My scrap of dirt

"As AIDS activists stress, there are no "high-risk groups": only high-risk activities that anyone can engage in." (Power & Resistance 4th edition, by Les Samuelson, p.121)

Which sums up, in one sentence, why I think it's discriminatory and dangerous to screen gay men out of donating blood.

Looks like textbooks are still smarter than me. Dang!

California is still struggling to pass same-sex marriage: the Californian Senate sends a bill to the governor's desk for him to sign into law. This is the second time the legislature tries to pass a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, but the first time Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

I find it incredible that Republicans would whine about "activist judges" and then when a same-sex marriage bill is validated through the legislative system, therefore representing the view of the people that the aformentioned activist judges are apparently so little aware of, they veto it. WTF. I find Schwazenegger is overall more liberal than some of his Republican fellows, and I'm really hoping he doesn't veto this second bill. And it would be huge, if he doesn't - the first time same-sex marriage is legalized in the US through the legislative process.


In other LGBT-related news, despite the fact that the American Red Cross (unlike the French Red Cross - consistent policy what?) and other blood groups have been criticizing the policy that stops gay/bisexual men from donating blood, the FDA has reasserted it would not change the policy. This policy means that any man coming in to donate blood is asked if he's had sex, even just once, with another man since 1977.

This policy, as far as I can tell, is common amongst blood-donation groups across the Western hemipshere. I've talked about it with a number of friends but apparently I've never mentioned it here. I'll just copy-paste my thoughts on this from what I told rabidmaiden (who just learned about this policy and was consequently pissed off), since I was pretty articulate there.

It's something that I've always been very angry about, because to stop gay men from donating blood on the premise that "men who have sex with men" as a group are more at risk is, simply put, discriminatory. "Sexual contact with another man" does not mean you're more likely to have contracted HIV. Anal penetration is the risky practice, and while it's obvious that it's a common practice amongst men who have sex with men, it does not define sexual contact. A woman who's been anally penetrated is taking just as many risks as a man - if not more, because I wouldn't be surprised to hear condom use for anal sex is more common amongst gay men than amongst their straight peers.

The assumption that all gay men have anal sex and therefore should be banned from donating blood might seem harmless because it's a correct assumption in the majority of cases. However, like many assumptions, it has unwanted consequences on our perceptions, and in this case, it's very telling of the way we compartmentalize sexuality. It's dangerous not only because it ignores that the ACTUAL risk is anal sex and not "gay sex", but also because it perpetuates the belief that "having sex with other men" is somehow fundamentally different from straight sexual intercourse. Sexual behaviors doesn't abide by boundaries... and to believe that a sexual orientation is linked to a specific sexual behavior allows us to continue to make gay men (and gay people) different because of what we fantasize happens in their bedroom. Newsflash - you never know what someone does in the bedroom until he or she has taken you there.