Identifying as female to sell blood

[TurfClub]

This is a complaint by 'Nicole Throckmorton aka Nicholas Throckmorton'.

outinsa.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018.09.19-Throckmorton-Nicole-FS-Corr-to-Alex-Lopez.pdf

Under US rules MEN (and only men) who have had sex with men in the last 12 months are not allowed to sell blood (no giving there, lol).

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

So if you have received anal sex every night in the last year with a different bloke off Grindr, but you want to sell blood then you can do so, providing you say you are a woman.

Again it doesn't matter if you ARE a woman, because self-id. In fact 'woman' is literally a meaningless term.

The risky behaviour is receptive anal sex, which has a transmission rate 100x higher than say, vaginal sex, with the result that MSM have a 50% chance of getting HIV in the US.

But if you identify as a woman then that identical behaviour is no longer risky.

So the FDA is happy to give everyone HIV at the altar of self-ID.

Hallelujah!

There is nothing we can't sacrifice to self-ID.

Thanks!

It's the same in the UK. They process / accept your blood donation based on whatever gender you identify as.
I just noticed that the back of my donation questionnaire and my online account say gender. If my sex is female but I don't have a gender, what should I say is my gender? If I phone up can they just change it to none? When I registered I must have assumed they meant sex.

They definitely do it on identity — I know somebody FtM (but only socially) who couldn't donate because their iron levels were too low for the male scale, but would have been fine on the female one.

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

Providing a detailed medical history when donating blood could be more important than we know - and not just when it comes to screening for disease

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. But no one knows why.

While the study shows a correlation, it doesn't explain why blood from previously pregnant women would have such an effect. The researchers do hypothesise that there could be a "possible mechanism based on immunologic changes occurring during pregnancy"

Geez. That is insane thinking.

We might expect that some people lie to be deliberately harmful to other people (and do people get punished if found to have deliberately lied when giving blood?), but this is a whole new way of allowing people to do harm and yet to deceive themselves and the woke that they are not being harmful at all, when right thinking people know that they are.

The madness of this hurts :(

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. However, the FDA document that you linked to says:

"Defer for 12 months from the most recent contact a female who has had sex during the past 12 months with a man who has had sex with another man in the past 12 months." Which seems reasonable to me.

Defer for 12 months from the most recent contact a female who has had sex during the past 12 months with a man who has had sex with another man in the past 12 months." Which seems reasonable to me.

But if you have sex exclusively with TW then you have the same risk as if you have sex with men.

And you're not covered by that.

But rallybadidea when you allow the intelletual lie, the distortion of logic and reason, quite plainly as we know see, one encourages some people to think that

rules don't matter
or rules are arbitrary
or the rules don't apply to me
i can make my own rules

When nothing even science-based rules have a rational, reasonable, objective, quantifiable basis you end up with anarchy.

I can see even more clearly now why we have a small c conservative backlash to this liberal extremism. I am so out of touch with the USA.

I am starting to think that some religions have been less harmful to women that this trans ideology. They might have shamed us, controlled us, made us possessions, beaten us raped us, but they didn't try to erase us and replace us like this.

But then if they had the technology we have now at the height of their powers, they might have gone the same way. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss :(

But if you have sex exclusively with TW then you have the same risk as if you have sex with men.

The reason that there are specific rules for men who have sex with other men, is not only because HIV is transmitted more easily through anal sex, but also because this group of individuals has a much higher incidence of HIV than the general population. Your point is correct if TW also have a similarly high incidence of HIV. Do they?

By this group I mean gay men.

"Your point is correct if TW also have a similarly high incidence of HIV. Do they?"

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.

www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/key-affected-populations/transgender

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Don't they test the blood anyway?

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.

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.

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 !