Blood UK - greater inclusivity

[WomanInGrey]

Blood UK just sent me a newsletter saying From summer 2024, we’re becoming more inclusive. People registering to become a donor will also be asked for their sex assigned at birth, as well as currently being asked for their gender.

This fantastic news! It always worried me that young trans men might be giving blood more often than was safe, as they would be on the system as men (who can donate more often). I do wonder if that has happened, or other harm, over however many years they have just asked for gender.

Whole text here - https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/the-donor/latest-stories/updates-from-your-donation-sessions/

They should be asking for “birth registered sex”, shouldn’t they. That’s the wording the Cass report uses.

Sex is recorded at birth, not assigned.

That’s not being ‘more inclusive’, it’s being (almost) intelligent.
On what planet would something where sex is vital choose to use self proclaimed gender identity to specify male / female? And why are they using the term ‘sex assigned at birth’? Sex is determined at conception. When you are born, your sex just ‘is’. No one is assigning anything.

I also noticed, and disagreed with, the wording around sex assigned at birth. But in practice they’re making a big stride back towards recognising physical reality. Compared to that, the language is a nice to have.

Who cares they ‘gender’ is this relevant? They should surely be asking sex, and anything else that’s relevant to the blood in their veins.

I dont like the wording, as others have said, sex is determined at conception, it isnt 'assigned' by anyone

Plus why on earth havent they been asking for peoples sex

Its not a sign of being 'inclusive' what does that word even mean in this context? Why this word being used so often and so inaccurately?

Have I got this right - they were asking only for 'gender' (whatever that might mean) but now they're adding 'sex' to the registration form? So they'll potentially have both pieces of information.

And then they give reasons as to why sex, actual physical sex, is really, really important to blood donation.

I take this as an admission that they have previously been clinically negligent in asking only for 'gender', if that is what they were doing.

Oh dear, where could this lead?

Good that they are moving back towards reality, but infuriating to see the idiotic wording they are still using. And how weird that they are speaking of their change of policy in terms of 'inclusiveness' - as if that was the only value. It isn't about inclusivity at all. It's about accuracy and safety.

Mind you, as a donor I was once told by a nurse that my blood group was one of the more 'popular' groups. I asked the nurse what this meant: Were more people choosing to be O neg???!! He told me that had been instructed not to use the word 'common' since some people found it offensive to have their blood group described in this way.

Come, on blood people. Not everything is about validating people's feelings !!!!!

And I agree, it's not 'inclusive' at all. They've just caught on to a buzz word.

All of this makes me have zero confidence in our blood transfusion service.

They think sex is 'assigned at birth'?

They've got a long way to go.

I once raised this with a nurse when I was giving blood, he was very apologetic about the wording and agreed it wasn't great, potentially calling transmen too often to donate and presumably not offering transwomen the opportunity to donate platelets.

I'm pleased to see a bit more clarity even if I don't agree with 'assigned' statements.

I assume redefining ‘inclusive’ to include biological sex is their golden bridge, and I’m fine with that. I can’t see how it can hurt to collect gender identity as well as sex, and is probably helpful in terms of customer service and attracting / retaining some donors.

Surely sex is essential to know! I think I remember being told that pregnant women's blood is dangerous if given to men (open to being corrected here as that was a long time ago!)

But I also agree with @Rightsraptor , I worry about the potential harms that may have been going unnoticed while they only collected information on gender.

I’m not in a position to FOI Blood UK, as it requires my own personal details and it’s potentially risky for me in terms of employment. It would be interesting if someone did, though.

Maybe it's time for me to do my first ever FoI, @WomanInGrey.

How many scandals does one service need? They're still embroiled in the contaminated blood scandal and this could end up being one, too, albeit smaller most likely (thank god).

They knew something which was evidence-based yet they ignored it for ... what? Popularity?

I think they're trying to walk a tightrope. To get the information they need without pissing off trsoh. If they didn't use the mantras it's likely they'd kick off (bad), refuse to fill in the box (worse) or fill it in a way that satisfies their ideology eg. twaw therefore a tw would put their sex as female (much worse).

The gender box could be a sop to special feels or it could be important for screening blood that might have blockers or 'gender affirming' hormones. Although aren't you asked separately about medication?

That's a hilariously funny way of retrieving themselves from foolish, dangerous stupidity.

I think the wording is interesting because saying its inclusive kills any comment about being transphobic.

I don't like the wording, but it does illustrate a point about it trans activism wasn't so aggressive and toxic, they wouldn't need to word it like this.

I think these orgs are beginning to belatedly realise that TRSOH is liable to become TWSOH - as well as what should always have been obvious, the wrong side of scientific and safe clinical practice.

As a donor I am constantly impressed by just how intensely careful they are in most respects about collecting accurate and detailed information that is necessary both to ensure the integrity of the blood products and to protect donor safety.
That is what makes it so particularly surprising that they have been so apparently cavalier about ensuring the accuracy of their information around the sex of donors.
I can only imagine that they have other ways of tracking sex (for example as part of their routine testing of collected blood). But even that isn't enough to explain or excuse the absurdity of the policy that they are now backtracking on. In every other respect they adopt a belt and braces approach: Explict requests for accurate information plus screening tests of the blood collected. But in this one respect they have failed to ask for an immensely significant piece of info.

All the more absurd when you think of the info that you are again and again required to submit and resubmit about your sex life. As donors, we are placed under a very strict responsibility to provide accurate answers about personal matters, to avoid placing recipients at risk. And yet Blood UK feels that info about what sex you are has to be pussy footed around? It is like a bizarre dystopian slapstick comedy.

I objected to this some years ago by email & got a load of waffle in return.

Then I started crossing out Gender on the forms & writing Sex. It was only commented on once, by a nurse who rolled her eyes & said ‘Yes, I know.’

Last time I went to donate I noticed my form just had an F with no category. I’ll be interested to see what it has next time.

'gender' may matter, given that a transgender person may be taking medication that would contra indicate donating blood, surely? But yes, current 'gender' is irrelevant, I suppose that would be better covered by a question about medication.

Base it on sex; everything else is specious.

Good to see in some senses but more depressing evidence of how the medical profession beclowns itself in pandering to gender woo woo instead of following science and facts. Plus they actively put patients at risk with this nonsense.

'beclowns itself'
Wonderful expression.

Sorry if I'm not getting it but does 'more inclusive' mean they are including more people as donors who were not previously able to donate - i.e. are they broadening their eligibility criteria?

I think it means exactly the same as before but trying to collect medically vital information while not stirring up the trans activists.

Honestly, it's like the whole country is in an abusive relationship. Just ltb!