So, now you can be rejected if you appear to be too effeminate; does that mean that women can be rejected for appearing to be too butch? After all, women have HIV too, don't they? Shouldn't acceptance or non-acceptance of a person's blood be based on tests, not their appearance? Seems to me that how a person looks is subjective; this man could just as easily go to another donation center and donate because the person taking the blood doesn't see him the same way. They don't appear to be using any type of objective criteria to determine whether the blood is good or not, and as badly as blood is needed, I should think they'd want to do everything they can to include people, not turn them away.
Article by January Alexander, 365gay.com
07.15.2011 6:14pm UTC
A man who “appeared to be a homosexual” was told he could not donate blood at an Indiana blood center.
Aaron Pace, a “noticeably effeminate” straight man told the Chicago Sun-Times, “it’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.”
Blood centers, including the American Red Cross, still cite a 30-year old rule that bars gay men from donating blood – a policy sparked by concerns about HIV.
Curt Ellis, former director of HIV public education group The Alliveness Project, said that “the policy is based on the stigma associated with HIV that existed early on… It seems like some stigmas will just never die.”
Today, they test all donated blood for HIV and other infectious diseases.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services voted not to recommend a change to the FDA policy that does not allow gay men to donate blood.
According to a spokesperson, the American Red Cross has recommended that the FDA modify the criteria for deferral.
