Reader comments · Chicago man ‘looked too gay’ to donate blood · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Chicago man ‘looked too gay’ to donate blood

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Suvi-Tuuli Allan 18 Jul 2011, 12:04pm

    In many countries, trans women aren’t allowed to donate blood if they’ve had sex with a man before sex reassignment surgery. Like WTF? As if buttsex is the only way to get HIV.

  2. Jock S. Trap 18 Jul 2011, 12:48pm

    Lesson to Chicago – Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.

    There are plenty of straight ‘effeminate’ men just as there is plenty of Gay ‘effeminate’ men.

    Maybe they should concerntrate less on discriminating and more on saving lives.

    And to those who say that IS what they were doing, they check all blood, there is NO need to show bigotry.

    1. Exxxactly.

    2. Agreed!

  3. Miguel Sanchez 18 Jul 2011, 2:14pm

    What would they do if a woman came in dressed in leather and had a short hair cut, would they deny her saying she was a lesbian?

    I think Mr. Pace should get an attorney and sue the pants off of them.

    1. Staircase2 18 Jul 2011, 4:05pm

      No – because being Lesbian is not, according to current donation policy, an HIV risk.
      I agree with JockStrap – although I’m still unsure as to why the ban even exists. Like Mr Strap, I would have imagined they check ALL donated blood properly for HIV along with other potentially passable infections. And if they don’t then why not?

  4. What a scientific way to proceed! Not. Discriminatory and embarrassingly stupid.

  5. How homophobic is that? Must have been a Christian stopping a man from giving blood.

  6. If they must behave in this fashion then the most tactful thing to do is take the blood and dispose of it later.

  7. up until the late 80s and early 90s such a ban could be justified as the screening process for blood was not very good but ever since the current process was introduced the serious dangers that existed have not meerly been mitigated they have been removed entirely as the testing for HIV in donated blood is 100% efficiant now (at least in theroy the human factor i suppose could still cause the odd error but that error could happen with straight people who are infected)

    a quick note im not 100% sure of the time the current tests were developed and deployed so any correction would be apreciated ^_^

  8. Sadly, it is not only the U.S. that discriminates this way. Canada’s Red Cross also discriminates by preventing men who have had sex with men from donating blood. This policy makes me cringe whenever I hear there is a blood shortage. When I was a teenager (and a gay virgin), I donated every 3 months. I would have continued to do so if I’d been allowed.

    1. I am sorry to say, but iceland’s Red Cross does this too. So is the problem the Red Cross?

  9. Gay Daily Mail Reader 18 Jul 2011, 9:19pm

    Same here in the UK. I gave blood every 6 months from when I was 18 until I ended up in bed with another man. These days we are constantly being told that the National Health Service is short of blood and yet further restrictions are being placed on who can give blood because of AIDS, Mad Cow Disease etc. I will be the first in the queue at the blood donors should the ban on gays is lifted.

  10. DJ Sheepiesheep 18 Jul 2011, 11:07pm

    I suspect that it is statistically correct to say that worldwide there are more heterosexual HIV positive men than gay HIV positive men. That being so, which group presents the greater risk? Actually neither, for as we know, all blood is screened. The policy is nothing but residual homophobia.

    1. Dan Filson 27 Jul 2011, 2:46pm

      The policy is nothing but the result of misguided risk assessment, not quite the same thing as residual homophobia. From a risk assessment point of view, donors in certain parts of Africa would have to be extensively tested regardless of orientation before being accepted as donors, given HIV is so prevalent. In the UK and USA it might appear at first sight to be statistically reasonable to see male homosexuals as higher risk donors than the population at large, but to bar all regardless of how long previously they had any sex, let alone risky sex, is as absurd as banning all donors who’ve ever been to Africa. I’ve no idea how good is testing is but it’s interesting that when I, a donor of about 20 occasions until the early 1980s, received a blood donation 3 years ago the issue of contamination did pass through my mind even though I was sure it must’ve been tested. If they can be sufficiently confident the testing will catch all strains of HIV and Hepatitis, then amend the ban.

      1. Dan Filson 27 Jul 2011, 2:48pm

        But I wouldn’t rely on people being honest as to when they last had risky sex, whether they always take precautions, or indeed whether they’re gay or not. People are not always honest for a wide variety of reasons.

  11. in my country just for being GAy i cant donate blood! I live in Malta!

  12. We are a lot more sensible here in South Africa, you just aren’t allowed to donate if you have had sex with a man in the last six months. Which is still discriminatory but at least has a vestige of sense because the waiting period ensures you are outside of the “window period”.

  13. People making medical decisions based on how people look. It is so reassuring!

  14. Kate Aaron 20 Jul 2011, 9:35am

    I understand the need to wait after anal sex, as the incubation period for HIV is up to 3 months (before which it won’t show in a screening) so a 6mth ban seems to make sense to me. However, I don’t understand why the ban is lifelong for men, but not imposed on women? Surely if anal sex is high risk then it’s high risk, no matter who has it. Also, why did they never consider the fact that the man in question may well have been gay, but that doesn’t mean he’s ever had anal sex???

    1. Dan Filson 27 Jul 2011, 2:50pm

      The prevalence of anal sex amongst male-female couples is far higher than I for one thought, as is the number of bisexuals.

  15. In Canada, I can legally get married, fight in combat roles in the military, walk down the street holding my partner’s hand, but I’m not allowed to donate blood. It really makes no sense.

  16. Steve in ONE 21 Jul 2011, 1:56am

    I’m in the States, and have been with my partner for 18 years now. Both of us are HIV-, and haven’t been with anyone else. (We just never saw the need.)

    We can’t donate blood, but we can become organ donors. Where is the logic in that?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.