Identifying as female to sell blood

Could be a tree surgeon?

Maybe he identifies as a surgeon but is actually a brickie, or a banker.

You have strange drunk dinner parties if the bit where you move into the living room is where you start reading threads like this and then post on MN.

And a surgeon asking that question... Pull the other one.

What an ignorant question for a surgeon to ask.

The question is not "would you accept a yukky trans blood / organ donation you hypocrite?".

It's "is the accurate recording of donors' sex of importance for safety of all concerned?"

And if the answer is "yes, it is important" the next question on the flow chart is "what is more important to you; a) medical safety and ethics or b) trans validation?"

You would have to be positively psychotic to answer b.

if you are Anti everything Trans , and needed a Heart, Kidney transplant /Blood Transfusion , following the logic you presumably would refuse the donor organ if it originated from a Trans person ?

to save your life or the life of a family member , following your GC logic , it would be a bit hypocritical if you were to accept that gift of life surely ?

No one here is "anti trans". The point is that biology exists and has real ramifications when it come to medical procedures. For example, the trans person donating organs in your situation - would the medical staff record the organs as being from the gender the person identifies as or their actual biological sex? Pretty sure they try to have a sex match where possible

The question on blood products is ‘is it ok for someone from a high risk group to lie in order to circumvent the rules on donations from that group to sell blood products?’

It would apply to anyone who is a man who has sexual with men, certain people who have received transfusions in the past, certain drug users and sex workers, people with known HIV or other blood bourne diseases etc,

It’s not ‘oh yucky trans.’ It’s about patient safety. Is a woman with hep C who is about it to sell plasma acting morally?

if you are Anti everything Trans

Which none of us are, so your question makes no sense.

The problem under discussion here is the misrecording of donor sex, which could have health implications for the recipient. Also, a transman who gives their sex as "male" (incorrectly) could be permitted to donate every twelve weeks when the minimum safe donation interval for female people is sixteen weeks. This could endanger the transman.

As bowl said, People’s desire for validation cannot ever override patient safety and HCP/lab safety. and it also shouldn't override donor safety. Prioritising safety over validation of feelings isn't anti-trans, it's pro-health, including the health of the trans people you accuse us of hating.

if you are Anti everything Trans

No one is. Nobody is saying ‘oh yucky trans organ. Got nits!’ Nobody is saying they wouldn’t accept an organ, nobody is saying trans people cannot donate, whether it’s organs, tissue or blood products.,

They are saying that accurate recording of medical data is important. That someone who lies to circumvent the rules on blood product donation from high risk groups is not acting in good faith.

I’m surprised a surgeon thinks such a thing is ok, you haven’t... slightly misrepresented the argument there have you ..?

Ask which eGRF reference ranges they’d apply to a transman presenting with stage three CKD? Do feelz trump biological reality?

Playing devils advocate , I am sure the factor 8 scandal , infected with HIV probably originated from male prisoners selling their infected XY blood

but we will have to wait 50 years to find out

we have just been discussion this at one of our dinner partys , now we have all moved into the lounge (and are all a bit drunk )

One of our dinner guests a Surgeon, asks ?

if you are Anti everything Trans , and needed a Heart, Kidney transplant /Blood Transfusion , following the logic you presumably would refuse the donor organ if it originated from a Trans person ?

to save your life or the life of a family member , following your GC logic , it would be a bit hypocritical if you were to accept that gift of life surely ?

I Imagine Some Gender Critical Radfem , having a blood transfusion, and insisting it was 100% real XX female blood !

There are real biological safety issues here. Both ways actually. Imagine a woman who had been pregnant and had rhesus antibodies...

This goes beyond people’s politics and opinions - it’s a biohazard. There could also be legal implications as I guess you could argue the person collecting the info/processing and supplying blood products has a legal duty of care to provide the safest product possible.

Previous scandals like CJD (contracted from administration of human derived growth hormone) and the contaminated blood for haemophiliacs scandal should inform us here. There are rules and the rules are nothing to do with feminism - they’re solid science.

Don't they test the blood anyway?

They do. No test is 100% accurate though. And there are no tests for the possible immunological markers because we don’t yet know what we’d be testing for.

It’s grossly irresponsible to lie like this - it’s also creating a higher chance of everyone in the handling chain being exposed, from whoever takes the blood draw, to those in the lab. Of course everyone wears PPE but I’ve worked many years in labs and people are fallible - accidents happen. I’ve slipped with syringes more than once (hand full of a chemo drug which probably wasn't terribly good for me, and I’ve had things sprayed in my face as well.)

People’s desire for validation cannot ever override patient safety and HCP/lab safety.

This reminded me of the Till Death Us Do Part Racist Blood Donor sketch from the 1960,s whre Racist characterAlf Garnett see,s a black guy donating blood

I Imagine Some Gender Critical Radfem , having a blood transfusion, and insisting it was 100% real XX female blood !

it’s really concerning that people are allowed to lie like this. It’s also totally unnecessary

It's not unnecessary though, is it.

Remember validation is the only thing that matters. Absolutely everyone must play along, at all costs.

it’s really concerning that people are allowed to lie like this. It’s also totally unnecessary

This is a good point. I worked in health information for years, there are really strick rules about collecting relevant data and only relevant data.

I agree it's a totally unnecessary lie, only relevant people need to know - it wouldn't make a difference how the doner is treated.

Don't they test the blood anyway?

I’m on maternity leave at the moment but the issue of accurate sex reporting in trials is something I will investigate when I’m back. Our work relies on accurate data. And more importantly patient safety does too.

Why would it matter what legal sex you are for blood donation? Biological sex would what matters surely?

Biological sex is important and accurate risk behaviour reporting is also important.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) and certain other groups are found to have a higher incidence of stds including HIV. A Male stating they were female would therefore not have the exclusion rules applied and that’s a potential danger.

In terms of biological sex generally, women who have been pregnant seem to have some immunological differences. The paper quoted by lazy above finds this. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29049654/

When you’ve been pregnant, you carry, for life, some cells from the baby. We don’t know what they do - so far we’ve found hints of possible effects both positive and negative, but those cells remain with you. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/

The presence of these cells could certainly influence immunological status in the mother, and have implications for transplantation of tissue and blood.

Biology is fascinating. She’s also not to be messed with - it’s really concerning that people are allowed to lie like this. It’s also totally unnecessary- medics are professionals who have signed up to v tight patient confidentiality rules. Even non medics like me who work with patient samples, histories and data have to comply with confidentiality. My work, quite rightly, are bound by very strict rules. It’s vital that someone’s sex is known if you’re treating them, they’re donating anything or they are providing data.

Can trans people even donate blood? Surely hormone treatments would rule them out as donors?

I take hormones for a medical problem and I still donate blood no issues, many women take HRT and they still give blood, So Trans or not hormones do not prevent Blood or Organ donation.

Can trans people even donate blood? Surely hormone treatments would rule them out as donors?

Remember, not all trans people are on any kind of hormone treatment

I don't think it's particularly helpful having a discussion about a US situation when this country has its own rules which at present adequately deal with this issue

Really?
The OP refers to the role that gender self-id law plays in this situation:

"However under US, Obama-era (2015), FDA rules your gender identity is self-identified and not subject to question."

The Westminster Government are currently consulting on proposed changes to to the GRA to allow self-id.

There will be implications that will not have been considered.

It seems very sensible to consider situations that have arisen in countries where gender self-id laws are already in place.

There will of course be other facors specific to the UK which will need to be considered as well.

Is it helpful to try to stop discussion about potential increased risks to donor blood / plasma?

No, TW are the highest possible risk group, higher than gay men, higher than injecting drug abusers, higher than prostitutes. There is no group more likely to have HIV.

Wow. Didn't know this, I am surprised.

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.

Well you would hope so really and I don't know what organisations/institutions are like in the US but it seems schools/prisons/all manner of institutions in the UK haven't seen fit to risk assess any of their policies relating to transgender people or self ID.

Pornstar August Ames was pretty much hounded to death for pointing out such health risks (and I don't think her tweets were unreasonable - she made some decent points. Didn't stop it disappearing down the memory hole sharpish though).

www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2018/02/august-ames-toxicology-report-late-porn-star-had-cocaine-other-d/amp/

Wanted to clarify. Blood is donated in the US. They are talking about selling plasma. It is a different, more time consuming process.

Also, what makes you think that the FDA hasn't adequately risk assessed this change? The rules for gay men have been hugely controversial and the gay community has lobbied hard for them to be changed, yet most developed countries have retained these specific rules. I think it's unlikely that they would change the rules for transgender individuals without being convinced that it will be safe.