Identifying as female to sell blood

Think I have read the whole thread. I know it has been said but we need to shout from the rooftops that many transwomen are not and have no intention of ever undergoing hormone treatment. In the fast moving world of today that is an old fashioned/out of date definition of a transwomen. Please read more about this and start talking to people about it.

Staff, unaware Biamonte was a female-to-male transgender individual, asked him if he had genital-reconstruction surgery. When he said no, staff told him he would have to answer questions based on his sex assigned at birth.

Eh..why would genital surgery matter? Regardless of surgical status, this person is female. However much they wish they were male.

I have seen at least one prominent transactivist transwoman bragging about donating blood in the UK and registering it as female, and IIRC, then tweeted about how she'd got a text from the NHS to say it had been used.

Do the NHS text when they use your blood? I didn't know that. Mind its been a while since I gave blood, as I get so many tattoos I am just not eligible often when I actually have enough time these days. I could be a twat and insist on giving blood and just lying, but no. I understand that the restrictions are there for a reason.

Basically, the Venn diagram of Entitled Fuckwittery and Biohazards does not have a fun intersection

this is what I was thinking of. I suppose one way to reduce the risk for men from our horrid man killing blood is to allow biological males to donate and tick 'female' in the box

OK< I should have RTFT before posting, bad habit of mine

I thought blood from the opposite sex could be dangerous. So, this is a disaster waiting to happen, more ways than one?

This is a complex area and self ID is a red herring.

Surely any screening that relies on people telling the truth is a risk?

I can't give blood because I received a transfusion 20 odd years ago before it was screened for variant CJD. What stops me, or anyone else in the same boat, from donating?

Had a tattoo recently, had your ears pierced, injected drugs all of this relies on donor owning up and telling the truth.

How is this risk protected against?

Hmmm maybe the medical staff are humouring them. The polite lie, then correctly relabeling/processing or disposal in in the appropriate medical waste receptacle. At least one would hope.

Frankly I’m shocked in a country as large as the US that people are paid to give blood. Learn something new everyday.

Canadian complaint re blood donation screening:

'Transgender man upset by blood agency's screening policy which considers him female'
(extract)
"A transgender man is calling for Canadian Blood Services to change its screening policy when dealing with trans donors.

Jack Biamonte donated blood five times over the past year. Two weeks ago he had an embarrassing experience after he revealed his recent hysterectomy surgery to staff.

Staff, unaware Biamonte was a female-to-male transgender individual, asked him if he had genital-reconstruction surgery. When he said no, staff told him he would have to answer questions based on his sex assigned at birth.

"It was just reinforced, 'You were born female; we have to consider you female,' " Biamonte said.

Two questions — "Have you had a pregnancy over the past six months?" and "Have you slept with a male who has slept with a male?" — seemed especially pointless, he said.

But Biamonte will have to respond to those questions every time he gives blood, he said.

Staff were just as uncomfortable as he was, Biamonte said, and he's certain other trans people would feel the same way.

"A lot of people, that's going to really upset them," he said. "That's going to really trigger them." (continues)

The website says donor criteria are "based on the best available scientific evidence" that must be approved by Health Canada, its regulator.

Biamonte only learned of the policy since the screening, which was two weeks ago.

"I feel like if it's better explained people will be more accepting of it," Biamonte said.

But he disagrees that the policy is based on science.

"The screening process needs to change. There needs to be more medically pertinent questions that are based on actual fact and not just general bias."

Biamonte says the experience soured his willingness to give blood, but he'll continue while pressuring Canadian Blood Services to adjust their policy."

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/trans-canadian-blood-services-1.4851296

Enquiry opens this week:
"Campaigners say it is time to find out the truth about the contaminated blood scandal that left nearly 3,000 people dead, as a public inquiry begins.

The inquiry is looking at how thousands of NHS patients were given blood products infected with hepatitis and HIV during the 1970s and 1980s.

Many say the risks were not explained, in what has been called the worst treatment disaster in NHS history."
www.bbc.com/news/health-45591584

This isn't blood, this is plasma:

"The evidence linking female-derived plasma and poor patient outcomes is far more robust [than blood transfusions] and various gender dependent differences have been identified in donated plasma"

From Mortality after red blood cell transfusions from previously pregnant donors: complexities in the interpretation of large data, Journal of Thoracic Medicine

The center being sued doesn't accept transgender people at all. I'm betting high incidence of HIV, and self id vs the need to know sex is why.

The point is that all blood is screened before use. Therefore, you will not get HIV from a trans woman

The blood transfusion service are very insistent that anyone who suspects they may have HIV should not give blood (screencap attached). The implication is that the screening process is not perfect and may return a false negative, so asking people who think they may have HIV not to give blood reduces the risk of false negatives. We know from experiences with the US porn industry that even monthly testing of a entire group of people isn't enough to protect them from contracting HIV because it only needs one person to get infected since their last test by playing outside the group. Couple that with an imperfect screening process and the risks of transmission become very high, hence the lifestyle questions. So please answer them accurately and be honest about male-with-male sex, even if you'd rather be a woman.

With regards to what Lazy said earlier:
New research has found that men have a far higher mortality rate after receiving blood transfusions using the donor blood of women who have been pregnant.

It seems that males (including 'transwomen') are more likely to have complications from this issue. So in theory, if the NHSBT are going with 'gender identity', then 'transmen' are the potentially highest risk donor-side to male recipients, if the 'transman' has been pregnant, and the NHSBT takes 'gender declaration' at face value.

Which raises the question, for the recipient-side, will 'transwomen' fess up to being male, or take the risk of death? Is the validation of gender-feels worth such a gamble?

Seems like an own-goal by the TRAs, wanting all the words, including female, and the hashtag as well:
twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1043487897326944257

Jesus. I live abroad and despite being female and healthy I am not allowed to give blood due to living in UK during the mad cow outbreak. This upset me when there were calls for bone marrow as ai can't do that either.

If you find yourself rocking in a corner just remember to get a suitable chair or people will think you are strange.

It's possible that the blanket MSM deferral period is not the best way of screening for risk at that point in the process and they should be moving towards a more individualised risk assessment.

It's the utter senselessness of the rules that get me. The government proudly announced:

1. cutting the MSM deferral period from 12 months to 3 months
2. plans to change the GRA to self-ID

In the same press release

All you'll get from trying to make sense of this is a hurt brain.

Oh thank you Pencils, I was wondering if I was getting a bit mad-crazy trying to figure it out, and did end up with hurt brain!

This is the word salad we end up with, when conflating sex and gender. You would think the NHS would know about this?

Yes it's the swiss cheese model - the more slices you remove, the more likely the holes are to all line up in the remaining slices.

topical - www.thetimes.co.uk/article/contaminated-blood-inquiry-the-decades-long-fight-for-justice-cq2shc3lj?shareToken=80f0e0ce85ad2c70cae131ff56451342

I try.

There’s also the issue that recent HIV infections can sometimes not be picked up in testing. It is entirely possible to test negative for HIV for a short period after contracting it. So yes, it is possible.

The screening questions are there for a reason. I realise these are small risks but that’s not really the point - what this person did was put their own validation and ego ahead of the health of others

Basically, the Venn diagram of Entitled Fuckwittery and Biohazards does not have a fun intersection

You have such a way with words Bowl

It makes no sense at all Ducking.

All you'll get from trying to make sense of this is a hurt brain.

Pencils I am a tad confused/surprised by those FOI answers, particularly:

A man who has had his gender reassigned as a woman who, as a man, had not had high risk sexual activity, can be accepted if, as a woman, they have a sexual relationship with a man

Male sexual partners of transgender women would not fall under the men who have sex with men deferral policy in their assessment.

Male sexual partners of transgender men can not donate for 12 months as per the men who have sex with men deferral guidance.

In paragraph A, they are saying (removing the gender):
Male who had not had high risk sexual activity with males, but now has sex with men is OK

Paragraph B, male sexual partners of males are not counted as such, because gender

Paragraph C, male sexual partners of females are restricted for 12 months.

Or are they using the terms 'transgender woman' and 'transgender man' the opposite way around to what most people do? Because it makes no sense otherwise.

The last two paragraphs in that FOI just throwing it all to the wind - they may as well have zero restrictions on that self-ID basis. Beyond ridiculous.

Yes, that is indeed idiotic bowl, but it would be more dangerous/idiotic if it was not possible to give male blood to female patients or vice versa. TW are not the only people who could lie about their HIV status and actually, straight women in a relationship with a TW could also lie and say they have not been having sex with a man who has had sex with other men (if that applies).

It is annoying, but given the low levels of blood in the banks, I reckon the more people donate, the better. There may be the odd problem with screening, but I don't think there have been any reported cases of contracting HIV from transfusion for many many years now.

The point is that all blood is screened before use. Therefore, you will not get HIV from a trans woman

I don’t think that’s what people are saying. They’re saying it’s wrong to lie and put your validation over safety, however small that risk is.
Screening is done by humans (and machines ofc but people run them.) So the person doing the blood draw? If they slip and get a needle stick? The person loading that sample into the machines in the lab? Tiny risks, not so likely to happen, but possible. And the fact that your sample is more likely to be rejected - taking time and resource from the service? On theblab I’ve seen samples spilled, I’ve seen them arrive poorly packaged and leaking. HIV is a fragile virus - it’s doesnt survive long outside the host, but some viruses are more robust.

No one is saying the screening doesn’t work - they’re saying that putting your own validation ahead of the safety of blood products

Basically, the Venn diagram of Entitled Fuckwittery and Biohazards does not have a fun intersection

Is it really the case that TW are the group most likely to have HIV?

In this country at least, I believe that cross-sex blood donation occurs and that there are no adverse effects of a woman receiving blood from a man. Correct me if I am wrong here.

The questions on the form are susceptible to people lying. I sometimes don't bother telling them if I have been abroad (e.g. to France) or if I went to the dentist for a checkup that involved the dentist just looking in my mouth rather than giving me any active treatment. Otherwise, it takes an age for them to get someone to sign the form off, or in the dentist case, I was sent away even though I had not had any actual treatment- not even a scale and polish. They are often excessively pedantic (which I do understand, but it can be frustrating when you know you are fine to donate).

The point is that all blood is screened before use. Therefore, you will not get HIV from a trans woman donating blood and not mentioning male sex partners. The questions weed people out, meaning that nearly all of the blood will be safe to use. However, it will still be screened.