The gay rights community is wrong about blood donations (again)

[AxisMundi]

No, the entire gay community is not banned from donating blood because some are HIV positive. This is outright false - it's not true that the entire GLBT community is "banned" from donating and it's not true that the reason is that "some have AIDS".

It's mind-boggling to me that this is even an issue let alone a gay rights issue.

EDIT: and accusing me of "twisting statements" to justify my opinions...can you point out a single inconsistency in my posts? How hypocritical of you to say that, when you have been continually and blatantly misrepresenting my position on this issue.

From Post #1...

"Men who have had sex with other men (MSM) since 1977 are banned for life from donating blood in the U.S. by the FDA. The FDA explains the reasons for this policy (edit: fixed link) here: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac.../ucm108186.htm . The primary reason is blood safety. MSM are 800 times more likely than the general population of first-time blood donors to have HIV."

All gay men are "MSM".

 

[Gunfingers]

Some homosexuals aren't males, and some homosexual males haven't had sex.

The claim that blacks must be barred is equally specious. It's true that they're more likely to get HIV than white folk, but not by nearly as significant a margin.

 

[AxisMundi]

Some homosexuals aren't males, and some homosexual males haven't had sex.

The claim that blacks must be barred is equally specious. It's true that they're more likely to get HIV than white folk, but not by nearly as significant a margin.

Black males, 51%
White males, 28%
Hispanic males, 18%
Asians, 1%
All others, 1%

Seems like a significant number to me.

Look, ladies and gnetlmen, I in no way advocate the banning of blacks males from donating blood. I am emrely pointing out the rather blatant homophobia of banning gay men from donating blood merely because a minority of that minority has become infected.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm aware of how much the difference is, but that's still not the point. They can be effectively screened, and MSM cannot.

I understand wanting to include homosexuals. I want to include them too. But with the FDA estimating that allowing MSM to donate blood would quintuple the amount of AIDS in the blood supply it's hard to weigh that against someone's feelings being hurt and decide to go ahead and do it. The studies have come to no such conclusion about any gender or ethnicity, which is why none are barred.

Studies have come to that conclusion about living in various locales. Are the FDA anglophobes because you can't give blood if you were in the UK in the eighties? Of course not. That is the only logic being applied here.

 

[AxisMundi]

I'm aware of how much the difference is, but that's still not the point. They can be effectively screened, and MSM cannot.

I understand wanting to include homosexuals. I want to include them too. But with the FDA estimating that allowing MSM to donate blood would quintuple the amount of AIDS in the blood supply it's hard to weigh that against someone's feelings being hurt and decide to go ahead and do it. The studies have come to no such conclusion about any gender or ethnicity, which is why none are barred.

Studies have come to that conclusion about living in various locales. Are the FDA anglophobes because you can't give blood if you were in the UK in the eighties? Of course not. That is the only logic being applied here.

This isn't about "feelings", this is about a case of clear discrimination.

All blood is screened now. Why do you think they take the bag AND the vials? So any argument that permitting gays to donate would "increase AIDs in the blood supply" is simply negated.

 

[Commoner]

From Post #1...

"Men who have had sex with other men (MSM) since 1977 are banned for life from donating blood in the U.S. by the FDA. The FDA explains the reasons for this policy (edit: fixed link) here: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac.../ucm108186.htm . The primary reason is blood safety. MSM are 800 times more likely than the general population of first-time blood donors to have HIV."

All gay men are "MSM".

I agree with all of that, except your previous assertion was that the entire LGBT community is banned from donating.

 

[Gunfingers]

This isn't about "feelings", this is about a case of clear discrimination.

All blood is screened now. Why do you think they take the bag AND the vials? So any argument that permitting gays to donate would "increase AIDs in the blood supply" is simply negated.

Maybe you should read the whole thread, we've covered this.

 

[Commoner]

Merely makes my point, yet again.

Black men make up the primary demographic of new AIDs cases, but a significant amount.

So, byt he "logic" used on this thread, ALL black men should be banned from donating blood.

I don't know if you're trying to be annoying or maybe you're just a bit dense. Have I not explained very clearly what makes someone a member of a hig-risk group and when it is appropriate to exclude a high risk-group?

 

[AxisMundi]

I agree with all of that, except your previous assertion was that the entire LGBT community is banned from donating.

"Gay" community.

Lesbians are of course excluded from this bann.

However how many gay men are in a committed relationship who have not conducted MSM?

 

[Commoner]

"Gay" community.

Lesbians are of course excluded from this bann.

However how many gay men are in a committed relationship who have not conducted MSM?

well, I hope none.

Look, I undestand how it might seem this is discrimination - in fact, there might even be people with an anti-gay agenda pushing this. That does not change the facts - it's like someone who's speeding is stopped by a cop that has a grudge against him. Sure, the cop really wanted to nail him, but he really can't complain if he was speeding.

I completely understand why doing risky things brings with it certain consequences - if I want to enjoy in extreme sports, I pay a higher premium on my insurance and there's nothing wrong or unnatural with enjoying the rush I get from it.

Why is this an issue? Just because it can be percieved as discrimination? That's not good enough.

EDIT: since when does "gay" mean anything other than homosexual (well, at least in the context of sexuality)?

 

[Gunfingers]

It's not like discrimination. It is discrimination. It's just not bad discrimination. The fact that a quadriplegic can't be a paratrooper is discrimination, too.

 

[SoyLeche]

Black males, 51%
White males, 28%
Hispanic males, 18%
Asians, 1%
All others, 1%

Seems like a significant number to me.

Look, ladies and gnetlmen, I in no way advocate the banning of blacks males from donating blood. I am emrely pointing out the rather blatant homophobia of banning gay men from donating blood merely because a minority of that minority has become infected.

What are those numbers? I'm assuming they are the racial distribution of new AIDS cases over some recent period.

The % of new AIDS cases from a group isn't as important to this analysis as the % of the group that has AIDS.

For example, we have 1,000,000 people. For simplicity, we'll say that each person is either White or Black, Male or Female, Homosexual or Heterosexual. I'm making up these numbers to show a concept, so don't get too hung up on them.

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2]White 60%     Male      55%     Hetero 95%[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black 40%     Female 45%     Homo   5%[/FONT][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]                              # of people    % with AIDS      # with AIDS  [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Male Hetero      313,500       0.05%              156.75   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Male Homo         16,500       4.00%              660.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Female Hetero  256,500       0.05%               128.25   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Female Homo     13,500       0.01%                  1.35   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Male Hetero      209,000       0.05%               104.50   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Male Homo         11,000       7.00%               770.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Female Hetero  171,000        0.10%              171.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Female Homo       9,000       0.05%                  4.50   [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

A couple of things to note:

The overall AIDS rate of the population is 0.20%

Blacks make up 52.6% of the people who have AIDS, but 73% of the black AIDS cases are coming from black homosexual males, who make up only ~3% of the black population. Out of all blacks, 0.26% of them have AIDS.

If we remove homosexual males from the equation, then blacks still make up ~50% of the AIDS cases, but it is 50% of a much smaller number. Non-"homosexual male"-blacks have a 0.07% AIDS rate. We have removed ~3% of the population.

If we remove blacks from the equation then the overall rate of AIDS in the remaining population will be 0.16%. We have removed 40% of the population.

If we remove blacks and white-homosexual-males from the population the rate of AIDS in the remainder is 0.05%
​

So, eliminating homosexual men drops the overall AIDS rate from 0.2% to 0.07%. Eliminating blacks only drops the overall AIDS rate from 0.2% to 0.16%. Eliminating Blacks and homosexual men takes us to 0.05% (blacks only bought us 0.02% on top of the homosexual males).

In this example, the "homosexual male"-ness captures the HIV cases much better than the "black"-ness does, and it does so by removing only ~3% of the population.

Again, the whole point here is that the 51% that you quote is fairly worthless in this discussion.

 

[AxisMundi]

well, I hope none.

Look, I undestand how it might seem this is discrimination - in fact, there might even be people with an anti-gay agenda pushing this. That does not change the facts - it's like someone who's speeding is stopped by a cop that has a grudge against him. Sure, the cop really wanted to nail him, but he really can't complain if he was speeding.

I completely understand why doing risky things brings with it certain consequences - if I want to enjoy in extreme sports, I pay a higher premium on my insurance and there's nothing wrong or unnatural with enjoying the rush I get from it.

Why is this an issue? Just because it can be percieved as discrimination? That's not good enough.

EDIT: since when does "gay" mean anything other than homosexual (well, at least in the context of sexuality)?

"None" you hope?

Does this mean we can mark you down as definatly NOT a supporter of the GLBT community? Perhaps even biased against them?

BTW, cliff diving is a choice, gay isn't.

 

[AxisMundi]

What are those numbers? I'm assuming they are the racial distribution of new AIDS cases over some recent period.

The % of new AIDS cases from a group isn't as important to this analysis as the % of the group that has AIDS.

For example, we have 1,000,000 people. For simplicity, we'll say that each person is either White or Black, Male or Female, Homosexual or Heterosexual. I'm making up these numbers to show a concept, so don't get too hung up on them.

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2]White 60%     Male      55%     Hetero 95%[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black 40%     Female 45%     Homo   5%[/FONT][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]                             # of people    % with AIDS      # with AIDS  [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Male Hetero      313,500       0.05%              156.75   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Male Homo         16,500       4.00%              660.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Female Hetero  256,500       0.05%               128.25   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]White Female Homo     13,500       0.01%                  1.35   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Male Hetero      209,000       0.05%               104.50   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Male Homo         11,000       7.00%               770.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Female Hetero  171,000        0.10%              171.00   [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Black Female Homo       9,000       0.05%                  4.50   [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

A couple of things to note:

The overall AIDS rate of the population is 0.20%

Blacks make up 52.6% of the people who have AIDS, but 73% of the black AIDS cases are coming from black homosexual males, who make up only ~3% of the black population. Out of all blacks, 0.26% of them have AIDS.

If we remove homosexual males from the equation, then blacks still make up ~50% of the AIDS cases, but it is 50% of a much smaller number. Non-"homosexual male"-blacks have a 0.07% AIDS rate. We have removed ~3% of the population.

If we remove blacks from the equation then the overall rate of AIDS in the remaining population will be 0.16%. We have removed 40% of the population.

If we remove blacks and white-homosexual-males from the population the rate of AIDS in the remainder is 0.05%
​

So, eliminating homosexual men drops the overall AIDS rate from 0.2% to 0.07%. Eliminating blacks only drops the overall AIDS rate from 0.2% to 0.16%. Eliminating Blacks and homosexual men takes us to 0.05% (blacks only bought us 0.02% on top of the homosexual males).

In this example, the "homosexual male"-ness captures the HIV cases much better than the "black"-ness does, and it does so by removing only ~3% of the population.

Again, the whole point here is that the 51% that you quote is fairly worthless in this discussion.

51% of the cases of new HIV/AIDs in 2007 were black males.

Quite simply really, and no reason to hide behind the number play and statistical manipulation you do above.

By the reasoning as displayed on this thread, black males should be banned from donating blood.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the reasoning as displayed on this thread, black males should be banned from donating blood.

No. Most black males who are getting HIV get it from MSM or IV drug use and are thus *already* deferred from donating blood. Deferring the *remaining* black males would not significantly reduce the HIV risk from transfusion, but would significantly reduce the blood supply. Please re-read post #188 where I showed this using CDC data.

SoyLeche and Commoner have also explained this, you're not listening, you're just knocking down your own straw man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

51% of the cases of new HIV/AIDs in 2007 were black males.

Quite simply really, and no reason to hide behind the number play and statistical manipulation you do above.

By the reasoning as displayed on this thread, black males should be banned from donating blood.

Incorrect.

All the questionnaire screening for blood donations boils down to figuring out the odds are that a particular donor is HIV-positive (or infected with some other disease).

A very large proportion of the population is black. Even for that reason alone, we would expect that black people would make up a large proportion of HIV cases.

When we ask, "would the blood supply be safer if person X is barred from giving blood?" The mere fact that person X is a member of a large group says nothing that helps us figure out whether the answer to this question is "yes" or "no".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

51% of the cases of new HIV/AIDs in 2007 were black males.

Yes and most of them are already deferred from donating blood since most of those cases were transmitted by MSM, IV drug use, or high-risk heterosexual contact. Deferring *all* black males would mean, on top of that, deferring all black males who are not MSM, not IV drug users, and have not engaged in high-risk hetero sex. Those black males are not in a very high-risk group. Deferring them would significantly reduce the blood supply. Ergo, "by the logic of this thread", as you are fond of saying, it does not make sense to defer *all* black males since the cost is high (reduce the blood supply) and the benefit is low (you don't reduce the HIV risk very much).

Please read the above, again, carefully, before replying. Please read or re-read post #188 where I cited my sources. Thanks.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Does this mean we can mark you down as definatly NOT a supporter of the GLBT community? Perhaps even biased against them?

I support deferring hemophiliacs and their partners from donating blood, even though that means my fiancee and I will be denied the pleasure of donating blood. I support this deferral for the exact same reasons I support the MSM deferral. I guess I'm biased against the GLBT community AND myself, too! Golly!

 

[SoyLeche]

51% of the cases of new HIV/AIDs in 2007 were black males.

Quite simply really, and no reason to hide behind the number play and statistical manipulation you do above.

By the reasoning as displayed on this thread, black males should be banned from donating blood.

I can see that math is lost on you. I didn't do any manipulation (aside from setting up the example, but I tried to be fairly realistic in the assumptions). What I did was called "analysis".

The important question is "what percent of black males are HIV positive". Your question ("What percent of new HIV cases are black males") isn't really all that helpful to anyone.

 

[Commoner]

"None" you hope?

Does this mean we can mark you down as definatly NOT a supporter of the GLBT community? Perhaps even biased against them?

BTW, cliff diving is a choice, gay isn't.

What?!

I answered your question - you asked: "...how many gay men are in a committed relationship who have not conducted MSM?"

And I answered "none, I hope". In other words - I hope everyone's gettin' jiggy with it. Maybe you should take a couple of seconds to think about what you're about to write so that you don't end up making wild accusations and f'in misrepresenting my position again. Stop it! :slap:

I'm not saying it is a choice - in fact, I have argued the oposite in quite a few threads. Neither is my affinity for adrenaline a choice. Both resulting actions are choices though (and so is donating blood, btw), not that it matters - all that matters is the safety of those receiving blood transfusions, be they gay, straight or latte drinkers.