When I
go to donate blood this Monday, I’m going to be asked a question. Depending on
how I answer that question, I could be banned from donating blood—indefinitely.
It’s a
simple question really, with a “yes” or “no” answer, like all of the other questions
in the survey process. This question, however, is as overtly discriminatory as
it is easy to answer.
The fact
of the matter is: my eligibility as a blood donor, during a donation drought, should
not be so readily linked to my sexuality. What matters is whether or not I’m
a perfectly healthy male donor, not my sexual orientation. A straight male is
equally as capable of having engaged in sexually risky behavior (though
apparently it’s not as egregious), and yet the Stonewall-era stigma continues
to vilify homosexual men across the country over 30 years later.
While the social and medical
climate of the 70’s and 80’s might have merited such a ban for precautionary
purposes, this policy has become utterly obsolete in light of better blood
screening technology. Nevertheless, it remains today as a testament to our nation’s
physiological homophobia—a lawful urban legend that gays probably bleed a toxic
mixture of glitter and rainbows, not blood.
An
article on CNN.com yesterday shows that the future isn’t entirely dismal,
however. Confronted with a willing demographic and record-high blood shortages,
the American Red Cross and a group of 64
legislators have petitioned the Department of Health and Human Services to
begin a study to assess the modern validity of the ban. With some luck and some
logic, hopefully America will come to its senses.
I, for one, am tired of lying.
No comments:
Post a Comment