http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/22740841/detail.html?hpt=T2
:homestar:
Quote
Kerry: Let Gay Men Give Blood
1983 Ban Called Outdated, Discriminatory
POSTED: 12:23 pm EST March 4, 2010
UPDATED: 1:13 pm EST March 4, 2010
Gay men should be allowed to donate blood and laws banning them from doing so are discriminatory and outdated, according to Sen. John Kerry and several of his Senate colleagues.
"Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," Kerry said. "A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end."
Kerry was one of 16 U.S. Senators who in a letter on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban on gay men donating blood. The ban was put in place in 1983, at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis and before modern screening and advanced testing methods for HIV were developed.
Experts say current screening and testing have reduced the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply undetected to virtually zero.
The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB all support repealing the ban, saying the law is "medically and scientifically unwarranted." The American Medical Association also supports modifying the ban.
In 2008, the Senate passed legislation Kerry authored to lift the statutory HIV travel and immigration ban as part of the President Barack Obama's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief. The ban was officially lifted in October 2009.
Hmm, How can we...tackle this problem?
:yuk:
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2010, 02:34:27 PM
:yuk:
:hmm:
If he sparkles in the sun, must he not drink? Maybe I was wrong about this one.
:lol:
Eh. I'm inclined to be precautionary on this, but if those groups all are behind it, sure.
It might be polite for them to give us rights before asking for our blood.
A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 03:57:47 PM
A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.
33% of Americans live in states that give legal equality to gay couples. How many Polish provinces do?
It's one thing to live in a shithole country, but it's another to pretend otherwise.
Incidentally, I found out recently that Poland is more progressive than the US on gays in the military as well. (I suspected that before but didn't bother to research).
A friend's flat mate is a soldier in active service and he is gay and knows a bunch of other gay guys in his unit and they often hang out together. They are not openly gay in the unit, as obviously there is still homophobia and they could be subject to verbal abuse etc., but this does not seem to differ from a situation in any other profession (other than perhaps the fact that the army is more homophobic, than say the fashion industry). (That being said apparently everybody knows the unit leader is a closeted homo, even though he is an outspoken homophobe). But the difference, compared to the US, is that noone can be legally discharged from the army on account of a "crime" of being gay or engaging in gay sex.
On top of that, we have full anti-discrimination employment protection for gay people, the recent ECHR ruling means cohabiting gay couples have certain rights until now given to hetero couples only, and the opposition party is now campaigning on a civil partnership act they want to introduce.
Poland seems more gay friendly than the US. :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 03:57:47 PM
A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.
33% of Americans live in states that give legal equality to gay couples. How many Polish provinces do?
It's one thing to live in a shithole country, but it's another to pretend otherwise.
We are not a federal country, so we don't have different provinces giving people different rights (if we had, Warsaw probably would have had civil partnerships by now). Does your country have federal laws protecting gay people from being fired for being gay? Does your army allow gay people to serve openly?
So go fuck yourself with your ivory tower sense of superiority that would be put to a sore test in some parking lot in Wyoming.
If they are really that confident in the screening technology, and as long as they let the other high-risk groups donate blood, fine by me. Less stupid questions I have to answer on the form.
If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.
I think it would most likely make us feel light-headed, not big-headed.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
If they are really that confident in the screening technology, and as long as they let the other high-risk groups donate blood, fine by me. Less stupid questions I have to answer on the form.
If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.
See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.
Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
I don't want blood from Polacks. <_<
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 04, 2010, 04:33:48 PM
I don't want blood from Polacks. <_<
Good call. Human blood can be harmful to animals and other lower life forms like Romanians.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 04, 2010, 04:33:48 PM
I don't want blood from Polacks. <_<
Good call. Human blood can be harmful to animals and other lower life forms like Romanians.
Tamas would agree. . . ;)
Yeah. I mean it must be shitty to be a Romanian. Even Poles and Hungarians look down on you. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:36:32 PM
Yeah. I mean it must be shitty to be a Romanian. Even Poles and Hungarians look down on you. :D
I'M NOT ROMANIAN!
I think I said that a million times.
I'm German-Moldavian. We enjoy killing Polacks.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:21:45 PM
See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.
Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
Unjustified? What is the percentage of homosexuals and those that engage in homosexual activities with HIV within their own group as compared to others?
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:21:45 PM
See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.
Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
Unjustified? What is the percentage of homosexuals and those that engage in homosexual activities with HIV within their own group as compared to others?
Strix fails to understand statistics again. Film at 11.
Also it's lovely to see someone use the word "homosexuals" in a discussion. It immediately gives you the idea where they stand.
Some states for you to ponder...
QuoteIn the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS is much higher than other groups such as heterosexual people or children.
In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 255,000 men who have sex with men were living with HIV/AIDS in 2007, and nearly 5,400 had died. Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS in America in 2007 were probably exposed to HIV through male-to-male sexual contact.1 In the UK, by the end of June 2009, around 45,947 diagnoses of HIV had been in men who had probably become infected through sex with another man. 53% of these men were aged below 35.2
There are also other parts of the world where men who have sex with men, many of whom do not identify themselves as gay, are affected by HIV. For example, the primary HIV transmission route in Latin America is sex between men. In Brazil, men who have sex with men accounted for 40% of all AIDS diagnoses among males between 2000 and 2005.3
You can check out the http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm (http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm)
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:21:45 PM
See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.
Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
Unjustified? What is the percentage of homosexuals and those that engage in homosexual activities with HIV within their own group as compared to others?
Strix fails to understand statistics again. Film at 11.
I would have you answer the question please.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 04:46:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:21:45 PM
See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.
Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
Unjustified? What is the percentage of homosexuals and those that engage in homosexual activities with HIV within their own group as compared to others?
Strix fails to understand statistics again. Film at 11.
I would have you answer the question please.
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
Martinus is right. We shouldn't ban homosexuals from giving blood, only people that engage in anal sex. And polacks (in order to also refuse Martinus' blood).
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
Strix fails to understand statistics again. Film at 11.
Also it's lovely to see someone use the word "homosexuals" in a discussion. It immediately gives you the idea where they stand.
In America it already restricts it to risky behavior. It asks if you've had anal sex with men.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:49:18 PM
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
The fact that high risk behavior is more prevelant does in fact make gay men a high risk group.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 04:17:36 PM
I think it would most likely make us feel light-headed, not big-headed.
Btw wtf is up with that mullet Hillary is wearing these days??
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 04:46:05 PM
Some states for you to ponder...
QuoteIn the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS is much higher than other groups such as heterosexual people or children.
In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 255,000 men who have sex with men were living with HIV/AIDS in 2007, and nearly 5,400 had died. Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS in America in 2007 were probably exposed to HIV through male-to-male sexual contact.1 In the UK, by the end of June 2009, around 45,947 diagnoses of HIV had been in men who had probably become infected through sex with another man. 53% of these men were aged below 35.2
There are also other parts of the world where men who have sex with men, many of whom do not identify themselves as gay, are affected by HIV. For example, the primary HIV transmission route in Latin America is sex between men. In Brazil, men who have sex with men accounted for 40% of all AIDS diagnoses among males between 2000 and 2005.3
You can check out the http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm (http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm)
Oh, so suddenly it's not "gay people" (as in derspiess' original post that I was responding it and that you took exception to) but "gay people who are male and who are young". I love a debate with moving targets.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
Strix fails to understand statistics again. Film at 11.
Also it's lovely to see someone use the word "homosexuals" in a discussion. It immediately gives you the idea where they stand.
In America it already restricts it to risky behavior. It asks if you've had anal sex with men.
For the record, I would have no problem if the police was to restrict it to unprotected anal sex.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 04, 2010, 04:52:12 PM
Martinus is right. We shouldn't ban homosexuals from giving blood, only people that engage in anal sex.
Make that unprotected anal sex, and I wouldn't oppose it.
QuoteAnd polacks (in order to also refuse Martinus' blood).
I wouldn't ever dream of donating blood - it's yucky and one of these acts of altruism I don't get. Besides, I can't donate blood anyway since I had Hep-B when I was a kid.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:49:18 PM
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
:lol: Classic Marty.
In America the police don't collect and regulate blood supplies, Marcin.. ;)
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
In America the police don't collect and regulate blood supplies, Marcin.. ;)
:face:
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:54:49 PM
Oh, so suddenly it's not "gay people" (as in derspiess' original post that I was responding it and that you took exception to) but "gay people who are male and who are young". I love a debate with moving targets.
No, you moron, It's called facts. Something you will want to avoid at all costs on this subject. Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America. They are both minority groups that are highly over represented in their respective issues in comparison to the majority.
If you are to stupid to understand that young gay males alone make up around 50% of those infected with HIV than you definitely won't be able to make the leap in understanding that adding in the older gay males only increases the overall percentage.
Gay males are the highest risk group for HIV period. That such a small group represents such a big proportion should be apparent even to someone like yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 05:01:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:49:18 PM
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
:lol: Classic Marty.
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.
It's better to err on the side of caution.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:14:18 PM
We are not a federal country, so we don't have different provinces giving people different rights (if we had, Warsaw probably would have had civil partnerships by now). Does your country have federal laws protecting gay people from being fired for being gay? Does your army allow gay people to serve openly?
So go fuck yourself with your ivory tower sense of superiority that would be put to a sore test in some parking lot in Wyoming.
So in other words you're saying a nation of 300 million people has regional differences.
I will note that unlike your pissant little country, our capital didn't try to ban a gay pride parade in 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4084324.stm, but it's really fun when you try to pull of this sophisticated schtick.
I'm shocked that Mart throws reason out the window on a gay issue.
Isn't what what all blood tests are though?
The person could just as easily put down they are straight.
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:05:00 PM
Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America.
See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.
Children of Barrack Obama are not more likely to get incarcerated than children of any white family (and are much less likely to be incarcerated than children of a white trash family from Florida or Kentucky, for example). This means being black will not cause you to become a criminal - it's just that being black often statistically correlates with being poor, and poverty indeed causes crime.
The same goes for the gay / HIV correlation. A gay person who does not engage in unprotected anal sex is less likely to have HIV than for example a woman who engages in unprotected vaginal sex with a heterosexual or a bisexual guy. Being gay will not cause you to have HIV - it's just that being gay correlates statistically with engaging in unprotected anal sex, which is a cause of HIV spread.
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.
It's better to err on the side of caution.
You are already basing this on the honesty of a person not lying about having sex with other men, you fucking idiot. There is no "central database of gay people".
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:05:00 PM
Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America.
See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.
:wacko:
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.
It's better to err on the side of caution.
You are already basing this on the honesty of a person not lying about having sex with other men, you fucking idiot. There is no "central database of gay people".
Yet... :shifty:
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
Isn't what what all blood tests are though?
The person could just as easily put down they are straight.
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.
:yes:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.
Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?
Sir? :moon:
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
You are in a high risk group if you are a gay male. That does not necessarily mean you are a high risk *individual*. Do you not understand how risk management works?
To use an unrelated example, my cousin's 18-year old son happens to be a very good driver. He was well-trained, he's cautious, and has not had an accident. Yet his insurance premium is sky-high. Why? Because statistically, as a young male he is in a higher risk group.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.
You are in a high risk group if you are a gay male. That does not necessarily mean you are a high risk *individual*. Do you not understand how risk management works?
To use an unrelated example, my cousin's 18-year old son happens to be a very good driver. He was well-trained, he's cautious, and has not had an accident. Yet his insurance premium is sky-high. Why? Because statistically, as a young male he is in a higher risk group.
Hook, line, sinker.
Or to translate it into his native Polish: Checkmatesky.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
Isn't what what all blood tests are though?
The person could just as easily put down they are straight.
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.
Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
I think it is pretty obvious that people lie all the time and so the risk is still present.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:19:16 PM
Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.
Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles. :(
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
As a Mexican, I'm sure your blood gets the extra scrutiny, anyway. Or just goes down the drain.
I am not convinced that Mart understands how risks work.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:19:16 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
Isn't what what all blood tests are though?
The person could just as easily put down they are straight.
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.
Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.
The question at hand though is if that label still applies. It was certainly true in the 80s when HIV terrorized gay circles from Los Angeles to London, but in this era of safer sex and awareness, I cannot bring myself to conclude that fucking someone in the ass is any riskier than doing so in the vagine.
So really it isnt just the donation of blood from gays that is being questioned, but the high risk label as well.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
Isn't what what all blood tests are though?
The person could just as easily put down they are straight.
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.
The problem as I understand it is that in the past the test for HIV was not sufficiently precise.
I've told this story before. While in grad school I asked the health clinic about HIV testing. The doc said since I was straight it would be pointless because of the high probability of a false positive.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 05:21:01 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.
As a Mexican, I'm sure your blood gets the extra scrutiny, anyway. Or just goes down the drain.
I doubt it. I always just check "White" on the donation form. ;)
Well I guess it's a fair point. But this just shows that the policy of charging young people more for insurance is unfair and discriminatory.
That being said, it's a fucking non issue. I wonder why people even bother with it. It's not like gay people are prevented from living their life to the fullest because they don't get milk, cookies and a couple of bucks for their blood.
Meh. I'm nonplused.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:20:48 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:19:16 PM
Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.
Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles. :(
Gaydar :contract:
I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.
Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?
Sir? :moon:
Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:22:24 PM
Well I guess it's a fair point. But this just shows that the policy of charging young people more for insurance is unfair and discriminatory.
That being said, it's a fucking non issue. I wonder why people even bother with it. It's not like gay people are prevented from living their life to the fullest because they don't get milk, cookies and a couple of bucks for their blood.
Meh. I'm nonplused.
NO!
As a gay person, as a minority you need to wage war tirelessly to gain full rights to every aspect of your life.
Give them one victory and they will yearn for more.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.
Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?
Sir? :moon:
Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.
:lmfao:
Back your shit up, Strix. I need to see something fairly recent though because as I mentioned data from the 80s is invalid due to changing attitudes and lifestyles.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.
I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 05:22:44 PM
Gaydar :contract:
Which fails constantly. :(
And it isn't like straight people have it.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:20:48 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:19:16 PM
Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.
Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles. :(
You can ask them to do the responsible thing and not give blood. Opps, my bad. If many of those in your high risk group did the responsible thing and wore condoms than this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:23:05 PM
I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?
This will probably be a popular idea with many Languish posters. We might as well be a damn subsidiary of Stormfront
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:23:05 PM
I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?
We do ;)
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:25:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.
I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?
Uhm, you know that I came out after I had come back to Warsaw following my secondment to Brussels? I also donate to gay causes and march in gay rights marches. I'm not a "professional activist" but I think I'm doing my due.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:23:05 PM
I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?
Another self-hating black man. This is part of the fucking problem, don't you see?
Well.
Faeelin does wear kilts to parties so I guess he is representing in his own way.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:25:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 04, 2010, 05:13:52 PM
Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.
This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.
I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?
Well, I join in on Marti's chorus as I was thinking the same thing about your earlier post. :)
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2010, 05:29:27 PM
Another self-hating black man. This is part of the fucking problem, don't you see?
:hug:
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:25:14 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.
Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?
Sir? :moon:
Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.
:lmfao:
Back your shit up, Strix. I need to see something fairly recent though because as I mentioned data from the 80s is invalid due to changing attitudes and lifestyles.
Jaron, you need to back YOUR shit up for a change. It's common knowledge that HIV is transmitted by high risk groups. The main high risk groups are homosexual males, intravenous drug users, and prostitutes. It is rare for woman on woman or man on woman sex to spread HIV. It happens but mainly as a result of a bisexual or drug user getting HIV from male on male sex or a dirty needle.
If you have proof that this has changed than please share. If not than continue being your ignorant self. :nelson:
You forgot Africans.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:22:24 PM
Well I guess it's a fair point. But this just shows that the policy of charging young people more for insurance is unfair and discriminatory.
No, it's not. It's the most efficient means for the insurance industry to manage their risk. Sure, if they had the resources to do a full investigation on each insured driver, they would be able to more effectively evaluate each individual's risk. But that's not practical, any more than it is for a blood bank employee to follow you around & evaluate your individual sexual habits.
QuoteThat being said, it's a fucking non issue. I wonder why people even bother with it. It's not like gay people are prevented from living their life to the fullest because they don't get milk, cookies and a couple of bucks for their blood.
Small clarification-- for donating blood, you don't get paid. I guess some people sell plasma, but it's a different process involving different organizations. I only get soda & cookies for my blood donation, plus an entry for that 55" TV I never win :angry:
Another question is, notwithstanding that a gay man is more likely to get HIV than a straight man, what are these risks, in absolute terms?
If one group has a 0.000001% chance of getting HIV and the other has a 0.0001% chance of getting HIV, for example, that does not make the latter a "high risk group" only by virtue of having a higher risk than any other group it is being compared to (for the record, in that vein, I love the part of the article Strix posted, which claimed gay males have a higher chance of contracting HIV than children :D).
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:05:00 PM
Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America.
See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.
Children of Barrack Obama are not more likely to get incarcerated than children of any white family (and are much less likely to be incarcerated than children of a white trash family from Florida or Kentucky, for example). This means being black will not cause you to become a criminal - it's just that being black often statistically correlates with being poor, and poverty indeed causes crime.
The same goes for the gay / HIV correlation. A gay person who does not engage in unprotected anal sex is less likely to have HIV than for example a woman who engages in unprotected vaginal sex with a heterosexual or a bisexual guy. Being gay will not cause you to have HIV - it's just that being gay correlates statistically with engaging in unprotected anal sex, which is a cause of HIV spread.
Nobody cares if it's a question of causation or not. The fact that there's a significant correlation has been considered by health care professionals to be sufficient cause to disqualify gay men from donating blood. The Red Cross also doesn't allow people who have traveled to certain foreign countries within certain timeframes to donate blood, because there is a significant enough correlation between being in those places at those times that it's considered to be too high a chance of having been exposed to certain diseases to allow people who have been there to give blood--and that correlation is statistically less significant than the correlation between being a gay man and having HIV.
Now, you can reasonably argue that the health care professionals are being overly cautious, or that relying on self-reporting about past behaviour is a problem, but saying that what's being looked at isn't causation but rather correlation isn't a reasonable argument, because nobody--including those who made the decisions about who would and wouldn't be allowed to give blood--is saying that it is a matter of causation.
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2010, 05:36:41 PMSmall clarification-- for donating blood, you don't get paid. I guess some people sell plasma, but it's a different process involving different organizations. I only get soda & cookies for my blood donation, plus an entry for that 55" TV I never win :angry:
Sorry but none of these sounds good enough to make me consider abandoning gay sex. :(
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2010, 05:37:43 PM
Nobody cares if it's a question of causation or not. The fact that there's a significant correlation has been considered by health care professionals to be sufficient cause to disqualify gay men from donating blood. The Red Cross also doesn't allow people who have traveled to certain foreign countries within certain timeframes to donate blood, because there is a significant enough correlation between being in those places at those times that it's considered to be too high a chance of having been exposed to certain diseases to allow people who have been there to give blood--and that correlation is statistically less significant than the correlation between being a gay man and having HIV.
Actually as far as I know, and what this article suggests, is that the gay bit is an old policy that was simply never repealed once it became unnecessary.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:37:13 PM
Another question is, notwithstanding that a gay man is more likely to get HIV than a straight man, what are these risks, in absolute terms?
If one group has a 0.000001% chance of getting HIV and the other has a 0.0001% chance of getting HIV, for example, that does not make the latter a "high risk group" only by virtue of having a higher risk than any other group it is being compared to (for the record, in that vein, I love the part of the article Strix posted, which claimed gay males have a higher chance of contracting HIV than children :D).
It is considered good practice to minimize risks. Accepting a 100 times bigger risk just because doesn't fit this.
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:25:14 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 04, 2010, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.
Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?
Sir? :moon:
Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.
:lmfao:
Back your shit up, Strix. I need to see something fairly recent though because as I mentioned data from the 80s is invalid due to changing attitudes and lifestyles.
Jaron, you need to back YOUR shit up for a change. It's common knowledge that HIV is transmitted by high risk groups. The main high risk groups are homosexual males, intravenous drug users, and prostitutes. It is rare for woman on woman or man on woman sex to spread HIV. It happens but mainly as a result of a bisexual or drug user getting HIV from male on male sex or a dirty needle.
If you have proof that this has changed than please share. If not than continue being your ignorant self. :nelson:
Because you declare it common knowledge does not make it so. Even if you could prove that HALF of HIV infections were due to homosexual activity, you still have to take into account that other high risk groups IE drugees could quite easily donate blood by LYING. It is the screening processes that matter, not the sources. Of course, caution should be used where necessary but completely discrediting an entire group based upon a possible activity would be like declaring all males ages 15-25 cannot donate blood because its a high risk group for drug use and casual sex!
In this case with the large demand for blood, and the fact that the majority, the VAST majority of gay people do not carry HIV, the benefits of accepting their blood donations FAR outweights the risks. On top of that, those risks can be completely and safely negated by conducting thorough screenings of the blood supplies before they are used in transfusions.
Umm, J, studies have shown that male-to-male sexual activity results in the most HIV infections in America. That's generally pretty accepted.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:41:08 PM
Of course, caution should be used where necessary but completely discrediting an entire group based upon a possible activity would be like declaring all males ages 15-25 cannot donate blood because its a high risk group for drug use and casual sex!
Correlation != casuality.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:44:05 PM
Umm, J, studies have shown that male-to-male sexual activity results in the most HIV infections in America. That's generally pretty accepted.
Like I said, this is immaterial to the subject at hand. THIS is not like the insurance example spiess gave. This would be like denying young people the privilege of driving until they were 25 or terminating health insurance for seniors.
Yet no one advocates for those things.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 05:47:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:44:05 PM
Umm, J, studies have shown that male-to-male sexual activity results in the most HIV infections in America. That's generally pretty accepted.
Like I said, this is immaterial to the subject at hand. THIS is not like the insurance example spiess gave. This would be like denying young people the privilege of driving until they were 25 or terminating health insurance for seniors.
Yet no one advocates for those things.
:D
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2010, 05:37:43 PM
Nobody cares if it's a question of causation or not. The fact that there's a significant correlation has been considered by health care professionals to be sufficient cause to disqualify gay men from donating blood. The Red Cross also doesn't allow people who have traveled to certain foreign countries within certain timeframes to donate blood, because there is a significant enough correlation between being in those places at those times that it's considered to be too high a chance of having been exposed to certain diseases to allow people who have been there to give blood--and that correlation is statistically less significant than the correlation between being a gay man and having HIV.
Actually as far as I know, and what this article suggests, is that the gay bit is an old policy that was simply never repealed once it became unnecessary.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2010, 05:37:43 PM
Nobody cares if it's a question of causation or not. The fact that there's a significant correlation has been considered by health care professionals to be sufficient cause to disqualify gay men from donating blood. The Red Cross also doesn't allow people who have traveled to certain foreign countries within certain timeframes to donate blood, because there is a significant enough correlation between being in those places at those times that it's considered to be too high a chance of having been exposed to certain diseases to allow people who have been there to give blood--and that correlation is statistically less significant than the correlation between being a gay man and having HIV.
Actually as far as I know, and what this article suggests, is that the gay bit is an old policy that was simply never repealed once it became unnecessary.
Yes, this is the gist of what's in the OP. I guess that I should have been clearer--my previous post was on the historical reasons for the ban, which was put in place to protect the blood supply. If the medical community feels the ban is no longer necessary, I have no problem with that.
Of course, I don't think that anybody is seriously saying otherwise. The post that actually started the debate was
Quote from: derspiessIf they are really that confident in the screening technology, and as long as they let the other high-risk groups donate blood, fine by me. Less stupid questions I have to answer on the form.
If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.
To address his second point first, I suppose that it is possible that the Red Cross and the other groups are just supporting lifting the ban for political reasons, but I don't see any evidence of that. I do note that the article says that the Red Cross and a couple of other groups favor repealing the ban, while the AMA favors "modifying" it. I'm not sure how they propose to modify the ban without lifting it entirely. Currently, the questions about at-risk sexual behaviour ask if you have "ever" engaged in certain activities IIRC; perhaps they favor putting some time limits on that?
On the first point, some of the screening questions are looking at possible exposure to things other than HIV, and it's possible the actual blood tests for some of those diseases aren't as reliable as the HIV tests, so I don't see why it should be an all-or-nothing situation.
Great thread title Jaron! :lol:
^_^
Btw, I hope the day never arises that someone in this thread needs blood but can't get it as my poisoned blood is till in my veins. :(
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
(and are much less likely to be incarcerated than children of a white trash family from Florida or Kentucky, for example)
:mad:
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 06:53:19 PM
Btw, I hope the day never arises that someone in this thread needs blood but can't get it as my poisoned blood is till in my veins. :(
I actually cannot donate blood myself because I have vWD. :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 04, 2010, 09:31:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2010, 06:53:19 PM
Btw, I hope the day never arises that someone in this thread needs blood but can't get it as my poisoned blood is till in my veins. :(
I actually cannot donate blood myself because I have vWD. :(
Isn't vWD a dog disease? You sure you're human?
I believe it's primarily a disease of the Finns, who I guess are sort of like dogs. :yes:
As I have no Finnish ancestry, I'm not sure how I ended up with it. :huh:
The one time I gave blood, they made me take a computer questionnaire that asked not only "Are you a man who has had sex with a man since 1976?" and "Have you spent more than 6 months in the UK since 1989?" (mad cow) but " Have you had sex with someone who has been to Africa?" I put "don't know" to that question, because I can't account for the life history of every sexual partner I've ever had. :huh: They just told me to put "no." And then they made fun of my middle name. :glare: The only nice thing was the natural high that comes from losing several quarts of your bodily fluid...
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:12:23 PM
A friend's flat mate is a soldier in active service and he is gay and knows a bunch of other gay guys in his unit and they often hang out together. They are not openly gay in the unit, as obviously there is still homophobia and they could be subject to verbal abuse etc., but this does not seem to differ from a situation in any other profession (other than perhaps the fact that the army is more homophobic, than say the fashion industry).
Someone in the military suffering verbal abuse?
Oh, shit! We gotta stop that right away! It's only a few steps away from having weapons pointed at you in anger!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 04, 2010, 10:08:38 PM
The one time I gave blood, they made me take a computer questionnaire that asked not only "Are you a man who has had sex with a man since 1976?" and "Have you spent more than 6 months in the UK since 1989?" (mad cow) but " Have you had sex with someone who has been to Africa?" I put "don't know" to that question, because I can't account for the life history of every sexual partner I've ever had. :huh: They just told me to put "no." And then they made fun of my middle name. :glare: The only nice thing was the natural high that comes from losing several quarts of your bodily fluid...
Now i have to know your middle name.
Quote from: HVC on March 04, 2010, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 04, 2010, 10:08:38 PM
The one time I gave blood, they made me take a computer questionnaire that asked not only "Are you a man who has had sex with a man since 1976?" and "Have you spent more than 6 months in the UK since 1989?" (mad cow) but " Have you had sex with someone who has been to Africa?" I put "don't know" to that question, because I can't account for the life history of every sexual partner I've ever had. :huh: They just told me to put "no." And then they made fun of my middle name. :glare: The only nice thing was the natural high that comes from losing several quarts of your bodily fluid...
Now i have to know your middle name.
Huitzilopochtli.
Quote from: Scipio on March 04, 2010, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 04, 2010, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 04, 2010, 10:08:38 PM
The one time I gave blood, they made me take a computer questionnaire that asked not only "Are you a man who has had sex with a man since 1976?" and "Have you spent more than 6 months in the UK since 1989?" (mad cow) but " Have you had sex with someone who has been to Africa?" I put "don't know" to that question, because I can't account for the life history of every sexual partner I've ever had. :huh: They just told me to put "no." And then they made fun of my middle name. :glare: The only nice thing was the natural high that comes from losing several quarts of your bodily fluid...
Now i have to know your middle name.
Huitzilopochtli.
Gesundheit
The current policy has the advantage of driving Martinus batshit insane, and is thus valuable.
Quote from: Caliga on March 04, 2010, 09:52:19 PM
I believe it's primarily a disease of the Finns, who I guess are sort of like dogs. :yes:
As I have no Finnish ancestry, I'm not sure how I ended up with it. :huh:
Milkman?
Quote from: Neil on March 04, 2010, 11:13:45 PM
The current policy has the advantage of driving Martinus batshit insane, and is thus valuable.
We've already established he's mentally Ill.
Quote from: Scipio on March 04, 2010, 10:20:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:12:23 PM
A friend's flat mate is a soldier in active service and he is gay and knows a bunch of other gay guys in his unit and they often hang out together. They are not openly gay in the unit, as obviously there is still homophobia and they could be subject to verbal abuse etc., but this does not seem to differ from a situation in any other profession (other than perhaps the fact that the army is more homophobic, than say the fashion industry).
Someone in the military suffering verbal abuse?
Oh, shit! We gotta stop that right away! It's only a few steps away from having weapons pointed at you in anger!
You missed my point. My point was that the situation of gays in the Polish military is better than that of gays in the US military. I was just painting a fair picture.
Quote from: HVC on March 04, 2010, 10:52:05 PM
Quote from: Scipio on March 04, 2010, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 04, 2010, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 04, 2010, 10:08:38 PM
The one time I gave blood, they made me take a computer questionnaire that asked not only "Are you a man who has had sex with a man since 1976?" and "Have you spent more than 6 months in the UK since 1989?" (mad cow) but " Have you had sex with someone who has been to Africa?" I put "don't know" to that question, because I can't account for the life history of every sexual partner I've ever had. :huh: They just told me to put "no." And then they made fun of my middle name. :glare: The only nice thing was the natural high that comes from losing several quarts of your bodily fluid...
Now i have to know your middle name.
Huitzilopochtli.
Gesundheit
Egeszekedre
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 04, 2010, 11:13:45 PM
The current policy has the advantage of driving Martinus batshit insane, and is thus valuable.
We've already established he's mentally Ill.
"We" being the panel of mental health experts who live in your head?
If gays want gay blood, they should start their own Red Cross. :yes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
Children of Barrack Obama are not more likely to get incarcerated than children of any white family (and are much less likely to be incarcerated than children of a white trash family from Florida or Kentucky, for example). This means being black will not cause you to become a criminal - it's just that being black often statistically correlates with being poor, and poverty indeed causes crime.
The example I was trying to make was a minority group being over represented for a particular issue. Blacks make up a majority of people incarcerated in the US but only represent around 10% or so of the population. Gay males make up a majority of people infected with HIV in the US but only represent around 10% or so of the population. This means that if you are black than you are in a higher risk group of becoming incarcerated. It doesn't mean you will be a criminal just that those in your group are more likely to (at some point) be incarcerated. If you are a gay male than you are in a higher risk group of becoming infected with HIV. It doesn't mean you will get HIV or that you engage in unsafe sex just that you are at higher risk than the average person. Every black doesn't have to commit a crime just as every gay male doesn't have to have unsafe sex. It's just that statistically more of them do so within their group than any other group.
This is where my comparison breaks down but than actually proves Marty wrong. In the US, there are more whites and non-blacks incarcerated than blacks. Why? There are more whites and non-blacks in the US, so statistically they commit more crimes. It's just that within their groups it is less likely for someone to be incarcerated. Thus making them a less high risk group for being sent to prison. However, this doesn't hold true for HIV. Gay males make up the greatest amount of people with HIV in the US despite being a very small minority. This is because anal sex (unprotected) and the tearing/exposure to blood that results is the #1 method of becoming infected by HIV.
I guess that gives gay males the overall Gold Medal of High Risk Groups. And, yes, Marty, you are a part of that. Although I suppose you could be sucking on a condom when giving oral sex.
Quote from: Fate on March 05, 2010, 10:52:57 AM
If gays want gay blood, they should start their own Red Cross. :yes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slapupsidethehead.com%2Fwp-content%2Fmedia%2F2007%2F05%2Fblood-bank.jpg&hash=02dfd3496f125a59c701521257db961b7576d18e)
Quote from: Fate on March 05, 2010, 10:52:57 AM
If gays want gay blood, they should start their own Red Cross. :yes:
Actually we just bite people's necks.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 05, 2010, 10:52:57 AM
If gays want gay blood, they should start their own Red Cross. :yes:
Actually we just bite people's necks.
I don't think you answered my Hillary question <_<
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:49:18 PM
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
It's both, actually. It's true that unsafe sex practices lead to AIDS/HIV. However, given that someone engages in unsafe practices, the gays are at much higher risk of infection. There is nothing prejudicial about it, it's just the mechanics of gays sex are more conducive to infection than the mechanics of hetero sex.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
I don't think you answered my Hillary question <_<
Where?
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.
That's not quite right. From the point of view of risk management it would indeed be sound. If you want to minimize the chance of collecting AIDS blood, banning gays from donating is a very sound policy. If all you're concerned with is managing risk, without regard to what some might consider fairness, then correlation is actually as good as causation.
Yes, people are taught that correlation is not causation, and that is generally a very good thing to keep in mind. However, it's not always a valid counter-argument.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
I don't think you answered my Hillary question <_<
Where?
Earlier in this thread I asked you what the deal was with the mullet she's been wearing. Was hoping you'd have some inside info or something.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2010, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2010, 04:49:18 PM
I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.
It's both, actually. It's true that unsafe sex practices lead to AIDS/HIV. However, given that someone engages in unsafe practices, the gays are at much higher risk of infection. There is nothing prejudicial about it, it's just the mechanics of gays sex are more conducive to infection than the mechanics of hetero sex.
You sure know your gay sex.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 05:33:53 PM
Earlier in this thread I asked you what the deal was with the mullet she's been wearing. Was hoping you'd have some inside info or something.
I might be gay, dear, but I'm not a hairstylist. I did sleep with one last night though and we discussed how mullets are popping up all over the place.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 05:33:53 PM
Earlier in this thread I asked you what the deal was with the mullet she's been wearing. Was hoping you'd have some inside info or something.
I might be gay, dear, but I'm not a hairstylist. I did sleep with one last night though and we discussed how mullets are popping up all over the place.
Even "down there"?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 04, 2010, 04:52:12 PM
Martinus is right. We shouldn't ban homosexuals from giving blood, only people that engage in anal sex. And polacks (in order to also refuse Martinus' blood).
We struck down our anti-sodomy laws. I doubt they are coming back any time soon. :(
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 05:40:41 PM
I might be gay, dear, but I'm not a hairstylist. I did sleep with one last night though and we discussed how mullets are popping up all over the place.
Whatever the trend, her hair is disturbing.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
Whatever the trend, her hair is disturbing.
Stop checking her out then.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 05:40:41 PM
I might be gay, dear, but I'm not a hairstylist. I did sleep with one last night though and we discussed how mullets are popping up all over the place.
Whatever the trend, her hair is disturbing.
I forgot to add that the conversation I summarized above never actually happened.
Not exactly related, as it concerns the world, not America, but I thought it would be interesting to post considering some people still believe Aids is a gay disease:
QuoteUN warns HIV/Aids leading cause of death in women
The HIV epidemic began some 30 years ago
HIV has become the leading cause of death and disease among women of reproductive age worldwide, the UN programme on HIV/Aids says.
At the start of a 10-day conference in New York, UNAids launched a five-year action plan addressing the gender issues which put women at risk.
One of the key issues, it says, is that up to 70% of women worldwide have been forced to have unprotected sex.
UNAids says such violence against women must not be tolerated.
"By robbing them of their dignity, we are losing the opportunity to tap half the potential of mankind to achieve the Millennium Development Goals," said Executive Director Michel Sidibe.
"Women and girls are not victims, they are the driving force that brings about social transformation," he said.
The agency says that experiencing violence hampers women's ability to negotiate safe sex.
Singer Annie Lennox speaks out on HIV
It warns that, nearly 30 years from the beginning of the epidemic, HIV services do not respond to the specific needs of women and girls.
Women, it says, continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV/Aids.
In sub-Saharan Africa, 60% of those living with HIV are women and in Southern Africa, for example, young women are about three times as likely to be infected with HIV than young men of the same age.
The programme - which will include improving data collection and analysis of how the epidemic affects women, and ensuring the issue of violence against women is integrated into HIV prevention programmes - will be rolled out in countries including Liberia.
Who here has said that gays are the main cause of AIDS worldwide?
We're talking about the risks in the population in America who donate blood. That African women are screwed is tragic but irrelevant.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 06:34:53 PM
I forgot to add that the conversation I summarized above never actually happened.
Oh man you totally got me. I was like, "eww gross he talked about sleeping with another dude-- these gay guys just can't keep it in their pants" :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2010, 09:01:02 PM
Oh man you totally got me. I was like, "eww gross he talked about sleeping with another dude-- these gay guys just can't keep it in their pants" :mellow:
I said the conversation didn't happen. :contract:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 05, 2010, 08:38:39 PM
Who here has said that gays are the main cause of AIDS worldwide?
We're talking about the risks in the population in America who donate blood. That African women are screwed is tragic but irrelevant.
Hi, I'm taking a poll. What do the words "not exactly related" mean to you? :)
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2010, 09:32:42 PM
Hi, I'm taking a poll. What do the words "not exactly related" mean to you? :)
Definition of a Marti post?
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2010, 06:47:16 PM
Not exactly related, as it concerns the world, not America, but I thought it would be interesting to post considering some people still believe Aids is a gay disease:
Another argument implied from a statistical fallacy.
It's not contradictory for AIDS to be a rare disease among young hetero women, and for it to also be a top killer of young hetero women. Do you see why?
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2010, 09:41:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2010, 06:47:16 PM
Not exactly related, as it concerns the world, not America, but I thought it would be interesting to post considering some people still believe Aids is a gay disease:
Another argument implied from a statistical fallacy.
It's not contradictory for AIDS to be a rare disease among young hetero women, and for it to also be a top killer of young hetero women. Do you see why?
Because gays hate women?
False.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2010, 09:41:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2010, 06:47:16 PM
Not exactly related, as it concerns the world, not America, but I thought it would be interesting to post considering some people still believe Aids is a gay disease:
Another argument implied from a statistical fallacy.
It's not contradictory for AIDS to be a rare disease among young hetero women, and for it to also be a top killer of young hetero women. Do you see why?
I wasn't making this argument. But then again, do you have statistics what's the percentage of gays that have HIV and what's the percentage of hetero woman (worldwide) that have it?
Example here:
http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm
It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.
Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.
The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 03:26:06 AM
The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.
Is that your opinion as a health care professional? Or is it your opinion as a professional statistician?
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 03:26:06 AM
Example here:
http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm
It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.
Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.
The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.
Kind of ironic after our discussion that the fact black males are incarcerated more often than any other groups leads to them engaging in unprotected gay sex and than when they get out they pass along the
fever to their shorties.
Quote from: Strix on March 06, 2010, 04:14:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 03:26:06 AM
Example here:
http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm
It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.
Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.
The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.
Kind of ironic after our discussion that the fact black males are incarcerated more often than any other groups leads to them engaging in unprotected gay sex and than when they get out they pass along the fever to their shorties.
But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 04:32:01 AM
But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.
There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.
Quote from: Strix on March 06, 2010, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 04:32:01 AM
But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.
There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.
Did you actually understood what I was saying? I said
white gay males. The 5-8% rate is for all gay males (btw, don't use the term homosexuals because it refers to both men and women, and we are talking about gay males here). If 30% of black gay males have HIV (and the rate for Hispanics/Latino gay men is also quite high), this means white gay males must be significantly below 5-8%.
Quote from: Strix on March 06, 2010, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 04:32:01 AM
But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.
There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.
Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 11:47:08 AM
Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.
Someone would sue over discrimination.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 11:33:42 AM
Did you actually understood what I was saying? I said white gay males. The 5-8% rate is for all gay males (btw, don't use the term homosexuals because it refers to both men and women, and we are talking about gay males here). If 30% of black gay males have HIV (and the rate for Hispanics/Latino gay men is also quite high), this means white gay males must be significantly below 5-8%.
We would need actual facts and stats to draw such a conclusion. The 30% of black gay males only make up 5% of the gay male population based on population numbers. The issue is even more confused because do we know if the numbers work out correctly? Blacks make up 10% (or so) of the population. Out of the 10% another 10% are gay. Women make up 50% of the population, so that means 5% of the 10% of the 10% are black gay males. Now, do blacks represent a greater or smaller number of gay males than their population numbers? Is there a 50/50 split between gay black men and women? The same issue arises when looking at the Hispanic contribution to the gay community.
Statistically, gay white males and females should make up a majority of the homosexual population. The numbers, in theory, would work out like this...
10% of the population is homosexual...5% of that 10% is male...1% of that 10% is black...that means .5% of that 1% are black males...2% of the 10% is Latino...which means 1% of the 10% is gay male Latinos...which means 3.5% of the 10% is gay white males...here is where I get lost on the math but it would seem that 5-8% of the 3.5% would be a greater number than 5-8% of the .5% on the surface.
However, like I stated there are a lot of variables. How are blacks counted? Are prisoners considered gay black males? Are pitchers considered gay black males? We would need better data concerning the actual figures to reach any kind of conclusion.
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: Strix on March 06, 2010, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 04:32:01 AM
But that's what am I saying. If in statistical risk analysis (I defer to DGuller here as it is his field) correlation is regarded in the same way as causation, then there is no reason why we should exclude white gay men from donating blood but allow heterosexual black women to do so.
There is a major difference between .6% and 5-8%. My issues with homosexuals giving blood has less to do with the potential of them giving tainted blood as it has to do with a lab tech making minimum wage (for their profession) being given a greater chance to make a mistake.
Couldn't you then sort gay blood into a pile to give extra attention in screening?
Beats banning it outright.
I would like to be informed before accepting a gay blood transfusion. It's not fair to the heterosexuals.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2010, 03:26:06 AM
Example here:
http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aahivaids.htm
It is estimated about 1 in 160 black heterosexual women in the US have HIV. That's 0.6%.
Gay men in the US are estimated to have HIV in between 5-8% (it is debatable if the number is skewed up or not; on one hand, many gay men may be closeted and fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation; on the other hand, closeted/self-hating gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, psychologically). However, among gay black men, the HIV rate is estimated to be as high as 30%. This means that in the end, depending on the estimate a white gay male may be only 2-3 times more likely to have HIV than a black heterosexual woman.
The risk difference is not big enough to justify banning white gay men but allowing black hetero women to donate blood.
First, I don't see how you can back in into your estimate of infected percentage of white gay males without knowing the black/white ratio among gay males.
Second, why are you comparing white gay men with black hetero women, if you just want to isolate the gay risk component? You're trying to take the best of the high risk group, and the worst of the low risk group, to show that they gap in risk between them is lower. Duh. There is more than one risk factor, don't pile them on selectively to show what you want to show.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:03:49 PM
First, I don't see how you can back in into your estimate of infected percentage of white gay males without knowing the black/white ratio among gay males.
Second, why are you comparing white gay men with black hetero women, if you just want to isolate the gay risk component? You're trying to take the best of the high risk group, and the worst of the low risk group, to show that they gap in risk between them is lower. Duh. There is more than one risk factor, don't pile them on selectively to show what you want to show.
Why do you hate gays Dguller?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 01:15:37 PM
Why do you hate gays Dguller?
Because it's a fun thing to do.
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
My position is that gays are at much higher risk of having AIDS, and that's pretty much indisputable. Whether that risk is best dealt with avoidance or mitigation when it comes to donating blood is not for me to decide. I have no expertise in that particular matter and I don't have all the relevant information, so I remain neutral as far as the actual position on this question goes.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating. :Embarrass:
Sometimes being self-hating just means being objective. :hug:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating. :Embarrass:
You'd agree with the argument against sloppy thinking, except that that would make you self-hating?
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating. :Embarrass:
Sometimes being self-hating just means being objective. :hug:
Ouch! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2010, 07:47:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:25:22 PM
Seriously, this is one of those cases where I'm arguing against sloppy thinking, not against a position. I know it looks like I'm arguing for the continuation of the ban, but that's only because arguing against sloppy thinking means arguing against Martinus.
Eh. I'd agree with you but I'm apparently self-hating. :Embarrass:
You'd agree with the argument against sloppy thinking, except that that would make you self-hating?
According to Marti, yes.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 08:00:55 PM
According to Marti, yes.
Marti thinks you are a sloppy thinker?
Hate to say this, but if one gives cred based on personal experience, he would know. They don't come much sloppier, when it comes to thinking.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:03:49 PM
First, I don't see how you can back in into your estimate of infected percentage of white gay males without knowing the black/white ratio among gay males.
Errr, are you suggesting that sexual orientation is influenced by race? :huh:
The natural assumption should be that the percentage of gays among black and among white men is most likely similar if not the same (and by "gay" I mean really MSM, as the entire discussion is about MSM, whereas "gay" is a more of self-assumed identity). Only if one would have substantial evidence to the contrary, one should discard this assumption.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2010, 08:40:01 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 06, 2010, 08:00:55 PM
According to Marti, yes.
Marti thinks you are a sloppy thinker?
Wow, you really have problems with understanding written word, don't you?
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2010, 01:03:49 PM
Second, why are you comparing white gay men with black hetero women, if you just want to isolate the gay risk component? You're trying to take the best of the high risk group, and the worst of the low risk group, to show that they gap in risk between them is lower. Duh. There is more than one risk factor, don't pile them on selectively to show what you want to show.
Because I want to mininize the risk while allowing the highest percentage of the populace to donate blood. My premise is that the infection rate of black women is comparable (not materially lower) than the infection rate of white MSM.
So you don't consider the infection rate among black women to warrant a blood donation ban, you should also allow white MSM to donate blood, and you should be really only banning black MSM.
Now, if you also think white MSM should be banned, because their infection rate is considered a risk that would warrant such a ban, then you should also ban black hetero women.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2010, 01:48:28 AM
Errr, are you suggesting that sexual orientation is influenced by race? :huh:
I'm not assuming that it isn't. And, even if it is, I still don't see what ratio you're using to back into your white gay infected percentage. I don't know whether you just omitted mentioning it, or whether you guesstimated.
Using 8% as the black percentage of the population and 8% infection in the whole gay community, I get 6% for non-black gays.
(.08 x .30) + (.92 x X) = .08. X = .060.
Using the bottom of the range (5%) I get 2.8% for non-blacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2010, 02:20:02 AM
Using 8% as the black percentage of the population
Why would you do that? 12.8% per the census:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2010, 02:20:02 AM
Using 8% as the black percentage of the population and 8% infection in the whole gay community, I get 6% for non-black gays.
(.08 x .30) + (.92 x X) = .08. X = .060.
Using the bottom of the range (5%) I get 2.8% for non-blacks.
Latino gays also have above-average (about 20% iirc) HIV infection rate.
Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2010, 04:17:01 AM
Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).
The problem isn't (or wasn't) people who know that they're HIV positive and try to give blood anyway, it's people who are HIV positive and don't know it. That's why they ask male donors about sexual contact with other men instead of just asking if they're HIV positive.
What if you don't know if you've had sex with other men? :unsure:
Quote from: dps on March 07, 2010, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2010, 04:17:01 AM
Then I assume you would have somehow account for the fact that people who know they have HIV are unlikely to come and try to donate blood, unless they are scumbags and liars (but then they can be presumed to lie about their man-on-man sex as well, so the policy is not effective).
The problem isn't (or wasn't) people who know that they're HIV positive and try to give blood anyway, it's people who are HIV positive and don't know it. That's why they ask male donors about sexual contact with other men instead of just asking if they're HIV positive.
Err, that's exactly my point. The percentage of white gay men who have HIV and don't know in the overall gay population is still smaller than the percentage of white gay men who have HIV (whether they know it or not) in the overall gay population. (For the record, the percentage of gay men who have HIV and don't know it, in the overall gay men with HIV population is likely substantially lower than the percentage of straight women who have HIV and don't know it, in the overall straight women with HIV population, but that's another thing).
If we want to decide whether we should allow white MSM to donate blood, we should be trying to establish the former, not the latter. And then, with all these considerations and reservations I am coming up with, suddenly this ceases to become the "high risk group". And this is where the opposition to this ban comes from - that all MSM are labelled a high risk group, which is painting them all with a brush too broad (I mean, more black people have HIV than white people, yet noone is arguing we should ban black people from donating blood, either).
Also, for the record, this should again be limited to bottoms (and versatiles). Tops in gay sex do not have a significantly higher chance of getting HIV than hetero guys engaging in sex with women with HIV.
So in short, the risk increasing factors among MSM are:
- ethnic minorities,
- people who engaged in MSM in situations like prisons,
- sex workers,
- people under 30 (people over 30 would be aware they have HIV, and HIV testing is much more widespread among gays than among non-gays), and
- being a bottom.
All this assumes of course that sex was unprotected, but most of the above groups are actually more likely to engage in unprotected sex and/or not get tested so we don't need to factor it in again.
One should build a policy managing this risk taking in account the above factors, rather than banning all MSM from donating blood.
Quote from: ulmont on March 07, 2010, 04:14:39 AM
Why would you do that?
Because you were remiss in your responsibility to supply the correct number.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2010, 05:21:15 AM
Also, for the record, this should again be limited to bottoms (and versatiles). Tops in gay sex do not have a significantly higher chance of getting HIV than hetero guys engaging in sex with women with HIV.
:lol:
I can see the form now. "Are you a black man who has ever bottomed in unprotected anal sex?"