Gay and bisexual men have routinely been subjected to various forms of condemnation, prejudice, stereotyping, hate and physical brutality.
It is an uncomfortable truth that this unique constituency continues to endure varying degrees of intolerance and violent bigotry in an assortment of contexts.
There are a myriad of dogmatic, narrow-minded and parochial reasons why homosexual men have absorbed such a disadvantaged reputation in American culture, but it cannot be ignored that one of the principal reasons pertains to their identification with the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections through blood donations.
UF’s LGBT Concerns Committee is on record for staunchly espousing the dismissal of the Food and Drug Administration’s “umbrella ban on all gay men from giving the gift of [life].” The committee has lambasted the ban as “[dehumanizing] discrimination” fueled by “homosexism.” A representative from the LGBT committee has even taken the presumptuous liberty to be “ashamed for all of us.”
The LGBT’s portrayal of the FDA ban is attractive and inspiring, while simultaneously being misleading and purposefully — otherwise, ignorantly — inaccurate.
The FDA policy is more correctly identified as a ban on men who have sex with men (MSM). The purpose of the MSM question on prospective blood donor applications is two pronged. Its objective is to identify those who have engaged in behavior that has significantly increased their opportunity of contracting HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens and to exclude their blood from the blood-supply system.
Sure, it may be tempting to label the FDA ban as a donor-screening scheme to prevent some from giving blood “for no other reason than for being gay,” as the LGBT committee has erroneously concluded.
But categorizing a man on the basis of whether he has had sex with another man is distinctive from categorizing him on the basis of his orientation.
The first classification considers behavior, and the second classification considers identity.
The mere act of having sex with another man does not necessitate that a man self-identifies as a homosexual.
Applying the same logic, some men who identify themselves as gay or bisexual may not have necessarily had sex with another man.
Based on data extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Greta Bauer detected that 7 percent of men had at least one episode of sex with another man since age 17, but of those only 44 percent self-identified as gay or bisexual, whereas 49 percent identified themselves as heterosexual. Therefore, the FDA’s MSM classification is demonstratively heterogeneous. A self-identifying straight male who had one event of sex with another male in the distant past and a male with a long-term actively gay lifestyle would both be captured under the MSM category.
To stymie the UF LGBT Concerns Committee’s allegation that there is no substance behind the FDA’s MSM policy, much of the following was discerned from a superior court judge’s meticulously inquired judicial opinion in Canadian Blood Services v. Freeman, a cohort study conducted by a team of doctors and noted behavioral science surveys.
The very nature of homosexual intercourse makes those who engage in such behavior extremely vulnerable to infection. It has been evidenced that HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens are more easily transmitted by anal sex than by vaginal sex.
According to a 2007 survey, MSM were responsible for 69 percent of total AIDS cases reported to date.
In the 2002 Ontario Men’s Survey, over 5,000 self-indentified gay and bisexual men were asked to provide a saliva sample, but 72 percent participated. Of them, 10 percent were HIV positive, and 27 percent were not even cognizant of their infection. In addition, 27 percent reported having 10 or more sexual partners within the last 12 months.
William Cameron, an infectious disease expert, opined that despite stringent quality control mechanisms, less than 5 percent of viral infections are recognized.
In light of such alarming uncertainty, is it unreasonable to maintain a precautionary policy of caution so as not to expose blood recipients to such uncharted risks?
Even the Canadian courts, which have championed the civil liberties of the homosexual community with endowments such as the right to marry, have re-emphasized the absolute need for a ban on blood donations from MSM.
Because the risk of transmitting an infection through sexual activity is dependent on the specific type of sexual contact, the prevalence of the illness in the specific pool of partners, and the promiscuity of the respective pool, the FDA’s ban on MSM blood donors is fair, non-discriminatory and wholly warranted.
We indict our government as being carelessly irresponsible for not providing a sufficiently protective apparatus to safeguard our economy, while we simultaneously criticize them for being too prudent and restrictive when it comes to protecting the integrity of something as delicate as our nation’s blood supply.
I am proud at least one government agency has taken such painstaking precautionary measures. The only party who should be ashamed is the UF LGBT Concerns Committee for deliberately misrepresenting an important and necessary protection for the sake of propagandizing its own special interest and political agenda.
