Rules stopping gay men from giving blood to be reviewed

Doctors have questioned 12-month 'celibacy' period required for men who have sex with other men to give blood.
Rules that prohibit gay men from giving blood are to be reviewed, the Government has announced.
Currently there is a 12-month “celibacy” period required for men who have sex with other men who want to give blood regardless of whether they use protection or are in long-term relationships. Many people, including doctors, have questioned the logic behind the ban, which was introduced after the rise in HIV but dropped by France earlier this month.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rules-stopping-gay-men-from-giving-blood-to-be-reviewed-a6750556.html

Anyone who gives blood is screened, so why can't gay men be screened too?

It's the myth factor. Black men can dance and are good at sports. Asians can do math in their head, without need of a calculator. Germans can ski. Gay men all have AIDS.

And, oh...let's draw up some rules for drawing blood.

As long as people tell the truth and the correct tests are done I don't see why gay men should be prevented from giving blood.

Original Quill wrote:It's the myth factor.  Black men can dance and are good at sports.  Asians can do math in their head, without need of a calculator.  Germans can ski.  Gay men all have AIDS.

And, oh...let's draw up some rules for drawing blood.

Most stereotypes are true though; black men do have good rythmn but can't swim well
The AIDS one is stupid though and easily proven via blood screening

I can't give blood due to having Graves Disease which carry thyroid antibodies of some type or other.

More than half the people diagnosed with HIV every year are gay or bisexual men, so it's still more risky. I don't know about the testing - I thought they could find the virus pretty quickly these days. There are other restrictions too.

Eds wrote:Most stereotypes are true though; black men do have good rythmn but can't swim well.

All basically true: black men were bred like animals, hence today they have truly athletic bodies; athletic bodies = good rhythm and dancing skills; blacks have heavier bones and don't float...ergo, difficulty swimming.

But as you point out, what different does it make? They have tests. Just go directly at the question, and leave stereotyping out of it.

Original Quill wrote:

Eds wrote:Most stereotypes are true though; black men do have good rythmn but can't swim well.

All basically true: black men were bred like animals, hence today they have truly athletic bodies; athletic bodies = good rhythm and dancing skills; blacks have heavier bones and don't float...ergo, difficulty swimming.

But as you point out, what different does it make?  They have tests.  Just go directly at the question, and leave stereotyping out of it.

Bred like animals?

An athletic body doesn't necessarily mean that someone will have rhythm.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All basically true: black men were bred like animals, hence today they have truly athletic bodies; athletic bodies = good rhythm and dancing skills; blacks have heavier bones and don't float...ergo, difficulty swimming.

But as you point out, what different does it make?  They have tests.  Just go directly at the question, and leave stereotyping out of it.

Bred like animals?

An athletic body doesn't necessarily mean that someone will have rhythm.

Absolutely.  In Virginia, they had breeding farms, in which slaves were bred for superior qualities.  The bloodline of the Mandingo tribe, from West Africa, was the equivalent of an Arabian horse to the racing lines.

Haven't you heard the song, Carry me back to Ole' Virginny?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Bred like animals?

An athletic body doesn't necessarily mean that someone will have rhythm.

Absolutely.  In Virginia, they had breeding farms, in which slaves were bred for superior qualities.  The bloodline of the Mandingo tribe, from West Africa, was the equivalent of an Arabian horse to the racing lines.

Haven't you heard the song, Carry me back to Ole' Virginny?

How did they manage to create the dense bones?

Original Quill wrote:

Eds wrote:Most stereotypes are true though; black men do have good rythmn but can't swim well.

All basically true: black men were bred like animals, hence today they have truly athletic bodies; athletic bodies = good rhythm and dancing skills; blacks have heavier bones and don't float...ergo, difficulty swimming.

But as you point out, what different does it make?  They have tests.  Just go directly at the question, and leave stereotyping out of it.

Exactly! Just screen everyone's blood regardless.
As I've said, my blood is useless and I'm not gay or black or Muslim lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Absolutely.  In Virginia, they had breeding farms, in which slaves were bred for superior qualities.  The bloodline of the Mandingo tribe, from West Africa, was the equivalent of an Arabian horse to the racing lines.

Haven't you heard the song, Carry me back to Ole' Virginny?

How did they manage to create the dense bones?

Breeding.  The Mandingo body is heavy, muscular and heavy boned.  This was 200-plus years ago, and I don't know if they were knowledgeable about genetics then.  But they treated it like horse or dog breeding: see a trait, and pair the couple for it.  The magnificent thing about the Mandingo body is that it has a strong center of gravity in the hips, coupled with big chests and strong/long legs and arms.  If you've ever seen a great black basketball player, you know what I mean.  Likewise with dancing.

Twenty years ago such a discussion was taboo.  In fact, I think the great sports announcer, Tony the Greek, was fired for broaching this subject on the air.  But with the advancements in genetics, and less PC concern, the secret is is now general knowledge.  Professors of genetics in universities, are some of the greatest experts on the history of slavery.  They can reconstruct what those Virginians were doing.  

Virginia was the major state of importation for slave ships...hence the breeding farms.  Virginia was also the home of the slave auction.  Slaves were not worked in Virginia, for the most part.  They were well kept in Virginia, and then "sold down the river" to the cotton and tobacco fields of the Carolinas and Mississippi, for much rougher treatment.  Hence the song, Carry Me Back to Ole' Virginny...back where life was remembered as kinder and gentler.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All basically true: black men were bred like animals, hence today they have truly athletic bodies; athletic bodies = good rhythm and dancing skills; blacks have heavier bones and don't float...ergo, difficulty swimming.

But as you point out, what different does it make?  They have tests.  Just go directly at the question, and leave stereotyping out of it.

Exactly! Just screen everyone's blood regardless.
As I've said, my blood is useless and I'm not gay or black or Muslim lol

Donated blood is tested, but some of the tests depend on what the donor divulges. For eg if a donor is on medication of any kind they should always say so....every time they donate.
One of the reasons I stopped donating was because I was (at that time) on medication. I had to wait in a separate queue, fill in a form, be interviewed, whilst most others came and went.
I wonder if that may stop some people from divulging info.

the debate was on TV here a few weeks ago.
there does seem to some concern about the incubation times.
but that said the consensus seemed to be that they time period should be reduced as test have improved and probably a mechanism in place they links it to the capacity to screen so in future it automatically gets reviewed as technology improves.