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.

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.

Thank you for clarifying.

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?

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?"

The issue I think is that people who can both give and receive (i.e. men, those people with penises) are much more likely both to receive and transmit HIV.

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/

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.

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!

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It makes no sense at all Ducking.

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

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

You have such a way with words Bowl

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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