Interesting piece on Pink News this evening reporting on a vote at the Liberal Democrat Conference, taking the recent gay blood ban repeal further. Pink News reports that earlier this month, ministers announced that the lifetime ban would be scrapped and gay and bisexual men would be permitted to donate blood if they abstain from sex for 12 months. According to Pink News, members at the party’s conference in Birmingham agreed that the new 12-month deferral period is “a ban by any other name”.
Read the full story here.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Gay Blood Ban to be Further Repealed?
Posted by Chris Ashford on 20:55 in blood Law Liberal Democrats | Comments : 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
again with the 'Gay'. If it is 'gay and bisexual' can you say 'gay and bisexual'?
This is really important. Bisexual men get erased all the time.
Gay is short and snappy and political. But I hate 'Gay' politics!
It's not just your fault, Chris. Pink News et al always say 'Gay' as a catch all.
I got blocked from commenting on Paul Burston's 'gay and lesbian' time out column, for raising this same issue with him. At least you don't do that!
But really? why so Gay?
My take on this issue:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/blood-brothers/
I have just been shown the blood donor questionnaire for potential donors and it asks if you have:
a)been paid for sex in money or drugs in last 12 months
b)had sex with a man in the last 12 months who has sex with men
c)- if you are a man have you had sex with a man in the last 12 months
How this has been reduced to a 'gay' issue I do not know. Except I do. It's GAYist!
as a legal boffin I thought you may be interested in the details as opposed to the rhetoric of this issue.
sorry to spam your blog! I think this subject is really important.
Thanks Elly - you are right on this - and had I had more time, i would have flagged up the stuff in your final comment. There is lots I could have said about the blood ban but life is a bit crazy at the moment. I do not believe that any policy regarding blood donation should be guided by politics -it should be about health and risk. I am happy to be guided on health professionals and if their advice is a ban on bloody from those who have slept with men who have slept with men ever, or in the last year, I will go with that - although I expect appropriate evidence to be cited. As it is, I've not yet seen convincing evidence and therefore support the pragmatic step that has been made - and I do not currently join those calling for the removal of the new one year ban.
On the specifics of your point regarding 'gay', this was deliberate. The media refer to a 'gay blood ban' and that is how the issue has been termed by campaigners and activists. I agree with you on the specifics, and as I say, if I'd had time I would have picked them up on some of these issues but sometimes you have to sue to short-hand terms.
Of course, the same would not be true if this was a peer reviewed article or book chapter but that's why those things take me 12 months or more, and a blog post slightly less time ;-)
I don't accept your excuse Chris. I am a blogger too, and have also written peer review articles. But I never use 'gay' as short hand for anything. Except for the 'gayist' attitudes of gay campaigners/media.
It doesn't take long to write 'gay and bisexual' or 'men who have sex with men'.
It wasn't an excuse - you haven't read my comment properly.
As you indicated, to use 'bisexual' or 'men who have sex with men' would be equally inaccurate as the ban extends to straight women, so to now suggest that I use the terms is somewhat surprising!
you are just covering your back like lawyers do. My point stands.
It's not about silly arguments online it is about changing how you present 'law and sexuality' and whether or not you have a critical approach to law and sexuality.
Currently I think you have a critical approach to everything except 'Gay' sexuality and identity which you accept and promote as a homogenous Gay group.
Post a Comment