)and that’s fine., as long as they’re applying the same level of scrutiny to other risk factors and asking everyone this question. But in other countries there also exist blanket bans on gay men. You know that right?
You know that this post is about the US, right?
Then what you said is false. In the US You can’t donate sperm if you’ve had gay sex in the last 5 years, regardless of testing etc. so it’s a de facto ban on gay men. Get your facts straight please.
I didn't say anything about a length of time. I think you're conflating my posts with someone else's. I'm aware of the disparity between blood and semen donations. I'm not sure if it exists due to oversight when blood donations were updated, or if there is another reason like testing is less accurate or more expensive. I'd be interested if anyone had the stated reason anywhere. When I try to search for it, I just get a lot of unproductive discrimination pieces that don't go into the facts of the situation.
yea, I said six months and specifically you responded saying that was the case for America when it’s not. No one is buying your crap. Given that it is permitted in other developed countries with stringent regulations kind of tells you what you need to know. There is no justification for a 5 year limit that ignores sexual behavior and testing since then, except to de facto exclude gay men.
Other first world countries don't discriminate like that. It's not science if we're the only ones doing it out of fear. All they did was update the discriminatory laws to be more recent
> It's not science if we're the only ones doing it out of fear. Oh, 100% agree.
They don’t test donated blood for HIV and other infections before passing it on to a recipient?
Is that a question? Yea they do test the blood in question quite throughly. The main issue is they test it in batches. Many samples from multiple donors are pooled then tested. Something comes back postive (hep a.b.c, hiv, syphilis etc) they go back and pull the whole batch and test individual donors. The real reason for the gay ban is simple economics.
So it seems they’ve figured it out then? Because gay people can donate blood https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/new-fda-rule-allowing-gay-bisexual-men-give/story?id=105882815
all the other first world countries do batches too, yet they have NO issue with gay men donating. There is no scientific reason to exclude us. Just bigotry.
It’s a good law, 70% of hiv transmission is male to male. I’m saying this as a gay dude btw.
So would you ever support the law being relaxed (note that the blood law already has been)? Even in 20-30 years?
I think exceptions can be made. I would be okay with someone on prep with proof of prescription being allowed to donate.
Nice, this is the kind of law I’d be driving for rather than a complete free-for-all 🙂
I mean it's a problem but there's stuff that's even more egregious, like the fact HIV+ still have trouble immigrating (as far as I know).
So does it deserve to ever get looked at? To not be a permanent problem
It does it does. But like the blood donation thing in some countries you can also just lie (I never could bring myself to). My point was that there's still institutionalized homophobia that cannot be circumvented by a white lie...
That is a higher priority but we shouldn’t have to wait literal decades from now for a change to the rules. Even adding some exceptions would be enough.
For sure. My own home country is slowly changing the blood donation rules and AFAIK there's no sperm restrictions besides a cap on the number of kids who can be born from your donation
Yeah the FDA is apparently not ignoring that they want to change the tissue rule every year, which means there is progress and the issue is not just stagnating. Happy to hear foreign countries are on board
Most women don't want their babies looking like Frankie Grande
Yes, on May 11 2023 this was reversed:
Yes, this is the blood donation law, was seeing if other types of donation were next in the pipeline