Not a world first at all
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
121 points (97.6% liked)
Uplifting News
15603 readers
29 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I thought the same, since my city did away with the 3-month rule two years ago (there’s still a partner-limit/monogamy requirement last I checked).
Apparently what makes it a “world first” is not that they allow gay donors but that they lifted all sexual activity-based rules (for plasma specifically) which used to reject sex workers, women who slept with bi men recently, and others. The title is just a bit misleading.
Thank you! That always bugged the hell out of me.
Someone actually thought that gays fuck around with everything and everyone but heterosexuals? Naaahh, they would nevah!
Gay men are statistically more likely to contract HIV. Of course, it would be horribly irresponsible and negligent not to test donated blood/plasma for HIV in the first place, so yeah, kinda dumb.
Of course, I get the statistics part but statistically, heterosexuals still get diseases. Less or more doesn't matter, it's a non zero chance so you have to check everything, no matter the sexuality of the person.
Statistics actually say the rule is dumb because statistically heterosexuals still have cooties too.
So if you gotta check anyway, why reject homosexual blood? Afraid that you might suddenly get the urge to play with a cucumber?
(And with "you" I mean whoever made those rules)
As I said, kinda dumb. There's likely some homophobia that went into the decision.
From a purely economic view, though, there might be some justification? If the blood is batch tested, e.g. 10 samples are mixed and tested, excluding a group more likely to have a disease would mean you'd throw out less blood (or have less testing to do if you then test individual samples). I don't know enough about blood donation testing to say if that's a valid argument or not, though.
......why was that ban in effect to begin with? I can understand during the 80s, with the misunderstandings of AIDS.
Basically by 1992, this shouldn't have been a thing.
That’s the answer. It’s institutional homophobia left over from the AIDS epidemic.
I went to England for a few weeks in the 80s am I still banned?
I think that was lifted a while ago. Check woth the donation place, but pretty sure you should be good.