[–] VirginiaWolfberry 20 points (+20|-0)

I assume they’ll be karyotyping the blood? Because it’s dangerous for males to receive female blood.

[–] Julie92845 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

It’s more risky for men under age 50 to have received blood from a woman who has been pregnant but not to the point where it’s considered dangerous. The risk is still pretty small so they haven’t changed the criteria for who gets what blood due to it.

Okay! I believe it is risky in terms of organ donation too, but may be wrong.

[–] LesbianHelvetia 15 points (+16|-1)

I do t understand the line about "anal sex" the problem is not what kind of sexual practice you have, it's who you're having sex with, and MSM have a really higher rate of HIV and other STD. Spain and Italy have the same rules for everyone and they're the country with the most new HIV discovered in blood donation. The thing is, the more you have actually positive for HIV blood donation, the more you're likely to have one sample HIV + that will have a fake negative result and therefore contaminate a patient.

[–] BeaduNord 21 points (+21|-0)

Yeah. I can't make myself have a problem with this. I don't understand why "everyone can do everything" is now the goal, or it's bigotry.

[–] lucrecia 17 points (+17|-0)

I'd guess it's because you're a lot more likely to catch an infection that travels through the blood through anal because there's an increased risk of injuries that bleed compared to other sex.

[–] RisingUp 11 points (+11|-0)

But if you're having receptive anal sex with a member of a population with a high HIV infection rate, that still puts you in a different risk stratum from someone having receptive anal sex with a member of a population with a low HIV infection rate.Very clunky wording but you know what I mean - who you're having sex with still matters. Gay anal sex and straight anal sex aren't actually equivalent risk factors.

I'm not against this move from the NHS, having not seen the data myself, but I admit I'm having a strong kneejerk reaction against it because I have the impression the decision was not primarily data-driven.

[–] Lumos 4 points (+4|-0)

We’ll have to wait and see what happens, up until recently I don’t think casual anal sex was common for women outside of prostitution.

[–] lucrecia 3 points (+3|-0)

I guess I'd rather they assess it via behaviour than identity, because I'd guess that's why those guys are a higher risk group to begin with, and some of the guys will be sleeping with both men and women anyway. So currently I'd guess using that question will give a superset that includes all the higher risk people, with some false positives, but fewer false negatives. But Idk the data either, so am guessing a lot.

[–] LesbianHelvetia 1 points (+1|-0)

The latest data I saw concluded that not having an MSM deferral made the positive HIV blood result higher, but both country with a deferral and the one with no deferral both have really small risk of catching HIV via blood transfusion.

[+] [Deleted] 0 points (+0|-0)
[–] RisingUp 11 points (+11|-0) Edited

I'm vaguely creeped out that this is a focus of activism. I'm not aware of any blood shortages which would mean they need to expand the donor pool. So... why does this matter?

If the statistics support this move, I support it. But I don't think "right to give blood" is a thing and I feel a bit queasy about the motives of anyone campaigning for it. This decision should be led by the data, not by campaigners, and unless there is a blood shortage the NHS should be erring firmly on the side of caution.

edit: article says there is a blood shortage, which puts this in a better light. I might have been influenced by having seen men online boasting about having told lies in order to give blood.

[–] Kestrel 1 points (+1|-0)

Agreed. There are lots of reasons you might not be able to give blood. These things should be based on statistics, not personal feelings.

[–] FedUp12345 [OP] 7 points (+7|-0)

Changes: gay and bisexual men are now allowed to donate blood if they’ve been monogamous for 3 months. Donors will no longer ask men if they are sexually active with other men. Now, “all genders” will be asked if they’ve had anal sex or sex with multiple partners recently. If they have they will not be able to donate. Changes have been made because of the urgent need for more blood donations, according to the NHS.

[–] Hermione 2 points (+2|-0)

I need to start donating blood again. During the pandemic my husband really was resistant to me donating for fear of catching the virus, he just couldn’t afford to take the time off work if he was sick or if I got sick being the least of the worries.

We’re both vaccinated now. But I have been getting calls from the Red Cross every 1-2 weeks for the past few months now so I’m guessing they’re really hurting.

I doubt that changing these rules will lead to that big of an increase in blood donations though. It’s being able to be near large groups of people willing to donate that are also more likely to be healthy, so having drives at universities, high schools, etc. With social distancing measures that’s been very restricted.

[–] Tabitha_Tuesday 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

I wish someone who understood how blood donation works could explain to me whether blood is divided up by the sex of who is donating, and whether this bullshit self-identification gender stuff has caused problems.

[–] Dravidian -1 points (+1|-2)

I can't believe there's people in this comment section defending blood donation discrimination while 48 percent of HIV infections worldwide are in women, up to 31% in the western world. Even if gay men are more affected by it they're not that much more affected that they should be the only ones barred from donating.