Talk:Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think the name MSM blood donor controversy should be switched to MSM tissue donors. First of all, the article deals more with describing the issue of blood/organ donation then it does any actual controversy over the practice. Secondly, the issue not restricted to blood... it's many different tissues that are restricted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe MSM donor controversy? "Tissue" includes blood only in the most technical sense, and blood donation is where most of the protests, lawsuits, etc... have taken place.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest renaming it to "Gay blood ban". This is the terminology I have heard most often, and it returns many more hits on Google: 8,000+ vs. 16. J. Smith, you bring up a good point and "MSM tissue ban" may be more technically precise, but I think we should defer to common usage. Queerudite (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say leave the title as is and create a redirect page for the Gay blood ban. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay refers to sexual preference/orientation, MSM refers to sexual activity. The American CDC classifies MSM's as MSM's to include people regardless of self-identification (including MSM's do not self-identify as gay). MSM is a legitimate government term with specific meaning, as long as the article itself explains to the casual reader what MSM means. IMHO. -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The title I tossed at it was simply a four word description, not an actual common use name. The policy says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." None of the sources I've used really give it a name, they just report what is happening, so I don't know that there is a common use name out there. I agree with cm80 that replacing MSM with gay is not accurate, but as J.S pointed out, "blood" isn't that accurate either. "MSM" is an acronym with multiple meanings, so avoiding it would be great, though it is the most accurate description. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm alone here, but I never heard of "gay blood ban" before this page. I was familiar with the CDC (I'm not sure how other countries refer to MSM) calling it MSM though. Blood donation guidelines in the US block you from donating if you have had male-male sex even once at any time since 1970something. Whether you identify as heterosexual,homosexual,bisexual,queer,gay,bi,whatever. If you can find a better name that applies to sexual history and not sexual identity or preference that could work. As to the other part of the problem (blood vs tissue) maybe something like MSM Blood and tissue donor ban would work ?? i dunno. (my 2 cents)-- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, as Bookeeper pointed out, whatver the consensus ends up being for the article name, a redirect could be set up from gay. --caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that MSM is more accurate, but I have never heard anyone refer to it as the "MSM blood ban". I have heard it frequently referred to as the "gay blood ban" or even simply the "blood ban". Google those phrases and you will see what I mean. Even just googling "blood ban" brings up mostly references to "gay blood ban". My understanding of WP:NAME is we should defer to common usage. At the very least, I think the name should include the phrase "blood ban" (again, even though tissue is more accurate).

If you look at similar controversies (e.g. MMR vaccine controversy) on wikipedia, a "short description" name rather than a common name is sometimes retained. WP:NPOV trumps WP:NC, and giving the article a "popular name" may be a concern when googling the exact expression "Gay blood ban" shows almost entirely sites that are against it. Some google searches:

Gay blood AIDS (350k results) shows only 2 of the top 10 results using the exact phrase "gay blood ban" (Using a third relevant keyword because looking for MSM blood without a third word will bring up a lot of garbage)
Gay blood AIDS -"gay blood ban" has 336k results, only 14k less than the keywords without the expression.
MSM blood AIDS shows 200k results (this page is #6, which is highly disturbing).

Just some food for thought. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's really my main prob with the phrase. Gay blood ban is POV-esque since it implies gays are banned because they are gay. Gays are not banned because they are gay, but because they have engaged in MSM activity. (of course if they weren't gay/bi, would they have engaged in MSM activity is a question but is beside the point lol). If a teenager is gay but hasn't had MSM sex yet, they are fully eligible to donate blood as they are not an "MSM". For those reasons I think the main article would be best NPOV placed at an "MSM" title, but with a "Gay" name redirecting to it. just my 2 cents.. i'm not gonna fight it to the death. :) -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- The above being said, gay blood ban would be perfect for a page advocating its lifting, or a gay news article protesting its existence. (however wikipedia is neither of those...) -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we completely removed the gay/MSM aspect from the title? What about tissue donation restrictions, or something similar? It would also permit for a wider scope to explore the issue further... including intravenous drug users, the tattooed, etc. It would also make the name much easier to find on a search-engine. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Transfusion transmitted infection is my plan for the general laundry list of "what the problems are, and how people deal with them." This specific controversy is notable in its own right since it's a conflict between avoiding discrimination and avoiding medical risk. The other restrictions are challenged solely on medical risk (enough donors vs. safe donors) and not on ethical grounds. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Citation

Citations #17 and #18 are identical. Suggest eliminating the latter and correcting body to reference only the former.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate categorization

I have removed the Discrimination template and the category "Discrimination" because it is not suitable per Wikipedia requirements. WP:CAT says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable", yet here we have only allegations of discrimination which are flatly denied by public health organizations who point to science for their basis. Certainly this is open to debate and good arguments can be made to support either view, but Wikipedia categorization requirements are clear: an article must unambiguously belong to a category before it can be added. Roccodrift (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it is clearly discrimination; the argument is about whether it is justifiable discrimination. - htonl (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia policy; it's not about any editor's opinion on whether blood donor screening practices constitute discrimination.

The issue is that the article can't be placed in Category:Discrimination when the contents do not support that placement.

Again, WP:CAT is very clear: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." There is nothing in this article that makes it clear it should be in the category. Roccodrift (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We define discrimination as "the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category". In this case, it is a fact that people receive prejudicial treatment based on their membership in the category of "men who have sex with men". Now, that discrimination may or may not be justified by the science; that is the core of the dispute.

I mean, what would you want to see in the article to justify placement in the category? If content is added that says "such-and-such an organisation characterises the ban as discrimination", you'll say that's just their opinion and not a fact. But for any case of discrimination there will be people who deny that it's discrimination; that doesn't mean that Category:Discrimination should be empty. - htonl (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can find several sources that state that it is discrimination. All forms of discrimination are controversial and this is no different. Tell me what you need and I'm sure we will be able to find it. http://www.fightdiscrimination.eu/discrimination-in-europe/what-is-discrimination This site defines discrimination as clearly including exclusion of a group being able to do something another group is able to do. This is clearly what this article is about-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is still not clear enough. What's needed is coverage within the article to demonstrate that the article is relevant to the category. It is not sufficient for editors to opine that the article's subject is an example of discrimination; the article must clearly and verifiably show that it belongs in the category. Read WP:CAT for policy guidance on how this works. Roccodrift (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And again I ask, what kind of content within the article do you think would satisfy the requirement. Because I don't want to go off and find sources, add content and so on, only to have it dismissed as "opinion" or "POV". So, give me an example of what kind of content would meet your interpretation of WP:CAT? - htonl (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, if I add the following to the article:

The ban has been characterised as discriminatory by, amongst others, the American Medical Association,^[1] Senator Elizabeth Warren^[2], and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.^[3]

would you accept the categorisation? - htonl (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added] an American Medical Association quote which described the ban as discriminatory. The AMA is the largest physicians' association in the United States. This should establish the category "discrimination" as being appropriate. Thanks for requesting clarification. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Protests and boycotts section

I think the inclusion of the section is appropriate, IF it can be populated with sufficiently notable material. As it stands now, most of what is in the U.S. section fails to meet that threshold. "Blog swarms" and op-eds in college newspapers don't cut it. Events that are significant enough to attract legitimate media attention are needed. Editors contributing to this section need to beware of WP:SPIP and WP:ADVOCACY. Roccodrift (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, if anything the section needs expansion to show what impact the actions have had. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What to bold in the lead?

I know that the WP:MoS says that we should bold the title of the article in the lead, but that's not really so easy here because the title is not a common name, it's a short description. Going back to the move discussion at the top of the page, the only "name" that this has is "Gay Blood Ban" which is inaccurate and has some POV issues. I've reverted the added bolding since bolding MSM is inaccurate: we have an article on MSM, and this is not it. I chose this name following the basic idea of the MMR vaccine controversy article. Not sure how to address this, really, since we're sort of in WP:IAR territory when it comes to the name of the article, but once again I'll follow the lead of that other article in the short term, not sure if it's much of a fix. SDY (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

RESOLVED

Move to Gay male blood donor controversy per 3/4 participants. --RA (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MSM blood donor controversy → Gay male blood donor controversy – I suspect that few ordinary people are familiar with the abbreviation MSM. Having that abbreviation repeatedly used in the article also makes reading it difficult. While MSM is technically correct, gay male gets the point across just fine and it will be much easier to understand and read that way. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Support or similar. MSM is a researcher's initialism and hardly mainstream. The issue, however, is not confined to gay men but it is where the hysteria comes from. This was born out of the AIDS pandemic and has remained despite scientific evidence that it is mostly illogical. Insomesia (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose proposed title as inaccurate. "Men who have sex with men" does not equate to gay. What about bisexual men, for instance? I would support expanding the acronym though. 86.164.242.23 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Support proposed title, or something similar - I'm happy to go along with 86.164.242.23's suggestion. Anything which avoids the problem of having an acronym in the title which perilously few readers will search for or understand. bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose MSM is a more accurate term when referring to blood donation policies. If having an acronym is a problem then maybe we could rename it "Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy"...?

Also, Majority ≠ Consensus WP:NOT#DEM; that's why I changed it back to the original name, just until consensus can be reached (not majority). --Prcc27 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: Please don't move pages based on majority vote. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

About the last move

Probably best if someone undoes it. The move was done on the basis of a vote, despite a valid objection that the new title is misleading and/or flat out wrong and a counterproposal had some support. Someone needs to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. 24.16.0.80 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A sufficiently strong case that this title is "flat out wrong" was never made. Insensitive, sure, if bisexuals refuse the label of 'gay', but not wrong, since their synecdochal inclusion is very common. If you're objecting to the matter of gay identity, then I would argue that LGBT social movements are the key opposition to medical establishments' discriminatory policy, without which there would be no 'controversy'. Shrigley (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mostly it was ridiculous because it was done explicitly on the basis of a vote. Which is possibly just a poor explanation by the closing admin. I've attempted to fix the lead of the article so that the context of the new title is explained and the title isn't just dropped out of nowhere into a discussion of medical risks and research terminology. The article was originally written about the medical risks and research terminology, in an attempt to keep it out of the activist v. activist flamewars that make Wikipedia so toxic. 24.16.0.80 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I moved it back to what it originally was called. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sections to add

Countries that have reduced or removed restrictions (I saw something about Russia, don't have a reliable source).
History of non-US proposals to drop requirements.
I believe I saw an EU decision that the ban was "justified discrimination" but I'm not putting that in without a clear cite.
Other high-risk groups that are not restricted (African-American women?), need CDC or other authoritative cites.
Other examples of protests, lawsuits, boycotts, letter writing campaigns, et cetera.

I'll get around to these eventually, but if anyone else wants to pitch in, go for it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about "Other high-risk activities with similar bans"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in context of other restrictions on blood donors may also be a worthwhile addition. The obvious example is the vCJD restrictions in the US, which exclude a substantial group of donors over a much smaller risk (I wouldn't be surprised if more people die each day from HIV than have ever died from a TSE). The most similar exclusions (injection drug users and prostitutes, #2 and #3 on the CDC list of high risk groups) are somewhat incendiary as comparisons and they would have to be added carefully (that cocaine users aren't restricted from donating and heroin users are is probably an important point). Appeals to ethical principles are great, and I'd love to see some opinions from noted bioethicists, but appeals to emotion are something I'd like to beat away with a very large stick. Once I get blood donation GA'ed (it's very close, or so I think), Transfusion transmitted infection is my next project, so I may not get to this for a bit.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But the thing about CJD is that there's no reliable blood test for it. The tests for HIV are now very sensitive very early. Assumptions that CJD-exposed donations are a much smaller risk than MSM donations are inappropriate, unless some source research actually backs up that statement.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with this is that "reliable test" is a bit of a red herring when zero risk (or as close as possible) is the objective. Most of the restrictions on blood donors are borderline paranoia, which has resulted in a relatively safe supply. There's been something like one or two suspected transmissions of vCJD in blood transfusions (i.e. someone who had vCJD gave blood and the recipient developed vCJD, but the recipient was already in a high risk area). HIV, well, many times more. MSM-related transfusion transmitted infection is hard to pin down, since aggressive controls on blood safety started soon after HIV was discovered. The vCJD restrictions hit like 5% of the blood donor pool in the US, which is substantial when the supply is always running at "almost not enough". Not sure that there is a source out there that directly compares the two risks, but they are both controversial. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Most MSM's who previously donated probably have not stopped, they just lie on their intake forms. Given the current rarity of HIV transmissions via transfusion, and the fact that CJD can take 30-50 years to incubate (which means there is a SEVERE lag-time in knowing the true transfusion infection rate), I'm still not convinced.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

20 years is the usual incubation time limit I've heard for vCJD, but it is quite long. Also, if they lie about it on the donor questionnaire, they'll probably lie about it during an investigation of possible donors. In my experience the blood bank generally just defers donors that were potentially involved in a TTI without any real investigation and the question might not even come up, though I have heard of one case where Idaho prosecuted someone that donated blood when they knew they were HIV positive (they have a law that goes above and beyond perjury). With something like one potential case per year of HIV transmission through transfusion in the US, there isn't much in the way of statistics. You'd have to look at the late 80's, I guess. To get back to the topic, though, the reason why I compare the two is that both criteria, like many donor restrictions, are extremely blunt measures that defer a substantial number of donors based on a theoretical risk. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the restrictions (at least in the U.K. the last time I saw them), apply to any M.S.M., even those who have only had protected sex. Salopian (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

South Africa

is it 5 years or six months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Italy

Italy is listed as a country with known restrictions, and more specifically a "Deferral based on a different definition of risk". I don't know what the editor meant, but since 2001, in Italy donors cannot be asked about their sexual orientation and the list of high-risk activities does not include homosexual intercourse. (Here's a source in English) Prolagus (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Forced Blood Donation?

One worry I think hasnt gotten much steam is insidious, rather than obvious: Many workplaces, in attempts to get a better PR stance, have "voluntary" blood drives, in which its basically understood you are to participate if you enjoy working there. Ive heard numerous complaints to this effect, though can't conjure up the right words to get google to churn out any results. In these situations, MSM community would basically be forced to out themselves if they wish to avoid the under-the-table punishment in refusing such activities. And that bothers me immensely.

I am willing to entertain that i might be grossly confused on the issue, so Im reluctant to simply add the section myself. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Historically in the US, there was a system called "Confidential Unit Exclusion" (CUE, gotta be a three letter acronym!) to address this concern where the donor would simply leave a coded message through a choice of barcoded stickers not to use the blood donation, no reason asked or given. Most blood banks now just have a phone number that you can call anonymously, give them the number, and have them toss the unit. It's one of those things that's not always very well explained. People usually aren't too open about IV drug use, for example, so it's not an exclusively MSM thing. SDY (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Weasly words

In criticisms, the article says that 'critics claim' that the risk is equal uncited. Does anyone have any examples of such critics?2.219.16.251 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

When discussing how msm are the leaders of hiv/aids, it is a proven fact that african americans are the leaders to spreading the disease. http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm (Once again is Wikipedia inaccurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.202.59 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention in the controversy setion of a fundamental objection to these restrictions. That being that the restriction is defined by making an assumption about behaviour based exclusively on the fact that an individual has at least once practiced male-male sexual intercourse. Male-male sexual intercourse using a condom where appropriate (eg during anal sex) is no more or less risky behaviour than the same behaviour in male-female sexual intercourse. And in fact is significantly less risky than most forms of male-female sexual intercourse without a condom. Thus the restriction carries an implicit assumption of unprotected sexual behaviour between 2 males. This assumption is completely indefensible. Particularly because condom useage, per individual sexual act, in male-male environments is vastly higher than in male-female environments. It also contains an implicit assumption that, simply because this is a male-male sexual environment, that the level of promiscuity is higher bringing about the exposure required for transmittal outside of "partner-pairs". This is a clear cut case of applying a generalised notional characteristic of a group, explicitly to every member of that group... the very definition of Discrimination.

At best, the only defensible approach to such a restriction should not be a question like "Have you had any male-male sexual contact since date x", but a question like "Have you had any unprotected sexual contact since date x" ... ie not specific to male-male nor male-female, but specific to the high risk behaviour of unprotected sex. Better yet, be more enumerative in the high risk behaviour categories, such as "unprotected anal sexual contact", again, the sexes of the partners involved is irrelevant to the risk factor. Further, assessment of the level of promiscuity can be included, as this is also a factor is risk profile. Example, it is far more likely that a highly promiscuous heterosexual male that regularly conducts unprotected anal sex with female partners will be a source of HIV/Hep infection than an predominantly monogamous homosexual male - whether or not the homosexual male takes part in unprotected or protected anal sex, insertive or receptive. There is a spectrum here of risk, but all are lower (some significantly so) than the heterosexual example - yet most of these restrictions do nothing to eliminate the former, but invariably eliminate the latter. Similarly, an average, sexually active heterosexual male (but not "promiscuous" however that may be defined) who has vaginal sex with a relatively small number of females over a period of time, usually unprotected (eg reliant on birth control only), is still noticably higher risk than an exclusively monogamous homosexual who usually use condom protection. Again, the former is not excluded the latter is.

Naturally, the converse is also true - a highly promiscuous homosexual male that regularly has unprotected, receptive anal sex, would be in a much higher risk category than an exclusively monogamous, heterosexual couple that usually uses condom protection. Here the discriminatory restrictions work. But this is the only example, and the "high risk behaviour" questioning criteria will also eliminate the homosexual example, perhaps more effectively. Colin a jones (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any references easily available that state that it is discriminatory or unethical (not to be confused with simply "unfair"). For the purposes of this article, it would be great if we could find some authoritative sources that support those conclusions, particularly legal and academic sources (i.e. not directly from activist groups). Finding a cite for the EU/Finland ruling that it was not discriminatory would also be great. I know that Russia made some changes to their policy for MSM blood donations, but haven't been able to find a reasonable source to add it. This link mentions that Australia changed from a lifetime deferral to a one year deferral, and some information on the thought process used for that change would also be helpful.

On the other hand, many governments and blood collecting organizations have retained the policy, and a little more documentation on their logic would also be helpful. I'm a little leery of getting too involved in this beyond basic statements of fact, since I do have a potential conflict of interest. SDY (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Colin -- Your statement: " Male-male sexual intercourse using a condom where appropriate (eg during anal sex) is no more or less risky behaviour than the same behaviour in male-female sexual intercourse." Is not correct. For the following reasons:

The FDA bases its MSM policy on simple math. "Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence … 60 times higher than the general population," SEE: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
Because of this drastically higher prevalence -- it is statistically MUCH more dangerous to have protected anal sex with a man than with a woman. Because men who have sex with men are MUCH more likely to have HIV than women. A condom *reduces* ones chance of getting HIV -- just like it *reduces* the chance of pregnancy (15% of women using condoms get pregnant each year). There is no such thing as safe sex ... only safer sex.
And who you sleep with is MUCH more important than whether you wear a condom. "Use of condoms reduces your risk by a factor of 10, sleeping only with people who test negative reduces it by a factor of 5 to 50, but avoiding high-risk partners reduces it by a factor of 5,000. (You'd also be well advised to avoid high-risk behavior, such as unprotected receptive anal sex.) Asking for a resume may not be romantic, but it beats Kaposi's sarcoma." SEE: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex
Also, your original statement tries to equate protected anal sex between men with protected male-female intercourse. Receptive anal sex is MUCH, MUCH more dangerous than insertive (or receptive) penis-vagina sex. Now don't get me wrong -- I don't think that male-male anal sex is any less valid a sex act than female-male intercourse. But comparing the *risk* is like comparing hang-gliding to a Sunday drive in a Volvo. Hoping To Help (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is not being kept up to date

Sections that list policies, controversies, etc. that change over time leave the impression that the most current entry is still current.

Readers should assume anything more than a year or two old may be out of date. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A source to add to the article

This article in the American Journal of Bioethics includes a lot of very useful history and facts - it compares the MSM deferral to the deferral of Haitians, gives better explanations on some of the justifications for the changes, talks about the nature of risk, and so on. It doesn't talk about ALARA in some of the evaluation of risk, and it is an advocacy piece and intentionally represents one side, but it also has a lot of historical information that would really benefit the Wikipedia article. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Galarneau, C. (2010). "Blood Donation, Deferral, and Discrimination: FDA Donor Deferral Policy for Men Who Have Sex with Men". The American Journal of Bioethics. 10 (2): 29–39. doi:10.1080/15265160903487619. PMID 20131170.

It sounds interesting. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Updating Russian MSM blood ban status

The Russian government is planning to defer MSM from giving blood but has not yet put this policy into effect. Is there any way to change the chart to reflect this? Mataki (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mataki: Do you have a source for this..? --Prcc27 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A heavily used source in this article

The first source used in the article, which is referred to repeatedly, is from Adelante magazine. I'm looking at their website specifically the article archive and I don't see a December 2012 article that covers this topic. It seems like the right kind of material for the magazine, as here's another article on HIV from December 2011 though it doesn't address blood donation. Can anyone confirm that the article we are referencing exists? It seems likely another source could be found for some of the claims, as they aren't unusual statements. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy#HIV.2FAIDS

I think this section should be reviewed for due weight and context. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 I see what you mean. I made changes to present the what the sources say and to disconnect bits of information which are presented together without drawing a conclusion. The sources themselves make conclusions that MSM and black communities are high risk and a low percentage of the population and therefore need special attention. It is quite fair to say that, and anyone can add content to that effect, but it needs to be done in a straightforward way and with use of sources. It shows respect to minority populations to be forthcoming with the facts, and the text seemed to not be doing that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe statistics from this decade would be helpful? We cite 2005, and 2009. Would it also make sense to note if the trending has changed since 1980s? Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 This would be useful to add if you find a source which presents multi-year information in this way. Otherwise, my opinion is that this would not be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

bias

I was looking for the medical reasons for this policy and found this to be very biased in favor of lifting the ban. Both sides should be presented, not just one. And you can't call me a homophobe because I am one of you. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Kindly substantiate the claims and give examples. Some topics naturally do have evidence primarily in favor of one conclusion over the other, and that either conclusion is not as valid is not a bias. One way to make the article *seem* less biased would be to include more thorough consequences of the no-deferral policies. With present state of affairs, there is little signifciant medical support for deferral periods longer than 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. lorenz (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Claim missing in reference

The introduction reads, "However, there is a small percentage of the population at 3% who still will not test positive after 3 months with serology testing.". The supposed reference for this statement is San Francisco AIDS Foundation homepage where no such figure can be found. In fact, there is a contradictory figure: "12 weeks (3 months) after infection, about 98% of people will have enough antibodies to test positive.". Nowhere in literature have I seen anything akin even to 1% not yet testing positive a year after infection. I move that this sentence is cut unless an alternative reference can be provided. (and even then, it is highly questionable). Perhaps the statement was not meant for HIV however. E.g. for Hepatitis C from CDC's homepage, up to 3% may no have seroconverted after 6 months. We could replace the HIV figure with this one, but then the introduction has to be rewritten to discuss HCV. C. lorenz (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it more carefully, the source for the CDC claim seems to one of several epidemiological books with almost literally the same statement. These books in turn however reference Alter MJ et al. 1991 or 1992 - neither of which supports the claim. The most common one here being, Serum Hepatitis C Virus Sequences in Posttransfusion Non-A, Non-B Hepatitis. I was not able to find any viable alternative source for such a tail estimate. C. lorenz (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://santiagotimes.cl/gays-and-lesbians-in-chile-now-allowed-to-donate-blood/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224145753/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Article issues - August 2017

Is there a reason why such a basic medical concept as the risk-benefit ratio is not mentioned in this lengthy article? Timeshift (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of the content that has sneaked its way in over time is/was truly deplorable. The following unreferenced opinion however took the cake: "In all of the cases of HIV positive donations associated with MSM after the 12-month deferral, the donors had lied about their medical history and would not have been eligible under either criterion". Is this article some old battleground that nobody can bother to monitor and update anymore? Timeshift (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, a neutral point of view means covering mainstream (widespread) and scientific points of view, not the covering of any and every point of view. And I realise it's been discussed previously but the article name/title of "Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy" is a needless contortion to the point where it shouldn't satisfy anyone. My two objections are: a) clearly unnecessarily clunky and unwieldy, and b) use of the word 'controversy'. An improvement off the top of my head is "MSM blood donation restrictions"... succinct and to the point, and far more encyclopedic. Just two of many wikipedia examples demonstrating widespread use of abbreviations: List of LGBT rights articles by region and Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Imagine if the articles were called "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights articles by region"/"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in <country>" and "Epidemiology of Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome". This article's name/title could (and should) use MSM and then provide 'men who have sex with men (MSM)' in full in this article's first sentence with the blue link to that article. I used blood donation over blood donor as it is commonly referred to as blood donation, but not a major issue. Then replace the subjective and needlessly combative 'controversy' with the objective and clear in-context "restrictions". The use of 'controversy' and previous in-article use of 'opponents' is/was needlessly inflammatory and only increases animosity and breeds contempt. It seems too often nowadays, instead of promoting civil debates on valid issues, it seems more and more that the immediate go-to is to turn it in to a negative us-vs-them lowest-denominator polarisation, either in order to subjugate, or through the mis-held belief that debates on issues can only be such if it is referred to in a prism of opponents, argue and controversy. The tone and therefore quality of a debate/article is so much more improved by simple changes in perspective. Instead of 'opponents', use 'advocates of change' or 'advocates of the status quo'. Instead of '<x> argues', use '<x> asserts'. Instead of controversy, in this case, use restrictions. Not only is it moving from a subjective inflammatory accusation/reflection to an objective inert term that is actually clear. We are not the media, we are an encyclopedia - the use of words like opponents, argue and controversy is/was, if nothing else i've already said, just plain lazy. We can be, and when we want to, are, better than that. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeshift, this article isn't that active. You can ask at WP:LGBT for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but no, I don't want to potentially be seen as canvassing (ugh, normally i'm not wp:that sort of contributor). This talk section is, in the main, intended for those who have an edit history with this article - so my edits to article/talk will appear in their watchlist, assuming they are regulars and use it. There are 63 watchers and has a daily view average of 315. Considering what the UK has done/is doing at present and the inevitable subsequent ramifications in other similar western democracies to come as a result, any lack of the article being "active" is without doubt fleeting. I might be bold and rename the article name after several days if there is no substantial/reasoned objection however... how the current article name can rest well with any editor is beyond me. I've laid out a solid para here on article talk and will wait - a satisfactory threshold IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeshift9, per WP:Canvassing, contacting one or more relevant WikiProjects is not a canvassing violation. I do it all the time, especially in the case of an article that does not have an active talk page. And when it comes to watchers of a talk page, that is not a reliable indicator of a talk page's activity because it's often the case that many of the editors are no longer active and/or that they accidentally watchlisted the article and don't care about it or care little about it. I didn't accidentally watchlist this talk page, but I haven't been heavily concerned about the article because, except for this minor tweak, I haven't been editing it and assessing any of its issues. The edit history of a talk page is a more reliable indicator of a talk page's active status than the article's watcher number.

As for renaming the article, WP:Common name needs to be kept in mind. I would oppose any move of the article that does not satisfy any of the WP:Article title policy rules. Since moving the article is likely to be contested, you should start a WP:Requested moves request instead.

I'll go ahead and contact the WP:LGBT about weighing in on this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree "MSM blood donation restrictions" would be an improvement, for the reasons Timeshift stated. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Or else "Blood donation restrictions for men who have sex with men" as suggested a few sections above.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Brainy J, thanks for commenting. Did you see my note at WP:LGBT? Anyway, the title should still be based on whatever the common name is, not on whatever we personally like. And it should still go through an official move request before any move happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

sentence in the lead

Studies have found, to varying extents, that the potential risk of transfusion of HIV infected blood would increase if MSM were allowed to donate blood.

This seems a bit vague, is it accurate, needed? I'm not sure. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A statement that scientific evidence exists which supports a ban on MSM blood donation is necessary for the lead. I made changes which I think give a clearer presentation of that argument. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy Intro

The intro is kind of misleading. The only country I can think of that banned gay males from donating blood is China (but they also banned gay females from donating blood as well). This is no longer the policy in China however. Furthermore, blood donation bans apply more to men who have sex with men than it does to gay people. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what your huge campaign has been over this MSM/gay debate and for the most part I'm fine with your changes however the VAST VAST VAST MAJORITY of those who are affected by this blood ban are gay men. Is there a technical difference between MSM and gay men. Barely. So if you want to keep the title MSM blood donor ban fine if you want to change most instances of gay men to MSM fine but you ignoring who is affected by these policies is against NPOV. Yes a few straight people will be affected but realistically how many straight men have sex (meaning oral or anal intercourse) with other men. Not many. How many gay men have sex with men (especially at least once in their life). Probably the vast majority. So please stop trying to act like the difference between MSM and gay men are that big. They are more than miniscule. In terms of statistics I can almost guarantee you the differences are microscopic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your claim is, bisexual males also have sex with other males and probably at a higher rate than straight males. MSM covers all men who have sex with men regardless of whether they are gay, straight, bi, or asexual. If anything, keeping it as is- goes against NPOV because it talks about how it affects gay people but puts less emphasize on bi, straight, and asexual males who have sex with other males. If anything, it should be more inclusive towards bisexual males since they are actually attracted to other males and likely to have sex with other males. "gay and bi male blood donor controversy" would have to be the title and every mention of "gay men" would have to also be accompanied by "bi men." Also, most of these bans (except china) were directed towards men who have sex with men. Otherwise; all gay males, gay females, and bisexual people would be banned from donating blood. The bans have more to do with sexual behavior than they do sexual attraction. It may not seem like a difference to you, but there is a significant difference. Regardless of how "minuscule" the difference is, changing "gay men" to "MSM" is more accurate by far; which is why it is important that we change how the article is written- so that it isn't misleading. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the msm blood ban doesn't affect all gay people; and not all people affected by the ban are gay --Prcc27 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem isn't that you are trying to make the article more accurate my problem is that you seem to be trying to deny that the motivations behind this are homophobic (and sure if you want biphobic and transphobic (what about transwomen who have sex with men)) stereotypes. Realistically how many straight people are affected? This is not an MSM issue. The blood banks are using that as an excuse its an LGBT issue. I would have been fine with LGBT people having replaced gay men but now Mr. Inclusive you have neglected transwomen who are also affected by the ban what are you going to do now? You can't chalk that up to trying to be clinically accurate. So stop denying this is an issue of discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that it is an issue of discrimination. I'm saying that it is an issue of discrimination based on sexual behavior not sexual attraction. There are currently no bans on women who have sex with women so I don't understand how it is an "LGBT issue" since gay females aren't denied the right to donate blood because the bans only apply to men who have sex with men. Also, straight men are affected. Whether they consent to having sex with another man or if they're raped. They would still be denied the right to donate blood. Also, I never said it wasn't a GBT issue. That's why I left intact the part of the article that says "Many LGBT organizations view the restrictions on donation as based on homophobia...They state the deferrals are based on stereotypes." Furthermore, you say this isn't an MSM issue when it is almost exclusively an MSM issue. Like I said before, discrimination is not occurring on the basis of sexual attraction but rather sexual behavior. Learn the difference please. Not all gay people have sex with men; and not all men who have sex with men are gay. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the term MSM has sometimes been applied to transgender individuals. [1] --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to ask, if the deferrals are an GLBT issue rather than an MSM issue (which you stated was the case); are female sex partners of men who have sex with men being deferred because the had sex with a gay person or because they had sex with a man who had sex with another man? Are these female sex partners of msm, most of them being straight (probably), experiencing homophobia? If the ban is exclusively because of homophobia, why are gay females who have sex with other females allowed to donate blood, but straight females who have sex with "gay" males deferred? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't only an MSM blood ban if it includes transwomen. I can't donate blood and I'm not a man. If you are going to argue that MSM is more inclusive than gay male blood ban than you obviously have to find a term that includes transwomen. Also arguing the difference is between sexual orientation and sexual behavior is important is like acting like you aren't discriminating against a religion because you give them the right to call themselves that but not to worship in their holy sanctuary. Its still discrimination and guess what its still discrimination against LGBT people (especially gay and bisexual men and trans women). So if you are going to argue for inclusion you better find an even better term because calling a transwoman a man is against Wikipedia policy.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But calling a transwoman a "gay male" is totally acceptable? And could you please provide a source that transwomen are deferred from donating blood if they have sex with a cisman? If there's no evidence that transwomen are deferred for this reason then I don't see how we can mention transwomen in this article anyways. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if transwomen are being excluded from the article it's definitely not my fault. Here's a quote from the article before I edited it: "They (restrictions) do not otherwise affect women." --Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two sources two that is according to wikis standards and one that isn't this is to show it is an issue.

http://transgenderequality.wordpress.com/2010/05/ http://transequality.org/Issues/health.html http://www.hhs.gov/ash/bloodsafety/advisorycommittee/publiccomment/national_center_transgender_equality_061110.pdf These are a good start to show you it is a problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources. It should be noted that transgender people are deferred by practice not by law. It seems as if this is a case-by-case issue and I wouldn't have a problem with the article mentioning how the MSM blood donor ban affects the transgender community. That being said, it still all comes down to MSM because the reason why transgender people are banned is because they are perceived as MSM. So the article could also state that the reason they are deferred is because they are considered to be MSM regardless of whether they actually are a man or not. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, lets compromise I will cease all discussion on MSM vs. Gay (which I didn't choose) vs. LGBT (which is what I prefer) if this article can be added to the homophobia category. This would allow us to still call it MSM while also addressing that homophobia is the reason why this is so controversial.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the homophobia category..? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I add to the bottom of the page a link to the homophobia category which for some reason I've having a hard time linking to on here right now.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated linking

I removed two links, blood donation, that are already linked in the lede. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT vs GLBT

Whilst "GLBT" might be used in some circles and even perhaps more common, it's completely unrecognised outside of America as far as I know - certainly here in the UK, it's usage is all but non-existent and would serve to generate confusion even amongst the well-informed. There's a reason the LGBT article is called LGBT and not GLBT, and why attempts to change it have never managed to gain any traction! The proper place for a discussion on resolving the issue of having two possible acronyms would be the LGBT talk page, not here.

As an American, I can confirm that GLBT is also completely unrecognized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.88.240 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy title

It was suggested a while back that the page be moved [2]. Though I don't think it was wise to move the page to Gay male blood donor controversy, I will move the page to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy to get rid of the acronym. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to but it didn't work. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless "gay male blood donor controversy" is the WP:Common name, I don't think that the article should be moved to that title, considering that MSM (men who have sex with men), those who may not identify as gay and/or may have sex with men infrequently, is stressed as an aspect of the donation. But if you are to pursue the article move, you should do it through WP:Requested moves, since the proposed article title has the possibility of being controversial.

~~On a side note: I added "title" to the heading above so that the heading is clearer as to what the discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)~~

There's a bit of confusion. The article was at "MSM...". There was a RM to "Gay male...", which I closed. There was a consensus in that discussion that the acronym was not desirable, so I performed the move. There was also a (probable) consensus that simply expanding the acronym may be a solution.

Prcc27 objected to the move and explicitly proposed to expand the acronym. I suggested he/she go ahead and move the page to Men who have sex with men.... He/she encountered some technical problem doing the move so I went ahead and did it just now.

If that title isn't good to all then I suggest opening another RM. --Tóraí (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that I misread Prcc27 above; I was sleepy at the time. Anyway, I've clearly struck through my above post. While I noted to Prcc27 before that I know that the term gay can be an umbrella term for all LGBT/non-heterosexual people, I still would have objected to the "gay" or "gay male" move, unless that is the WP:Common name. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Support expansion of "MSM" to "men who have sex with men" Anyone with other comments about the title should share them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think that MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom should have its acronym expanded too. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Title suggestion

Although this is a few months old, I immediately thought the title was unwieldy. Also not every "controversy" needs the word "controversy" in the title.

Would people be okay renaming simply to "Blood donation by men who have sex with men"? Or, if it's important to highlight the kind of topic covered, "Blood donation policy for men who have sex with men", or "Blood donation restrictions for men who have sex with men". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Not only is the title unwieldy, but it is not a controversy. The article even states that gays are 12 times more likely to have AIDS and HIV than straight people. That seems like clear reasoning to ban them from donating.HeinrichMueller (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I changed the title to "Blood donation restrictions on people with male sexual partners" to avoid blacklist restrictions. Paullb (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Paullb, regarding this, I requested that the article be moved back. Like I stated in the request, "Should be discussed first. 'MSM' is specifically about men who have sex with men, not simply people with male sexual partners. And the Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom article uses the 'MSM' title as well, although spelled out." After the article is moved back, you can start a WP:Requested moves discussion. We can work out a new name that way if "controversy" in the title is not best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert and discuss I am in favor of proposing a discussion by the usual process at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Blue Rasberry , It was discussed, and there were no desenting options so I did it. Let's start the page title change the way you want. The title I changed it to was perfectly fine too. As this isn't a controversy, the current title is inaccurate, so it needs to be fixed. Let's get the process started. (I'm not familiar with using that page to request changes, I'll happy let you start the ball rolling there). What title do you propose? Paullb (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Factual queries about article statements

A couple of article statements feel problematic:

"The MSM population in developed countries tends to have a relatively high prevalence of HIV/AIDS infection": The citation doesn't seem to contain a statement supporting this claim.

"In the United States in 2005, MSM, African Americans, and persons engaging in high-risk heterosexual behavior accounted for respectively 49%, 49%, and 32% of new HIV diagnoses"

This poorly chosen statistic tends to leave statistically naïve people actively misinformed. While the claim may be true (or at least verifiable) it will tend to be read by a Wikipedia reader as referring to percentages of new cases, or percentage risk of infection for an individual compared to the population as a whole. The bare statistic is meaningless. It doesn't mean anything by itself, really, it's a classic "scare factor" media statistic when used as we currently use it.
For example, it could mean that if we dug down, we'd find that:

Report/diagnosis rates are higher for these populations (more aware or careful?); or
African Americans/MSM could be more often under medical supervision or at ER for unrelated reasons, or more often in jobs where blood testing is required (hence higher rate of blood tests); or
Targeted MSM/AA campaigning has led to lowered report rates by non-MSM/AA's; or
The population of MSM/AA's compared to all other groups is small enough that this variation is less significant than might be thought (statistically speaking or practically); or
HIV rates between MSM/AA and the general population are similar within behavioral groups such as "monogamous persons", "non-monogamous persons", "highly non-monogamous persons", or "persons with other behaviors predisposing towards HIV", but MSM/AA have higher proportions of the higher risk groups (hence the actual behavior may be the significant variable not the sexual category); or
Persons identified as MSM may be more frequently asked to take an HIV test by a sexual partner than non-MSM (due to awareness among the MSM population, or due to awareness of the higher risks inherent in some sexual acts that are stereotypically believed common among MSM and uncommon among non-MSM, for example); or
These are expected proportions for these populations after correcting for known and potential issues, or if estimates of proportions were incorrect (for example if it happened that MSM were larger than believed due to reporting bias, and actually approached 50% of the population, then 50% of new cases would be completely expected); or
?

We have no idea what to make of this statistic really. A bare statistic like this is a very bad idea. The more likely useful statistic here is the new cases rate in each group compared to the general population, or the proportion of each group that are HIV+ compared to the general population. By itself this statistic unintentionally does little more than scare mongering with a dramatic number that really means nothing by itself.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}

I agree 100%. It is misleading and it is potentially OR/Synthesis. It has to go. It's like the person who wrote this article set out with a clear agenda to frame the issue in a certain anti-gay way, and went directly to primary data to prove his case. This should be brought up with a wikipedia committee, this is unacceptable in its current state, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.236 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

original research

The following paragraph is OR. It is from the HIV section and in the lead.

In many developed countries HIV is more prevalent among men who have sex with men (MSM) than among the general population.[3]

It is original research the way it is currently used, please find a different source which links AIDS to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.236 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The source cited is by Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. This seems like an unambiguous statement of fact. Do you doubt its accuracy, or can this be misinterpreted somehow? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Countries

I have eliminated the reference for the Portuguese situation, because the provided link was dead. I don't know either if the information regarding the current situation of Portugal regarding this matter is correct. Recently the President of the Instituto Português do Sangue has stated that homosexual sex between males was an exclusion factor for donating blood (link in Portuguese).

The above unsigned edit is given in history as 19:00, 3 May 2015‎ Januoaxe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,678 bytes) (-267)‎ . . (→‎List of Countries) (undo | thank)

Thank you, Januoaxe. I have now used your useful link to correct some of our misleading text.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229082212/http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/school-ends-blood-drives-in-protest-of-anti-gay-rules-1.582542 to http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/school-ends-blood-drives-in-protest-of-anti-gay-rules-1.582542

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is a better citation for Red Cross's reasoning available?

Nevertheless as of May 2016, the American Red Cross reports that the organization is not accepting blood donations from men who have sex with men, because putting the approved proposal into effect requires training and computer upgrades for which several months are needed.

Is there a better citation available for the reasoning here? Because the citation currently points to the eligibility guidelines but there is nothing on that page explaining *any* reasoning for the Red Cross's discrepancy from the Dec. 2015 FDA guidelines, let alone that it is due to "training and computer upgrades." 75.118.209.196 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. To quote the American Red Cross on the cited webpage: "It will take several months for the Red Cross to update computer systems, modify processes and procedures, train staff, and implement these changes which need to be made before donors affected by this change can be accepted for donation." It is under the heading "Lifestyle and Life Events" and the subheading "Donor Deferral for Men Who Have Had Sex With Men (MSM)". It is possible that the link went bad and was fixed after you pointed out that the webpage was missing the statement. 107.77.223.136 (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Generally speaking, there was a rough consensus here for a move. Colin M. eventually nuanced his initial opposition, and one of the "opposes" was based on that and nothing else. Combined with the other supports, I think it is fair to say that a consensus to move exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy → Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men – This is not a controversy and should be named accordingly. Once renamed, the article can be edited in that light. Paullb (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm doubtful of the claim that "this is not a controversy". For example, if I search nytimes.com for gay men donate blood, two of the first three results are "Orlando Shooting Renews Debate Over Limits on Gay Men Donating Blood" (2016), and "Gay Men Condemn Blood Ban as Biased" (2010). (The third article is about France lifting its ban, and quotes a government official as saying they were ending a "taboo and a form of discrimination".) Colin M (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin M._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a matter of semantics but a controversy is "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion". I think that it's as much a controversy as marriage equality is. The reality is that men who have sex with men are disciminated again in relation to donating blood and this article should reflect that reality and what the status are in each country. An alternative would be to split into two pages, one that dicsusses the "controversy" aspect and one that describes the current status in countries around the world. Paullb (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Move to Homosexual men blood donor controversy per WP:CONCISE, WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is needlessly verbose and pedantic. Yes, I understand the nuance that not all men who have sex with men are necessarily homosexuals, but a man having sex with another man is a homosexual act, and most people will understand the meaning of a simplified title. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree with that suggestion. This was precisely why the questions asked of blood donors have been phrased in terms of sexual activity rather than sexual preference. The responses to the question "are you a homosexual man?" can be quite different from the responses to the question "are you a man who has had sex with other men?" —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  - My initial reaction was strong opposition as well, but I was surprised to find that, looking at the article's current references, titles referring to 'gay men'/'homosexual men' outnumber those that use 'men who have sex with men' (or a similar phrase) by a pretty enormous margin. I clicked through to 5 randomly chosen sources, and only 1 used 'men who have sex with men' anywhere in the text of the article. So there's a WP:COMMONNAME argument here that can't be easily dismissed. One counter-argument is that high-quality, scholarly sources that cover this topic in depth are much more likely to use the MSM terminology, and we should weight them more heavily than the large number of news sources with relatively superficial coverage. I'm not usually a fan of this style of argument in move discussions, as it can lead to jargon-y titles. Another argument for MSM rather than gay/homosexual is via this line from WP:UCRN: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I find that argument more compelling, but it's still not a clear-cut case IMO. Colin M (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Support as proposed. Excellent title, excellent slight rescoping Red Slash 21:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Support. The nom is wrong. There clearly is controversy, not over whether there are blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men, but over whether such restrictions are justified. That said, the proposed title reads better. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Support – Agree with Srnec on both counts. Strongly support MSM terminology over "homosexual" per BarrelProof. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Homophobia category

WP:EVADE

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is the homophobia category really warranted? The FDA claims it's to keep the blood free from sexual diseases since there is research that seems to prove that LGBT have more sexual encounters raising their risk https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity. Also the sources claiming homophobia as the cause only loosely follow that claim as "perceived homophobia". Perception and opinions don't necessarily equal factuality. To remove bias that assumes and jumps to conclusions I suggest that category should be taken off the article. Moneyspender (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CARM? Really? If it was about number sexual encounters, they'd ask about that.

Regardless, reliable sources describe it as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To be more precise, they give their OPINION that homophobia is the reason. These statements go against WP:NOTOPINION and WP:Advocacy. The article should not be include on way sided opinion pieces or the personal opinions you have that WP:SUBSTANTIATE a conclusion that is based on a view they want to push instead of letting the source WP:MORALIZE. Remember WP:FAPO and so we should have factual evidence instead of just one magazine columnn written in a one sided manner. Also, according to WP:SUBSTANTIATE don't leave it there just because you agree with its opinion. I still say we should remove it for now until we have a few more sources backing up this claim. The burden of proof has not been reached. In edition, I would recommend that you re-read the reasons in the article for the ban again. It seems like scientific research and safety concerns are a much more innocent reason for it that. I don't sense any bias or hatred as the article claims. Moneyspender (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to be WP:BIASED. That it is their stance is okay; WP:NPOV says we must reflect that. These are WP:RS claiming this, not personal opinions. This topic is covered by the general topic of homophobia and discrimination as described by these reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hungary

Hungary has lifteme deferral for MSM. See this official deferral table: https://kimittud.atlatszo.hu/request/11200/response/16628/attach/5/V%2520rad%2520sra%2520val%2520alkalmass%2520g%2520felt%2520telei%2520DON%252001%252013.kiad%2520s%25202018.06.01.pe.pdf

The table is clearly indicates that the reason for the permanent deferral is this hungarian law: 3/2005 (3/2005. (II. 10.) EüM rendelet az emberi vér és vérkomponensek gyűjtésére, vizsgálatára, feldolgozására, tárolására és elosztására vonatkozó minőségi és biztonsági előírásokról, valamint ezek egyes technikai követelményeiről): https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=A0500003.EUM

The cited source for the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men is also incorrect for Hungary (and I suspect for other countries too :( ).

The map should be corrected accordingly.

84.225.193.91 (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hungary and MSM blood donation

Hungary has lifteme deferral for MSM. See this official deferral table: https://kimittud.atlatszo.hu/request/11200/response/16628/attach/5/V%2520rad%2520sra%2520val%2520alkalmass%2520g%2520felt%2520telei%2520DON%252001%252013.kiad%2520s%25202018.06.01.pe.pdf

The table is clearly indicates that the reason for the permanent deferral is this hungarian law: 3/2005 (3/2005. (II. 10.) EüM rendelet az emberi vér és vérkomponensek gyűjtésére, vizsgálatára, feldolgozására, tárolására és elosztására vonatkozó minőségi és biztonsági előírásokról, valamint ezek egyes technikai követelményeiről): https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=A0500003.EUM

The cited source for the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men is also incorrect for Hungary (and I suspect for other countries too :( ).

The map should be corrected accordingly.

84.225.193.91 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC) (Was on my talk page so relocating it here Paullb (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

Re: Countries' restrictions on blood donors

Has anyone been able to find information regarding blood donor restrictions for Algeria, Bulgari, South Africa, and Turkey? Please provide citations if you can find them. Thanks! R310C (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)R310C

US requirements

I think its normally 1 year but for a limited time only it was lowered to 3 months in order to increase blood supply and will likely go back to 1 year once the coronavirus pandemic is over — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.203.32 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

[1] ttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/american-medical-association-opposes-fda-ban-gay-men/story?id=19436366

[2] ttp://rt.com/usa/fda-gay-blood-donors-discriminatory-980/

[3] ttp://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/gay-men-are-still-barred-donating-blood

[1]

[2]

[3]