Well... ... this one almost makes sense. Almost. I know enough gay men that are both promiscuous and unsafe about sex that I can see where they're coming from with this. Since HIV takes up to six months to present, and given the prevalence of unsafe sex among the gay community (women as well as men), if I were a woman I wouldn't want to put a potentially infected sample into my body. I don't think it's homophobia to want safety, and while anyone can be an unsafe donor the chances are FAR higher in the cases of gay donors than straight. This is simply fact, ugly or not.
The reason I said "almost" is that there are potentially ways around this. I'm not sure how long sperm samples last, but it's possible that if they're frozen they could last quite a while. So, the simple answer then would be to take the sample, freeze it, wait six months, and then have the original donor come in for an HIV test. If it's negative, "activate" the sample. This might be good policy for ANY samples, not just those from gay men. If it's possible.
(OK, I wrote all of the above before reading the article, which says much the same thing.)
From what the article says, it sounds like the six-month freezing period is doable, so why the hell NOT implement it for all samples? That'd cover all the bases and not be biased against anyone. The addition of pre-screening based on sexual habits should cut out most of the danger cases anyway and cut down on unnecessary testing.
Okay, I'm glad I read your comment, because all I read at first was the headline and my blood started to boil. That is a halfway understandable rationale.
Considering I just fucking spent three hours of my night volunteering as a sex educator at Steamworks (the gay bathhouse in Chicago), I'm motherfucking pissed off to come home and read this in the first five minutes.
I'm sorry, are we banning fags because we're scared of giving GRID to newborns?
When I have a hot second, I could talk more--but now I have to go drink because I've been dragooned into Cinco de Mayo celebrations, despite exhaustion. And hunger. And now, anger.
Since the population that has recently experienced the largest number of new cases of HIV infection is young, black women, the rationale for banning gay sperm donors is weak. They should be screening on BEHAVIOR not on sexual identity. This is my pet peeve about the rules for making blood donations, too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-05 08:47 pm (UTC)Stop the world please, I'd like to get off.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-05 09:20 pm (UTC)The reason I said "almost" is that there are potentially ways around this. I'm not sure how long sperm samples last, but it's possible that if they're frozen they could last quite a while. So, the simple answer then would be to take the sample, freeze it, wait six months, and then have the original donor come in for an HIV test. If it's negative, "activate" the sample. This might be good policy for ANY samples, not just those from gay men. If it's possible.
(OK, I wrote all of the above before reading the article, which says much the same thing.)
From what the article says, it sounds like the six-month freezing period is doable, so why the hell NOT implement it for all samples? That'd cover all the bases and not be biased against anyone. The addition of pre-screening based on sexual habits should cut out most of the danger cases anyway and cut down on unnecessary testing.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-05 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-06 04:40 am (UTC)I'm sorry, are we banning fags because we're scared of giving GRID to newborns?
When I have a hot second, I could talk more--but now I have to go drink because I've been dragooned into Cinco de Mayo celebrations, despite exhaustion. And hunger. And now, anger.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-06 02:31 pm (UTC)