Identifying as female to sell blood

I'm going by the transfusion service's own webpage. It says 16 weeks for women.

This nicely highlights how it's important to always refer to your local agency, they don't appear to make a differentiation in Scotland. That said, I haven't had dealings with them directly so it's always worth clarifying but it does appear that women are able to donate to Scotblood every 12 weeks.

The transmen donating every twelve weeks and it being unsafe is a bit of a red herring — I donate at roughly that frequency because in Scotland it's twelve weeks for both sexes.

I'm going by the transfusion service's own webpage. It says 16 weeks for women.

I shall honestly be both alarmed and pissed off if those were dangerous or just ineligible donations.

It's one of those criteria that's at the discretion of the organisation usually, for prescribed drugs that are administered correctly, an exception can be made after a certain time. It's unlikely they'd be too eager to collect while the anti-D is still actively circulating.

lance I dimly have it in my head that you can donate but only after a certain time (6 or 9 months or something?)

This isn't my field of expertise though... will defer to anyone who knows!

if she'd been injected with anti-D for the pregnancy she'd be ineligible in any case

Really? Really really? I've mentioned the anti-D at every blood donor session I've attended for years and every time they've said it's fine. I shall honestly be both alarmed and pissed off if those were dangerous or just ineligible donations.

UK Guidance:
"Men who have sex with men
Men who last had sexual contact with another man more than 3 months ago are able to give blood if they meet the other blood donor selection criteria.
Ensuring blood supplies are safe
Anyone can acquire a blood-borne virus or a sexually transmitted disease, but some people have an increased risk of exposure.

They may not be able to give blood at all, or for a certain period of time.

This keeps the blood supply safe and reduces the risk of transmitting an infection to a person receiving blood.

Statistically, men who have sex with men have a higher risk of acquiring blood-borne diseases, infections and viruses.

Using protection like a condom can reduce this risk, but it doesn’t eliminate it. See information on this in the Public Health England Annual Report.

That is why we can’t collect blood from men who have had oral or anal sex with men, with or without protection, in the last 3 months.

This isn’t meant to be discriminatory. It’s not based on anyone’s sexual history or sexuality. It reflects statistical risks for the sexual behaviour that increases the risk of virus transmission."
www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/men-who-have-sex-with-men/

So am I right in saying that if you are a man that has received anal you can't give but if you are a female that has received anal you can?

The specific exclusions depend on the country (and, in countries with private blood donation agencies, across organisations) but this can be an excluding criteria (as well as oral sex) depending on the personal history of their partner. Your specific blood donation agency should give their own criteria on their website or, failing that, prior to donation taking place.

So am I right in saying that if you are a man that has received anal you can't give but if you are a female that has received anal you can?

Thank you for clarifying.

I think I’ve not expressed myself well perhaps? The rhesus example was meant as an example of just how some people have risk factors and cannot always donate based on their sex.

My point was that sex is important, not that mismatched blood from women is routinely an issue.

Lying about eligibility + being a carrier of a disease + lab error or labelling error (and it does happen) = something slips through.

I wasn't defending that. People whose lifestyles places them at increased risk of disease or who are knowingly carriers of blood borne diseases should not be lying to donate. There is a particular risk with certain viruses that they may be infectious below detectable levels. I was correcting what seemed like a purported risk associated with a donor who does not have the aforementioned risk factors (i.e. Rh group antibodies resulting from pregnancy).

If the blood supplying agency cannot reliably type and the laboratory cannot reliably crossmatch based on Rh antigens/antibodies then that really has nothing to do with the sex or gender of the donating individual. Furthermore, errors of that nature in any appreciable number would represent a critical (potentially criminal) level of negligence.

In short, there are risks but let's stick to the facts.

Yes it’d get picked up - what I mean is that some groups of people are ineligible for all sorts of reasons and some of those reasons have serious outcomes. Some theoretical. But the first step - the exclusion, is important

I’ve also worked with clinical labs/commercial labs and there is an error rate.

Disasters happen when the loopholes align. Lying about eligibility + being a carrier of a disease + lab error or labelling error (and it does happen) = something slips through.

Am I dreaming? Is this just a nightmare? Have we really got to the point where infection of patients is of less importance than someone's 'feelz'? Who is brainwashing these organisations?

Imagine a woman who had been pregnant and had rhesus antibodies...

If she's donating blood then it would be picked up in the screening and processed according to the antibody level (I'm assuming you mean Rh D when you say 'rhesus antibodies'), if she'd been injected with anti-D for the pregnancy she'd be ineligible in any case.

If she's receiving blood and the transfused unit(s) are Rh D+ then there's been a serious failing in either the authority responsible for processing transfusions or the laboratory that approved the cross match, MSM donations or not.

I suspect that's because foxyliz's surgeon friend is, like her legal qualifications, a figment of her imagination

The transmen donating every twelve weeks and it being unsafe is a bit of a red herring — I donate at roughly that frequency because in Scotland it's twelve weeks for both sexes.

I don't understand the organ donor question — it would make no difference to me, but it should be recorded with the sex (with potentially a note that it's been exposed to cross-sex hormones a/b/c for x years), because there are implications for how well it's accepted by my body and whether it is in fact a suitable match for that reason.

Precisely. I wouldn't be allowed to give blood in the US either, on account of being in the UK during mad cow issues. That's a policy that pretty much bans the majority of Brits over a certain age, and I've yet to hear about expat Brits kicking up a fuss about it.

I can't give blood because I had a blood transfusion years ago before blood was tested for anything. The reason is that I may have variant CJD due to this, and for which there is no test (am symptom-free so far). Do I get in a paddy or pretend to the blood transfusion service that I've never had a transfusion because my feelings are hurt by this apparent rejection? No I damn well don't, because I know and accept the basis on which this rejection is based and IT MAKES SENSE. The world is not about me, me, me.

I'm pretty sure that lipstick and dresses don't act as effective barriers to HIV transmission, so that policy is clearly utter nonsense.

UK goes by self-ID as well.

Quotes from a response to a 2015 FOI request to NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT):

Donors who identify themselves as male will be assessed using the male haemoglobin levels and similarly donors identifying as female must have sufficiently high haemaglobin levels to meet the female levels.

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.

If a donor states that they are a woman we accept that and do not enquire about their birth gender.

If a donor states that they are a man we accept that and do not enquire about their birth gender.

Back in July 2017 when the government launched the LGBT survey and first announced plans to reform the GRA they also announced this (in the same press release!):

The Government has also announced that the deferral blood donation period for men who have sex with men, will be reduced from 12 months to three months increasing the supply of donor blood available for life-saving operations.

I'm no expert. I have no idea whether the MSM deferral period should be 12 months, 3 months or is completely unneccessary, but the lack of joined up thinking here is hurting my brain.

Two possibilities here.

1. They've now worked out that men having had sex with men isn't actually the risk factor they thought it was, in which case we can expect an announcement that the restrictions on gay men giving blood have been lifted and an apology for suggesting that they shouldn't before any day now, right?

1. They still believe blood from men who have sex with men to be dangerous, but have decided that a few patients contracting HIV as the result of a transfusion is less of a concern that pissing off shouty people on Twitter would be. Which is both cowardly and a complete abdication of their responsibility to patients.

(Sorry... sex of the donor in transplant surgeries.)

What an ignorant question for a surgeon to ask.

Well, Foxy did say they were all drunk. Which is the only reason I can think of for such a gross misunderstanding of what was being said here from a medical professional.

And besides, the sex of the donor actually has an impact on rejection rates in the recipient. Depends which organ which donor sex means a higher rejection rate in the recipient. IIRC, heart donating goes one way and kidney the other.

You'd think a surgeon might be aware of that.

Still reading, but reallybadidea did you spot that a transwoman (or any man) who has had sex with with transwomen would be required to tick "had no sex with men at all" Even though that is in reality anal sex between two men.

The whole thing is confusing to talk about without getting lost in the newly blurred terms