(no subject)
Sep. 6th, 2008 03:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
commotiocordisYou know, I saw a Facebook group that really made me think. Still banning all men who have sex with men from donating blood is pretty darn discriminatory. Sure, there's the window of undetectability of the virus, but the window's the same in people who engage in heterosexual content.
Statistics:
Sure, there's some overlap there, naturally, but wouldn't it logically follow that perhaps banning all MSM isn't what we should be doing, especially when there's another demographic with an even higher prevelence rate? It's just another confirmation of what I've been saying--discrimination against homosexuals is the last accepted form of it. Can't ban all persons of African descent, we'd descend into race riots and screams of racism, but feel free to ban an entire group--gays can hide their sexuality, unlike skin color, so they're less likely to speak out when being oppressed. I'm not saying switch one for the other or anything like that, as the justification is there--they're banning those who admit to engaging in a specific activity, not those with a skin color they can't control, but statistically it appears to be no longer prudent. I'd like to see some figures as to the amount of blood that the Red Cross is losing out on due to the MSM ban to really crunch the numbers to weigh the exposure chance that they're allowing now with the current ban vs the slightly increased exposure chance + increased donations.
Statistics:
MSM (men who have sex with men) account for 45% of all HIV cases as of the end of 2003. [CDC/Kaiser Report]
Blacks made up about 47% of the total HIV-positive population and more than half of new HIV cases. [The Body, from Kaiser]
Sure, there's some overlap there, naturally, but wouldn't it logically follow that perhaps banning all MSM isn't what we should be doing, especially when there's another demographic with an even higher prevelence rate? It's just another confirmation of what I've been saying--discrimination against homosexuals is the last accepted form of it. Can't ban all persons of African descent, we'd descend into race riots and screams of racism, but feel free to ban an entire group--gays can hide their sexuality, unlike skin color, so they're less likely to speak out when being oppressed. I'm not saying switch one for the other or anything like that, as the justification is there--they're banning those who admit to engaging in a specific activity, not those with a skin color they can't control, but statistically it appears to be no longer prudent. I'd like to see some figures as to the amount of blood that the Red Cross is losing out on due to the MSM ban to really crunch the numbers to weigh the exposure chance that they're allowing now with the current ban vs the slightly increased exposure chance + increased donations.
