Within the last month, the FDA amended this policy. While at first this sounded like good news, in fact the amendment did little to change the existing policy. The new policy says that gay men can donate blood, but only if they have gone at least one year without having sexual contact with another male.
This has rightly been criticized both by gay rights activists and by medical professionals, and for good reason. First, discriminating now against sexually active gay men does nothing to keep the blood supply safe. When this policy was first enacted, we knew very little about AIDS (or what was originally called GRID -- Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease) or HIV. Because the virus first spread through gay communities, it became synonymous with gay men. However, with more than 30 years of study, we much better understand the virus and disease caused by the virus. While AIDS first spread through the gay community, it is spread through unprotected sex, direct transmission of bodily fluids, or use of infected needles. It does not discriminate based on sexuality, gender, or race. Spikes in rates of HIV infection have occurred among straight populations as well as gay populations.
To continue a policy which discriminates only against gay men ignores all of the information we have learned about HIV/AIDS. A monogamous gay man in a committed relationship is much less likely to contract HIV than a sexually promiscuous straight man. A straight woman in a relationship with a non-monogamous man is also much more likely to contract HIV even though she may be completely unaware that her partner is being promiscuous. Of course, because of this the blood supply is tested for HIV and for other blood borne illnesses such as hepatitis. This would be no different for blood donated by sexually active gay men.
In an NPR story about the FDA's decision, a member of the FDA in defending the decision said that nobody has the right to donate blood. And he is correct. However, if the FDA's purpose in continuing the ban on sexually active gay men is to help insure the safety of the nation's blood supply, the decision may end up having exactly the opposite result. That is because the one thing that it does guarantee is that the stigma faced by gay men will continue because of this policy.
Despite the amazing and groundbreaking advances that LGBTQ individuals have made in the United States in recent years in terms of civil rights, status, and acceptance, being gay in the United States still carries a stigma. LGBTQ people still suffer discrimination, harassment, and violence in large numbers. Open displays of affection, even minor ones such as a kiss or holding hands, often result in violence against gays. Transgender women and men especially suffer serious violence, especially trans women of color, of whom as many as 30 were murdered this year. Even absent violence, societal discrimination against gays still exists and in many ways is accepted in much of the United States. A majority of states do not have protections for LGBTQ individuals in housing, employment, or public accommodations.
This policy by the FDA adds to this stigma. It grows out of the paranoia of the early days of AIDS, when hospital wards were treated like we treat Ebola today. There was a tremendous fear of especially gay men as people in their ignorance believed AIDS could be spread by casual contact. Gay men were essentially ostracized from society, leading to radical activism by groups such as ACT-UP who rightly saw this as a fight for their lives, as the federal government was doing nothing to address the spread of the disease as it ravaged the gay community.
By continuing to ban the donation of blood by sexually active gay men, the FDA essentially says to the nation that gay men are still something to be feared, that we are not acceptable or normal in society, that it is ok to despise us, ostracize us, and discriminate against us. It perpetuates fear of gay men which leads to and justifies hate against us. It is this very fear along with all of the other societal pressures from family, church, and peers which causes gay men to remain in the closet. It is this stigma which causes closeted men to seek anonymous encounters on the sly rather than pursue healthy dating relationships. This policy inadvertently leads to the increase of the very risky behaviors which most easily spread HIV.
So, how do we get the FDA to change its policy. It will take the same radical action that led to changes in other policies on discrimination, marriage, adoption, and other civil rights for LGBTQ individuals. I imagine there are many who will hesitate about the idea of a boycott of blood donations, myself included. However, it is just this type of action, and probably only this type of action which is going to force the changes which are necessary. Fighting AIDS has always been a life or death issue for the gay community, until it becomes just as compelling issue for everyone else, especially those in the FDA making these decisions, it is unlikely that the new revised policy will change.
It is for this reason that I believe a national, vocal, and committed boycott of blood donation may be necessary in order to force the issue. I don't think it will take very long, and I wish there was some other way to bring to the forefront this issue, but a blood boycott seems to be the quickest and most effective way for change to occur.
It is time to end the stigma, break the closet, be loud, be proud. Our lives still depend on it. Act Up, Fight Back, Fight AIDS.
