kybearfuzz | Issues for Discussion

Current Mood: irritated

Issues for Discussion

Sorry for the double post for the day, but I just remembered two things of interest to share:

First, I was reading in

benjiej's journal that Sheryl Swoopes has finallly come out as a lesbian. I read the attached article and Ms. Swoopes doesn't believe that people are born gay. Now, I know that this is a popular debate of sorts. Are we born gay or are we choosing to be gay? It's the standard breeding vs environment discussion. I've heard people give mixed views on this, including several friends. My view is a mix of both, that people are likely born with a gay predisposition and some environmental conditions may trigger it early on. I have no doubt in my mind that I was gay from childhood, having had an attraction to men as early as age seven or eight before I knew was sex was. The theory doesn't fit the varied experiences I've heard of, so maybe the answer isn't so black and white. Your thoughts?

Second, and this strikes a bit closer to home, my office is having our annual blood drive. I dread this every year because of their exclusion of people of "high risk behaviors" for HIV, meaning me and my penchant for sleeping with men. Even though I practice safe sex, the very fact that I have had sex with a man puts me on the permanently deferred roster (not officially as I just don't bother trying to donate anymore). This practice does bug me though. I think of my brothers, each of whom has had unprotected sex in the past and currently, and are perfectly acceptable by current regulations to donate blood, even though they are more likely to have contracted something. The blood mobile arrives next week, but I think I'll try to be working out of the office that day.. ugh... Your thoughts again?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

You don't want to know my thoughts about that subject... They're mostly just four letter words anyways.

Regarding the donation of blood: The Red Cross' rule about no gay men giving blood if they have had sex with another man any time after 1977 is ancient and unnecessary. Gay men are no longer in the largest risk group.

This is a peeve of mine as well. At my work--where there are plenty of ex-military and conservative types who thrive on the heroism of giving blood--there is always someone walking up and down the hall asking, "Did you give blood? You're going to go down and give blood, right? The truck's downstairs." It's just wrong. It's an invasion of my personal medical history, even if it's perpheral.

Luckily, I'm in a group now that knows about me and doesn't push those buttons. But I think the Red Cross ought to reconsider it's HIV prevention policies. And companies who are reputedly "gay friendly" ought to reconsider having the Red Cross come and set up a bloodmobile until they present a solid argument why gay men ought to refrain from giving blood.

Regarding the nature vs nurture thing: my belief is that being homosexual is born in you, but how soon you're aware of it, or act upon it is environmental. I was never interested in girls, but I don't remember being attracted to guys at all till I hit puberty. Before then, I didn't even know what "gay" was...the topic never came up seriously that I can remember. And even then, there was serious denial till partway through college. I think I didn't have any choice in the matter about being gay, but given that my sister and 2 brothers are straight, having grown up in the same exact environment, I don't think the actual fact of it is environmental at all.

I don't understand that rule. They're supposed to be testing every unit of donated blood, so why do they feel the need to discriminate? I'd say that there are at least a few other groups out there with an even greater risk.

I should point out, as an employee of the Red Cross, that the rule regarding not allowing sexually active gay men to donate blood is NOT a Red Cross policy, but one of the FDA. There are lots of other organizations that collect blood, most of them for-profits, and the rules are the same for them as well.

I have been wondering about the nature vs. nurture thing myself, and after much deliberating (http://www.livejournal.com/users/___martini__/3220.html), I came to the conclusion that I just don't know. Was I born gay, did the gayness come out late in life (far after puberty), or am I in the middle of some continuum of sexuality? I think each person's situation is different, and there may be no general or typical case.

Because I work at a Community and Technical College (with a nursing program), they are ALWAYS having blood drives. (We have a phlebotomy program too.)
I always use blood drive days as days to educate people about the FDA's ridiculous policies about blood donation.

I love telling people that I would go to JAIL for donating blood. That really pisses people off. Of course I don't explain that I wouldn't really go to jail unless I lied about it (Class C Felony, in case you wondered). It's certainly more dramatic if I leave that part out. :-)

I read somewhere that the age for social influences are from one to five years old, nor when you have 18yo.

In some cases, people want (and need!) to know when them came gay because are searching for a guilty rather acepting themselves, definitely a bad way to start to think about it.

Well here in the uk it's not only being gay.. it's also, having a tattoo, or a piercing....
Of course it's quite ridiculous, but as one guy of the NHS here told me... It's just prevention, there are diseases other than HIV infection that can be transferred... like all the heps and stuff.. all of this takes a LONG time to detect (actually HIV testsrequire, as I've been told) to repeat the test after 4 months or so).

And... always from a uk perspective, i was told that except for the really rare groups, the estimated TTL of blood is like 4 weeks, and after that, the blood is trashed. The other rare groups are kept frozen or whatever they do to keep it healthy... but the common groups are just trashed.

What I don;t see very clearly is the discrimination part.. I mean.. of course there are gay people with AIDS , any of the hepatitis, or other STDs, but there are as many or more straight people having the same issues, but these latters's screening is done on a laboratory, not on a questionnaire... why?

Why can't I be screened and banned after doing lots of tests? why don't they do some kind of Donor Exam? a thorough exam of your blood, a thorough hematoanalysis, so they know that you are on the safe side?

And then, we hear there aren't many people giving blood... pfffff...

Sorry Ben, I should have clarified that the deferment exclusion is a federal regulation, not one of the ARC.

Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't know that!

I apologize for spreading mis-information. :)

It doesn't make sense to me either. Every donation gets tested, but the regulations are out of date and the idea at the time was to exclude high risk groups for HIV (namely us) at the time. The regs need to be revisited in my opinion.

I for one would love to donate, but don't want to go through the drama of answering the questionnaire truthfully only to be told the predetermined outcome.

Well, it always seems that they are running short of blood. The local blood centers call my house every year, sometimes multiple times, to get me to donate. I've even told them on the phone that I am excluded .. and they still call (apparently not having updated their systems).

And thanks on the icon comment... I should animate it somehow, have the blower firing broccoli or something...

Maybe that is the problem, we're looking for a one-case-fits-all situation and there isn't one.

Ah, always good to raise the awareness... :)

Honestly, I think it will eventually end up that they'll have excluded almost everyone from donating and then the rules will have to be revised to let donors back in. It's just a matter of time really. :)

It's just a matter of desperation when they will run out of ultraperfect donors.

so now.. the question.. would you LIE and say you are not gay in order to give blood and help to achieve that greater good?

No problem, I didn't know it until I worked there.

The FDA guidelines on blood donations are today anachronistic and blatantly discriminatory. If you are HIV-negative and you want to donate blood, GO AHEAD AND DONATE. If they ask you if you have ever had sex with other men, say NO. Sure, it's being deceptive about who you are, but the greater evil is not donating blood. The Red Cross is always short of blood. Go ahead, donate, lie if you have to, but the fact is the act of donating blood is a far greater good if you are HIV-negative.

I Believe I Was BORN Gay, I Have Always Knew I Was "Different" And Then As I Grew Older I Realized What That "Difference" Was...As For Donating, Just Go With Your Heart And If You Feel Comfortable Then Do It, Otherwise Just Work Away From The Office....

They've gotten used to my "awareness raising." Some of my colleagues have gotten quite an education as a result. :-)

No I wouldn't. To do so would help hide the inherent problem with the system, giving them one more donor when they have trouble finding them. Besides, it is against the law, you sign the document that all of the answers you gave are truthful.

Don't get me wrong, I have thought about doing exactly what you've stated, but besides it be unlawful, it helps them out. When the donor centers get so few donations that it becomes a problem, perhaps that will initiate the need to review the regulations and make changes. I'll not make it any easier for them and I just don't like the idea of lying to them either. I'm very proud of the fact I have had sex with men :)

Oh I knew I was different from early on as well.

And as for donating, I just don't like to be harrassed about it at work, like I'm not doing my part. Thankfully, I have the option to be gone with it occurs.

About Sheryl....makes me wonder if it's the "baby" steps some people have to go through. I remember when I was first coming out....I told people I was bisexual, simply because I thought that might make them a little less critical. I also know that a lot of it has to do with growing up in Lubbock, TX surrounded by conservative Southern Baptists. But, I just hope Sheryl stays true to herself. I've always loved watching her play. She's been a favorite since she played for Tech.

And, the whole blood drive thing reminds me of my first job outta grad school in Atlanta. Which was also my first "professional" experience of testing the waters of being out on the job. (Granted I was WAY out when I worked for the restaurant....but so was half the staff!) I'll admit, I was naive. I went down to donate. I'm reading the requirements. I see the one about "no one may give blood if they've had male-on-male sexual activity since 1977." I'm hesitating. The volunteer comes over and asks if I have a problem. I told her that, according to their criteria, I was not allowed to give. She asks which one. I point. She says..."but since 1977?" It was 1992. I said yes. So, 10 minutes after leaving my desk, I'm back up with an "I tried" sticker on my shirt. My boss asks why I was back so early. End result was that I outed myself right then and there. Oh well.

There we go... a very good moral dilemma, constrained by the law.
The law says what we have to do.. but morally... maybe the asnwer is not so obvious, as this blood we're giving might help to save lives...

I remember the last time I was asked if I had ever had sex with a man on a questionnaire, it was for an HIV test. I remember I had answered no, and then changed it to yes. The lady looked at me funny and I told her that I had only recently come out and the answer was a reflex from my days donating blood.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Issues for Discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

GRRRRR

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: GRRRRR

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: GRRRRR

no subject

no subject

no subject

my 2¢

no subject

Re: my 2¢