felis_ultharus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
felis_ultharus) wrote2008-01-09 06:15 pm
felis_ultharus) wrote2008-01-09 06:15 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Health Canada has decided to exclude gay men from donating organs. Here's a link. We cannot even give an organ to a friend or relative. This joins the ban on gay blood and gay sperm (the latter of which, frankly, smacks of eugenics).
The worst of it is that every self-loathing, hand-wringing gay conservative has come out of the woodwork defending the policy, on the grounds that gay men are the group most likely to have AIDS.
But for all that, putting human rights on the altar of pragmatism won't even make the blood supply safe. It's risky sexual activity that you should be screening for -- including risky heterosexual behaviour. The question that needs to be asked is, "Have you had penile sex without a condom in the last six months?"
That question will never be asked, though. It can't be asked, because if it were, the blood and organ supply would dry up.
It's the elephant in the room when it comes to sex, AIDS, blood, and organs. Most gay men I know practice safe sex even in monogamous relationships -- even when they've been together for years. No heterosexual woman I've ever discussed sex with did the same -- the ones I've talked to about this considered "safe sex" to be "with birth control." One woman I spoke to online said she'd rather die than question her husband's fidelity.
And that, my friends, is part of the reason why heterosexual women are the fastest-growing demographic.
Given the other option of trying to change the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals, Health Canada has chosen for the much easier route of a purely cosmetic change in policy that rehashes the old stereotype of gay men and AIDS. It gives the supply an appearance of safety, and if it demonizes a minority, then so be it.
It'll probably take another tainted blood scandal for us to realize that it isn't actually working.
The worst of it is that every self-loathing, hand-wringing gay conservative has come out of the woodwork defending the policy, on the grounds that gay men are the group most likely to have AIDS.
But for all that, putting human rights on the altar of pragmatism won't even make the blood supply safe. It's risky sexual activity that you should be screening for -- including risky heterosexual behaviour. The question that needs to be asked is, "Have you had penile sex without a condom in the last six months?"
That question will never be asked, though. It can't be asked, because if it were, the blood and organ supply would dry up.
It's the elephant in the room when it comes to sex, AIDS, blood, and organs. Most gay men I know practice safe sex even in monogamous relationships -- even when they've been together for years. No heterosexual woman I've ever discussed sex with did the same -- the ones I've talked to about this considered "safe sex" to be "with birth control." One woman I spoke to online said she'd rather die than question her husband's fidelity.
And that, my friends, is part of the reason why heterosexual women are the fastest-growing demographic.
Given the other option of trying to change the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals, Health Canada has chosen for the much easier route of a purely cosmetic change in policy that rehashes the old stereotype of gay men and AIDS. It gives the supply an appearance of safety, and if it demonizes a minority, then so be it.
It'll probably take another tainted blood scandal for us to realize that it isn't actually working.
no subject
Having said that, I'd be happy to accept blood from anyone who was screened and was safety conscious. It isn't of paramount importance to me whether the donor of the blood going into me prefers men or women. I need the blood to be clean, of my blood group and to be ready if/when I need it.
It horrifies me that in the 21st century we're still so cavalier in talking about homosexuality. To me that's a matter of very insidious discrimination, the more so because it masquerades as concern for the population while denigrating those men who prefer men. It's a matter of placing a blanket denial on all gay men's senses of responsibility - clearly no gay man is monogamous with a monogamous partner, celibate, or responsible. And worse it perpetuates the myth that all gay men are promiscuous - because if they weren't why would their bodily products be so unsafe they can't even be used in an emergency?
no subject
In general conversation, though, STDs just don't seem to be the same concern for my straight friends as they seem to be for my gay ones. And as my roommate points out, straight people he's talked to seem to consider an AIDS test a much bigger deal -- a straight male friend of mine who took it was worried he was going to die and was re-examining his life.
And thank -- I'm glad some people at least can see through the myth and illusion ^_^