It must give a person a truly remarkable feeling when they are able to give blood and potentially save another person’s life. I imagine that, despite feeling a bit dizzy and nauseous, there is a sense of pride that they could really be giving something back to the community. Of course, I wouldn’t know anything about it because, unfortunately, I am unable to give blood. Not because I have some rare genetic defect, or even because I have had a cold. I am not able to give blood simply because I am gay, or as the Give Blood website so eloquently states it; “men who have had sex with men”.

Obviously, I knew all this as old news, but beyond the HIV and AIDS issue, I have never totally understood their justification for it. With that in mind, I did a bit of reading on their website to try and understand the full scope of their reasoning. After all, they have a whole page set up to answer my queries. A statement which was issued in November 2011…

Deferral of Men who have Sex with Men from Blood Donation

The permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood has changed to a 12 month fixed period deferral from the latest relevant sexual contact following an evidence-based review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO).
Yup. I knew about that bit.

SaBTO is responsible for regularly reviewing the major criteria for accepting blood donors and for recommendations to the four UK Health Ministers on blood donation policy.
Well, that is good. Regular review is very good. Although I do have to wonder how regular this ‘review’ is, considering the last statement was issued in November 2011.

SaBTO completed a review of blood donor selection criteria related to sexual behaviour in May 2011. Following this review, and based on recommendations from SaBTO, Health Ministers in England, Scotland and Wales announced in September 2011 that the blood donor selection criterion for men who have sex with men in those countries would change.

Previously, men who had ever had oral or anal sex with another man, even if a condom was used, were permanently excluded from blood donation in the UK. The change means that only men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, are asked not to donate blood. Men whose last sexual contact with another man was more than 12 months ago are eligible to donate, subject to meeting the other donor selection criteria.

Again, I knew all this already. What I really want to know is WHY?

NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) implemented the change at blood donation sessions across England and North Wales on 7 November 2011. The Scottish and Welsh Blood Services also implemented the change on this date.

At blood donation sessions, all donors are asked to complete a questionnaire called the donor health check, to assess whether they meet the donor selection criteria. This is to ensure that the supply of blood to hospitals is as safe as possible.

Of course, safety is paramount and so it should be but this still doesn’t tell me how or why my blood is less ‘safe’ than anyone elses?

NHSBT welcomes the review and the resulting change as it is supported by the most up to date scientific evidence. SaBTO's review concluded that the safety of the blood supply would not be affected by the change and we would like to reassure patients receiving transfusions that the blood supply is as safe as it reasonably can be and amongst the safest in the world.
Well isn’t that kind. They are reassuring the patients that are, strangely looking at a page which is supposed to explain why I am exempt, in a complete panic that they might get ‘gay-blood’!

Clearly, any transmission would be one too many and the purpose of blood donor selection criteria, alongside other safety measures, is to minimise any potential harm to recipients of blood donations. All groups that are excluded or deferred from blood donation have been assessed as being at a statistically increased risk of carrying blood-borne viruses.

Finally, we get to the nitty-gritty. I have been assessed, without even knowing it, and I am a statistically a higher risk. Oh, I do love a statistic but how exactly? I have been in a committed relationship for just shy of 8 years and married for just under a year. I know people who have been in far shorter committed heterosexual relationships who are still allowed to give blood. Surely anybody that is single carries a higher likelihood of having sex with any number of people? Since I have been in a committed relationship I am statistically far more likely to be ‘safe’ am I not? So then, are they implying that, since I am a gay man, I am more likely to cheat or that my husband is more likely to cheat on me?

The change brings the criterion for men who have had sex with men in line with those for the majority of other groups that are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to the risks of infection associated with sexual behaviours. We appreciate that it can be disappointing for anyone who wishes to donate blood but is not able to meet the donor selection criteria. The criteria are based on complex assessments of risk and must by their nature be based on evidence and statistics that are recorded at a population level. Such an approach results in assessments of certain groups as being at a higher risk than others of carrying blood-borne infections and can make individuals that are deferred from donation feel they are being placed into a "category" even if they believe their own sexual behaviour and risk-taking would not be a risk to the blood supply.

So essentially, what they are implying here is that gay men are, en masse, a bunch of whores that are far more likely to sleep around unprotected, more so than heterosexual men for instance. Nice! Of course, I do know a few gay guys who do get their fair share of action but in all honesty, no more so than some of my straight friends, both male and female. In fact, I would say it is pretty well balanced on both sides when it comes to the number of people I know who are sexually active. Is there a rule that prevents a straight man who has had unprotected, or even protected, sex with a woman within the last 12 months from giving blood? Nope. Funny that. The last time I checked, blood viruses are pretty indiscriminate and will take host in both male and female bodies. The chances are just as likely that they could pick something up from a woman as they could another man surely?

Or, are they actually implying something far deeper here? Perhaps the organisation feels that a straight man that is sleeping around unprotected is far more unlikely to even want to give blood in the first place? Perhaps it is some kind of a backhanded compliment that the organisation feels gay men are more community-minded and more likely to put themselves out to help someone else and therefore more protections are needed? Ok, so I am probably getting way ahead of myself but you have to admit, the implications of what they are stating are very interesting.

Although some would prefer a system that assesses every individual's behaviour and level of risk rather than applying deferrals to groups, SaBTO's review concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to be able to determine the impact on blood safety of such a system. It is also not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk. Based on published data, the review also concluded that the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who may find the process intrusive. The Blood Services are therefore required to follow deferral rules that estimate the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour. We are sorry for any inadvertent offence this may cause.

So essentially they have made a broad sweeping (and quite frankly bullshit) generalisation. They have made this generalisation which is certainly offensive - I don’t appreciate being made to feel like some kind of slag – rather than ask someone a few more sensitive questions. They are concerned about losing donors because they may find the process more intrusive? What, more intrusive than having a needle stuck in your arm and blood extracted from your body? Surely, the sort of person that is giving blood is doing so because they want to help and certainly wouldn’t want to put anyone at risk and therefore would be more than prepared to be completely open and honest.

Quite frankly, if it is, “…not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk” why is it better to trust their honesty and their personal recollections and judgement on their sex life in the previous year. For that matter, why a year? Do HIV and Hepatitis disappear in a year? It certainly doesn't. This is the why they screen all of the blood given anyway and if they are screening all of the blood as a matter of course, what difference does it make if a gay man donates. THEY ARE GOING TO CHECK THE BLOOD ANYWAY!

Furthermore, the analysis of the published data has led to an estimate of the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour. An ESTIMATE! So essentially, an educated guess then? Does that not then imply that actually, all of the rules about who can give blood are based upon an estimate of statistical risk? It is hardly foolproof, is it? This tells me that they are admitting that there is no sure-fire way of knowing and that they are quite happy to take certain risks over others. This is people’s lives we are talking about here! If somebody needs a blood transfusion I’d say it is pretty likely that whatever has happened is damn serious, potentially life-threatening stuff and they are happy to supply blood that has been taken because an educated guess says it is safe to do so! Wow, don’t I feel safe in the hands of the NHS now. I don’t know about causing an inadvertent offence, I am bloody terrified!

In a world of smartphones, tablets and untold other ways of accessing information on the go freely and easily, you would imagine that I could find out about London Pride 2013 really simply or check the latest LGBT news whenever I would like. You would be wrong. I recently tried to access the official London Pride website the other using my iPad and was confronted with something that, although partially pink, certainly was not London Pride. Instead, I was redirected to a ‘Content Lock Page’.

One of the strongest images of gay men in popular culture is that of a rather effeminate, limp wristed and simply put, ‘camp’ man. The media certainly harnesses it and perpetuates that stereotype on a frequent basis to the point where many gay men get intensely angry about it. In the past, I have been disheartened and angered by yet another gay storyline in a TV show that fuels that stereotype. I've argued that it isn't truly representative of the diversity that exists and that it certainly doesn't help show the rest of the world a wide snapshot of the community. However, it does still raise some interesting thoughts.

I wouldn't call myself particularly camp. I have my moments I guess and they can very much depend on my mood or level of alcohol consumption. In particular situations, I become very camp and others less so. The thing is, it is never something I would say I am consciously doing. I am not intentionally behaving in a camp way, it just, well, happens.

I have been asked in the past, by straight friends, why gay men feel the need to start acting camp when they come out and to be honest, I can't really answer it. I am no psychoanalyst but I do have some thoughts on the matter. You have to remember that for many gay guys out there, they have spent many years trying to act 'straight' because of the social situation around them, especially if they are having a hard time with it all. They have been surrounded by homophobia or simply by the all-pervading heterosexual environment throughout their lives. For many people, conforming to whatever society tells them is a big thing. They are actually keeping part of themselves a secret for all that time but when that secret is over, bam, the queen is out so to speak. Over the years they may have behaved 'straight' to try and cover the deep routed feelings that they don't want anyone to find out. Eventually, they come to terms with it in themselves. When that happens, their personality can also change, after all, they are no longer spending so much energy on a facade that suppresses who they truly are.

Still, being my own devil's advocate and considering other thoughts, being camp is not necessarily a personality that is being suppressed and then released upon coming out. It may very well be that we adopt the ‘norms’ of a culture or a subculture as an expression of belonging to that group. For example, some guys might not be camp on a day to day basis but they may 'act' it in a given environment as a demonstration, consciously or otherwise, that they are part of that group. I’ve seen other cultural groups adopt a street patois with their friends and community which they wouldn’t use with their old school friends or other non-group friends. In other words, could ‘camping it up’ be just as unreal as ‘acting straight’? Then you can really throw a spanner in the works and consider the fact that some straight guys out there are also quite camp...

That isn't to say that all gay men have this kind of experience. Having met, dated (and now married to) a few guys (only married to one I hasten to add) I have found a very broad spectrum. I know guys who look very much the image of what society deems to be a straight guy when they are openly gay. My husband is a prime example. No one ever guesses that he is gay and when introducing him to new people I am quite used to hearing, "… well, I would never have known he was gay!" (the fact that I introduce him as my husband might have been the penny-drop moment?) It is quite often one of the first things people say the moment he is out of earshot.

Still, even if a guy does come out and almost instantly seems to be camper, whether it be a conscious choice, an act or the release of a suppressed personality; does it actually matter? I have heard people make comments like 'why have they gone all camp, it's totally fake' and 'there is no need to be like that' but I would argue that since we don't know what has led to them becoming camper, nor do we do know the ins and outs of their psychological profile, perhaps they are happier that way? It certainly isn't hurting anyone and ultimately, it is their own personal expression.

Returning to an earlier point, I appreciate that people take umbrage that the representation of a gay man nearly always tends to be that of a camp guy. It is, after all, a stereotype. But that stereotype has to come from somewhere. Stereotypes do not just appear because someone felt like inventing them. They happen because they exist, or they are amplified interpretations of a visible proportion of particular people. Think of all the other stereotypes you are aware of. They all come from somewhere. That's not to say everyone from that background fulfils the stereotype, but they have come about because many people do seem to fulfil that stereotype.

It seems to me that we are getting to a point, where even in the gay community, camp is becoming a no-no and it is becoming a minority in itself. You can see examples of it in gay chat rooms for instance. People actually request things like ‘…no effems!’. Of course, that all comes down to personal preference and the freedom of choice but to me, it is the oddest notion. To have gay people, chastising others for being too gay. It seems a rather sweeping generalisation to say, "ooh, I could never date one of those really camp guys". Really? That makes it sound like the camp aspect of their personality is the ONLY aspect. Come on guys! For a bunch of people who have been ostracised so much over the years, we need to remain open-minded.

So what is the harm in embracing camp? We need to be really careful that we don't start our own segregation because we are averse to camp people. This would be particularly ironic considering how many straight people have behaved towards gay people over the years. Camp people do exist and that is them, their personality and their life. They shouldn't be made to feel bad because of it.

If we are a rainbow, shouldn’t we embrace all the colours of the spectrum?

You may remember my blog a couple of years ago discussing the debate on 'pride' events. If you haven't read it, make the jump and go HERE now.
My feelings on the matter are clear, there is definitely a need for Pride events given that there are still roads to travel in the goal desire for equality. That word comes up a lot nowadays, 'equality', and I agree that an event that appears to give us a voice to scream "I am different" isn't exactly the best statement in advocating equality. Especially when it is only the most 'sensationalist' of us that is portrayed in the media - just to be clear, I don't think that these people are behaving in a sensationalist way but it is the media portraying us that way.

I also return to my feelings that actually, pride events are an opportunity to respectfully celebrate those who have spent their lives in a war in order to give us the freedom to declare our sexuality without fear of recriminations. In essence, that is what a pride event has become but now we need to take it to the next level.

My first thoughts for this blog come from a comment in a previous blog, ‘Will You MARRY Me?’ and the use of the term ‘gay-marriage’. The words we use to describe ourselves and those around us. I begin with a quote from the well-known TV show ‘Queer As Folk’;

‘Queers. Because I'm queer. I'm gay. I'm homosexual. I'm a poof, I'm a poofter, I'm a ponce. I'm a bumboy, batty-boy, backside artist, bugger. I'm bent. I am that arsebandit. I lift those shirts. I'm a faggot-ass, fudge-packing, shit-stabbing uphill gardener. I dine at the downstairs restaurant. I dance at the other end of the ballroom. I'm Moses and the parting of the red cheeks.’

We have all heard the various terminologies used by others as derogatory insults. Most of us will remember the first time that someone called us one of the above. I personally remember how much it upset me in my teens to have these words hurled across the playground at me. For me, it hurt even more because I didn’t think I was. I wasn’t even aware of my own sexuality at the time. Back then I genuinely had no real thoughts or feelings of bias towards any sex, to be honest. How could others be calling me these things when I didn’t even know myself? It caused untold amounts of anguish, confusion and pain for me.

Fast forward through the years and I have grown from those experiences. They have given me a very thick skin and the ability to shrug them off. But I shouldn’t really have to shrug them off because, quite frankly, that kind of language shouldn’t be heard in society and should be frowned upon as severely as racism now is. Yet, every so often I still hear it and, like I say, for the most part, I shrug them off, but occasionally, if it catches me off guard, it hurts as much as it did back in my teens.

Therefore you can imagine my shock when I hear those terms bandied around by other gay people! Firstly I can’t believe what I have just heard and I have to double-take and secondly, I am taken to that place in my teens. It then makes me incredibly angry. Some of us spend so much time and energy fighting against the use of this kind of language. When did it become acceptable to use it within the community? Or is that it? Are people who are LGBT allowed to refer to one another like this yet if anyone else says it, we get offended? I’d say that smacks of double standards wouldn’t you? It is almost as though we are claiming exclusive use of those words, which in turn, separates us from everyone else.

…As the ‘great’ Starship once told us at least. (And if you don’t know the artist and film the song was from, you really need to go do your homework :-P)

Well, well, well. Isn’t the debate over Equal Marriage really heating up lately? The government have passed the bill through to the third stage and momentum is growing. Still, there is a long way to go…

After watching the parliament channel for a massive chunk of the broadcast during the second ‘reading’ it is clear that one the biggest opponents in this latest political hotbed are the church, or at least a large part of it. I will be quite frank and say I am totally at a loss as to why there is such an issue here. Sure, I have heard lots of their reasons for why the LGBT should not be given equal marriage rights but they are so ridiculously flawed. We have all seen the viral memes and Facebook images enough to educate us, even if we don’t truly understand religion. Of course, religion by its very nature can be read and skewed depending on what you want to believe so I recommend that people exercise caution when looking at the ‘facts’. The most common argument is the age-old “Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, i.e. marriage is between one man and one woman. I should note, it was hilarious that the MP David Simpson managed to quote it incorrectly and said: “in the garden of Eden it was Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve”. Except that the bible also clearly shows many other examples of people not sticking to that ONE man and ONE woman rule and it is accepted. Jacob had two, Esau had three, Gideon had many and King Solomon had seven… HUNDRED!

There are countless examples out there and so I am massively confused as to why religious people insist on using the same flawed arguments against equal marriage. Granted, we are all entitled to an opinion but if you are having a debate with someone and your defences are flawed because they highlight a massive chunk of hypocrisy you would normally accept gracious defeat and perhaps go away and rethink your opinion. At least that is the way I have always done it. That is the whole point of debate. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong. The skill in a debate is to know when you should accept that you are wrong and take a step back before you continue to make yourself look like a single-minded fool.

As it stands, I don’t think that religion en masse is ready or even able to take that step yet which in itself screams of the double standard that religion hides behind. Religion frequently tells us to love one another, to be accepting and that ultimately, God forgives all. Yet they are, with vitriol so nasty it is the complete opposite of everything they teach… hate. They pretend that they are accepting and it’s just the marriage issue, but let’s face it, by declining equal marriage they are making the statement that we are different from them and that we are lesser human beings. That is how I perceive it.