DURING the HIV/AIDS epidemic, commonly known as “The gay plague” in the 1980s, a ban was, in the year 1983, put in place to bar homosexual and bisexual men from donating blood.
One can say that this was a good measure at the time, given the unreliable HIV tests which were then available. Since then, our technology has drastically improved, and we now have an almost 100% success rate at identifying HIV in blood.
However, while we might have become more technologically advanced, restrictions on blood donation continue to vary from country to country. Many countries still uphold lifetime blood donation bans for men who have sex with men. Canada, the US, and the UK have all since shelved this lifetime ban in preference of a one-year ban.

CHANGING POLICIES
While the world seems to be changing its policies with regard to receiving blood donations from persons belonging to the LGBT community, here in Guyana, we seem to be broadening the ban. With the possible exception of trans-gender persons, no one belonging to the LBGT community can donate blood. This is besides the fact that there exists no corresponding bans on lesbian and bisexual women.

Despite statistical data proving that women who have sex with women have a lower risk of HIV contraction, even moreso than heterosexual persons, a blanket policy for an entire community was still put in place. This shows how discrimination rears its head even in the most well-meaning of policies.

I had to face this blatant form of discrimination just a few days ago. Given the ability of my blood type to be accepted by all other blood types, when a friend told me about the “Survivor Foundation & Storm Talent Agency” blood drive on Saturday, I decided I would go to donate.
To be honest, I was kind of excited about the whole thing; there is something about knowing that your blood will possibly be used to save the life of someone that has you feeling all kinds of good.
So, I endured and answered all the personal questions; and we were going along fine, until I was asked about my sexuality. As soon as I related that I was bisexual, the information session came to an end. I was told that due to my sexual identity, I would not be allowed to donate blood. Asked for an explanation as to why, she said it was just a policy they had, as there is the belief that persons of the LGBT community are more promiscuous. As such, we are high-risk candidates for blood donation.

LAUGHABLE
The asininity of the ‘policy’ made me laugh; because, truly, its ineffectiveness is humorous. The fact that I could easily pass as heterosexual, and could have easily donated blood had I lied, as many persons would have, and will continue to do, was not lost on me. It made me wonder whether such a rule exists to protect, or to discriminate through administrative barriers, an already seriously marginalized group.

These policies completely ignore the fact that sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with individual status. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and the America’s Blood Centers have all concluded that the “anti-gay screening policy is ineffective, and should be discontinued.”

What should concern blood donation centres is not who one sleeps with, but the protective measures one employs. Not every homosexual is HIV-positive; similarly, every heterosexual is not HIV-positive.
Banning someone from donating possibly life-saving blood solely on the statistical data, or lack thereof, associated with their sexual orientation is very problematic. While persons can say this measure was born out of necessity, it was solidified in discrimination. Any blood that has been donated should always be rigorously tested before being transmitted to a patient in need. This is regardless of the donors’ sexuality, as HIV is not something intrinsic to the LGBT community, but something that runs across gender, sexuality, religion, class and ethnicity.
HIV, unlike people, does not discriminate, as in who carries it.