Male Blood Donor Turned Away after He Refused to Say if He Was Pregnant

LEatslikeacat on 22/06/2022 - 17:14
Last edited 22/06/2022 - 17:16

A 66 year old man has been donating blood for over nearly 50 years. He received a new form to fill in that asked if he was pregnant. He refused to answer the question to make a point and the clinic turned him away. The clinic lost life saving blood from a long time donor. The NHS thanked him for his support and said that biological sex is not always visually clear and that they have a duty to promote inclusiveness. So I looked up Australian Red Cross Lifeblood and to my surprise their eligibility questionnaire a) does not ask if a person is male or female, and b) has a forced yes or no question for whether a person is pregnant with a picture of what appears to be a long haired lady breastfeeding.

Article is at:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10928505/Male-blood…

Questionnaire is at:
https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/eligibility/quiz

The comments appeared to be grouped into the following categories:

  1. Don't let a question on a form stop you from giving life saving blood.
  2. This is wokeness gone mad.
  3. I won't give blood after this.
  4. There should be a "not applicable" box.

My view is that the main mission of collecting blood is to save lives and it's not about promoting inclusiveness. They should be focused on science and not turning donors away. I think that a 'not applicable' box is a good catch all third option that can then trigger a human assessment before the person gives blood. In that way a human can with sensitivity assess if the person is biologically pregnant or not regardless of external gender appearance.

It will be terrible for a war over political correctness to deprive blood donations. Every drop is precious and given out of kindness.

What do you think?

PS: What if a person cannot be biologically pregnant but identifies as pregnant?

Health & Beauty

Comments

    • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 23/06/2022 - 09:19
      +3

      You know when you fill out say a tax form, and you skip over the sections that don't apply? It works really well

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 05:23
        +1

        Tax forms and medical forms in advance of a medical procedure are designed for two completely separate outcomes. If you fill out your tax form wrong maybe you might pay more or less taxes but it's not life or death. If you fill out a medical form incorrectly it could truly lead to a life and death outcome. So yeah, they tend not to allow you to skip boxes, they want clearly defined yes or no answers and they are often designed to prompt you multiple times with the same type of questioning when it is something very serious. All this shmuck had to do was answer "No" - it would have taken him a second to tick a box and then he could have donated. Clearly he didn't want to donate and didn't take it seriously. As Dorge said - the dude needs to have that stick up his ass removed.

    • Oneguyinmelb on 23/06/2022 - 10:54
      +11

      I think his refusal to be honest with a simple question, goes a long way to show his character.

      If he can't answer whether he's pregnant, how trustworthy are his answers to other questions (blood borne infections, travel history, etc)?

      I've donated 80 times and do it because I feel it's a worthwhile cause….the survey questions are there to protect those that rely on the blood, and aren't worthwhile throwing a hissy fit over.

      • bobbified on 23/06/2022 - 11:32
        +1

        If he can't answer whether he's pregnant, how trustworthy are his answers to other questions (blood borne infections, travel history, etc)?

        Maybe he's waiting to see if he's missing his period this month before answering? (the "news" told me that men can get periods too! lol)

    • Chandler on 23/06/2022 - 12:31
      +6

      My thoughts exactly.

      Either you are not pregnant, in which case you can give blood, or you are pregnant or are unsure if you are pregnant, in which case you cannot give blood.

      Being woke or LBGTIQ+ has nothing to do with it - it is a medical safety question: both for the safety of the pregnant person and the safety of receipients of their blood, as their blood will have very different levels of various hormones, including prospectively high levels of human growth hormone (depending on how far along they are) which a non-pregnant donor would have 0 of in their blood.

  • peppet on 22/06/2022 - 17:33
    +39

    The clinic lost life-saving blood but the man also reversed his decision to donate his life-saving blood. He could have answered the silly question and gone through with it. It's the man's choice to donate, but in the end both parties were very petty here

    • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 05:27
      +5

      How was the medical clinic petty? This is their policy. They've adopted it because they need to ensure they have a rigid policy in order to ensure the safety of those receiving the blood they are gathering. They are not going to have a bespoke form per each person. They're going to have a set of standards that they need to fulfil because what they're doing is life and death. For someone to not take that seriously and decide that their own pride or stupidity is more important than following a set of simple rules that are meant to ensure the sanctity of life is absolutely petty. For the clinic to take the sanctity of life seriously and to adopt a set of rules that enforces that and to then ensure those rules are not bent or broken is not petty - it's exactly what you would want from an organization like this.

      • peppet on 24/06/2022 - 08:32
        +2

        The policy makers here were petty, not the clinic. Clearly the man is acting like a child here and the clinic is just following policy, but I think there should be some leeway on that policy for when someone is a known male and clearly not pregnant. In the end that blood is too precious to lose over something so petty, is what I mean to say.

        • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 09:10
          +1

          No - there's a reason why they make it hard to donate and why they should make it hard to donate. There needs to be a small barrier to entry to donate in order to protect the recipients and protect the blood supply. If that barrier is weeding out utter (profanity) who aren't willing to cooperate to some modest requirement then that's fine and dandy with me. The policy makers aren't petty. Again, these are designed specifically to create proper barriers. The policy is there for a reason. And this reason is to weed out bad applicants. The blood bank has a responsibility to both encourage donors and ensure that the supply is of a reasonable quality for the recipient. The latter is far more important and why they have policies that might seem petty to you but that are designed to ensure that people get quality blood from quality donors.

          • peppet on 24/06/2022 - 09:26
            +1

            @rightguy: He satisfied every requirement though. Him being an AH doesn't make his blood worse quality. I just think when questions can easily be answered with certainty (e.g. a known male is not pregnant), there can be some leeway in the forms or some power of judgement given to the clinic. Speaking as someone in the medical field, we accept donations from assholes all the time, money or body parts. We can't let our pride get in the way and be happy to lose a clinically-fit donation because the donor was being a ****. Good blood from a asshat is still good blood, I'd rather patients get the blood they need

            All of this is just my opinion, I have no experience in policy making so I don't know if this is even achievable. I just wish we wouldn't keep losing life-saving donations over something trivial (in this specific case).

            • Waffles on 24/06/2022 - 09:45

              @peppet: Who is he a "known" male to? A form?

              • peppet on 24/06/2022 - 10:24

                @Waffles: The article says he's a very frequent blood donor, 125 pints, and presumably has declared himself male whenever required

            • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 12:00
              +1

              @peppet: If you work in the medical field you would understand that no one dies in the UK from not receiving blood. So trying to create this false logical thread that his blood could have prevented a death is just not realistic. There are always issue with supply but that doesn't mean there are dire issues with supply. And yes we can absolutely let barriers get in the way of people donating blood. We do that all the time. Not sure if you were alive at any time in the 80s or 90s but people had the same bad ideas as you did that we just need to make donating blood barrier free and tens of thousands of people in multiple parts of the world were given tainted blood because no one had done the decent thing in properly screening candidates. One of the aspects of screening a candidate is ensuring that they are upfront and forthcoming. That's utterly important because there are various streams that blood goes through to get screened on the basis of the screening and some btw just gets instantly discarded because it's considered that the donor isn't a dependable and forthcoming person. Just like how we have to accept that if you want to go on a plane you have to get screened if you're going to donate you have to get screened. You're going to accept some level of discomfort in order to get the benefit whether that's flight or the benefit of doing good and donating to others. Your comparison of this to financial donations is ludicrous. We don't take financial donations and inject them into people's blood. And absolutely donations by certain people are returned on the basis of moral things all the time (if the money is from criminal enterprise, etc). I don't know what area of medicine you are in because it feels like you really don't get the concepts of what you're talking about. Even organ donorship is a very bad example as that is life and death and often you will take extra risks because it is rare. Blood donarship is not rare. And when someone accepts an organ they accept a great deal of risk and that risk it applied only to that one person (unless of course it's a living donor). When we take blood from someone it has its materials separated and potentially mixed in with other blood materials from other people. It will then be given to multiple strangers who all believe, reasonably, that the risk to be extremely low. So you're comparing something everyone accepts is high risk to one individual to something where we all accept it's low risk to multiple people. Those are incomparable situations. Utterly night and day from a logical perspective.

              Let's also be clear that I don't even believe this story to be true. This gentleman is 66 years old. In the NHS system that the oldest maximum age you're allowed to donate blood at is 65. This story sounds utterly fabricated to me as the gentleman in question would have been turned away based on his age anyhow.

              https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

              • peppet on 24/06/2022 - 12:10

                @rightguy: I understand what you're saying but I am only talking about this specific case of the question of pregnancy. Even screening by getting him to tick a box does not guarantee that he is upfront and forthcoming. People can lie or tick the wrong box.

                There are scenarios where you are asked screening questions verbally by a nurse who ticks the boxes for you, and this verbal confirmation is accepted. All I'm saying is that in this specific case, perhaps a verbal answer can be accept for this specific question, and the man allowed to donate blood.

                I am also not saying all donated blood is life-saving and prevents death but it potentially could be, to whatever minute degree. Not only that, but this discouraged a frequent donor, and potentially others (who are just as immature) through the negative press. I just think it was a very minor issue that didn't warrant the reaction it recieved in this very specific situation.

                • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 12:32

                  @peppet: Or the guy could just follow the procedure in a respectful and responsible manner and just fill in a box for "No" when prompted for a yes or no question even if he feels it's a ridiculous one.

                  And again, this story is made up, the guy at 66 would not be able to donate blood in the NHS system. He lost the right to do so when he turned 66. The fact that he would have lost that right very recently tends to make me believe that it's that which caused him to be denied the right to donate and now he's decided to take this out on the system because he's just angry sad and pathetic person.

                  And that's fine - let's please discourage immature people when it comes to participating in life and death acts. If the whole concept is that we need to take things seriously to prevent anyone doing the wrong thing then absolutely we need to 100% discourage immature people from participating. That's how we gain a healthy blood bank system and a healthy society in general.

                  • peppet on 24/06/2022 - 13:18
                    +1

                    @rightguy: Sadly a healthy perfect society full of pleasant mature people is impossible. We're never going to get anywhere if we only let the nice people do things.

                    And I acknowledged several times that he is an asshat. But we sometimes give in to asshats because we will always encounter them

    • dengziyi on 24/06/2022 - 12:08

      I don't get how the clinic is petty, they can't take his blood if he doesn't answer all the questions. Blood donation (in Aus at least) is very strict.

      Doesn't matter whether he'd be capable of carrying a child or not, it's just legality.

  • Drakesy on 22/06/2022 - 17:36
    +35

    Yes i don't condone stupid questions for the sake of PC culture.
    But the pettiness of this guy making a point is absurd, what, did he want to see "only applicable to someone with a vagina"?.

    • Chandler on 23/06/2022 - 12:41
      +12

      Not PC at all: it's a generic questionairre - did you want them to develop separate forms for male or female donors? Then what about LGBTIQ+ donors?

      And it's a medical safety question for both the donor and the recipients. If you're pregnant, or may be pregnant, you can't give blood.

      So an idiot decided to make a point and refused to answer a question. Admin got the form and denied said idiot since their form wasn't completed fully. Wow. Such culture. Much PC.

      Sure, you could say the answer would obviously be "No, not pregnant". But then your're making a judgement based solely on the gender they ticked on the form, an assumption which may or may not be accurate. What do you do with a person who identifies as male and thus ticks "male", but is biologically female and currently pregnant, but refused to answer the question in regards to pregnancy? Do you accept their application since they're "male" and "obviously" can't be pregnant.

      You open yourself up to potential litigation (however unlikely). So better to just refuse any forms not completed correctly.

      It's not PC culture. It's not woke. It's normal.

      • Jolakot on 23/06/2022 - 16:30
        +1

        Hell, this is also assuming someone doesn't tick the wrong box by accident, because this happens far more often than most people think when you're dealing with people of all backgrounds (i.e. thinking that "sex" means who do you have sex with)

    • Chandler on 23/06/2022 - 12:43
      +1

      did he want to see "only applicable to someone with a vagina"?.

      Wouldn't the correct terminology would be "only applicable to someone with a uterus" ?

  • Morien on 22/06/2022 - 17:38
    +25

    I'm sad to say I have bigger things in my life to worry about. There are so many important causes out there for one to take a stand on. This isn't one of them.

  • Ughhh on 22/06/2022 - 17:40
    +58

    Asking if donor is male or female is pointless, as both sexes can give blood. But being pregnant is relevant as it can seriously impact the mothers/donors/baby health.

    It's a shame that he refused to give blood over one little box.

    • ozhunter on 22/06/2022 - 19:22
      +17

      Shame that they wouldn't accept his blood over that one little box. He had already indicated that he is a male.

      Maybe they don't need it that badly after all.

      • Ughhh on 22/06/2022 - 19:27
        +16

        He had already indicated that he is a male.

        According to op/the questionair, it doesn't ask if you're male or female. Only the nurse/whoever taking the form knows, do you expect that nurse to stay with that form for however long they need for record keeping?

        • ozhunter on 22/06/2022 - 19:40

          According to op/the questionair, it doesn't ask if you're male or female.

          Well, both sexes can donate, being one or the other doesn't make you ineligible.

          Don't know if it's a new form or an additional one but didn't seem like there was a problem before.

          • Ughhh on 22/06/2022 - 20:05
            +9

            @ozhunter: Lol you just repeated my initial comment.

            Hence why the pregnancy question is necessary…..

            • ozhunter on 22/06/2022 - 20:14
              -1

              @Ughhh: You're confusing yourself.

              That questionnaire is just asking few questions to see whether a person is eligible to donate blood.

              On the form, the guy most likely had indicated he is male, so the Are you pregnant isn't applicable.

              • nobro25 on 23/06/2022 - 02:29
                +1

                @ozhunter: What if a pregnant woman identities herself as a male in her relationship?

                • HelpMeiCantSee on 23/06/2022 - 10:23

                  @nobro25: Dunno, sounds like lying on the form. Shrug

                • BLN39 on 23/06/2022 - 20:28
                  +1

                  @nobro25: She has to visit psychiatrist… But not in Australia.
                  Common sense is not so common nowadays. Why? Because society is sick.
                  Someone decided that reality is what you believe and not what science proven.

              • Jolakot on 23/06/2022 - 17:48
                +1

                @ozhunter: When you're dealing with people of all backgrounds, you have to assume that some percentage of people will completely misinterpret a question and stuff everything up as a result

                99.9% of people will correctly understand that "sex" is asking for their sex, not who they have sex with, yet that's still tens of thousands of people who would get it wrong

                More effort than you'd expect goes into designing 'idiot proof' questions, but as they say, God invents a bigger and better idiot every day

              • smartazz104 on 23/06/2022 - 18:19

                @ozhunter:

                their eligibility questionnaire a) does not ask if a person is male or female

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 05:31
        +1

        Of course they wouldn't accept his blood. They have a duty of care to the recipients of the blood that overrides their duty of care to the donor. If the donor is not willing to answer a thorough medical form then they can't donate. This way the recipient is unlikely to be harmed. This is how we avoid tainted blood getting into the system. A lot of the questions are meant to scare people from donating and to ensure that only people who are serious about donating actually do donate. As much as it's important to get donations, it's also important to avoid donations as well and the system is designed to do just that. I'm very thankful that this guy's blood isn't in the system because he has shown an unwillingness to be honest and open and I don't want someone's blood to be donated if they can't be honest and upfront about their situation. The system is better off without his blood in it and this shows that the rules in place to avoid bad donors works..

    • CBrads4 on 23/06/2022 - 09:14

      In Australia they don’t allow women to donate platelets at all anymore due to the antibodies developed in the mother’s body during pregnancy.

      Even if the individual doesn’t believe they have been pregnant, they’re still not allowed due to the possibility that they have been pregnant and just had an early-term miscarriage without realising.

  • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 17:45
    +18

    Males can't get pregnant, can they?

    • brendanm on 22/06/2022 - 17:54
      +1

      🫃

    • c64 on 22/06/2022 - 18:51
      -1

      can if you have both male and female genitals …

      • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 18:54
        +3

        I think I've to go back to biology class because my experience has been turned upside down.

      • AustriaBargain on 22/06/2022 - 19:40
        +15

        Actually even with intersex people they can't impregnate and get pregnant. There has never been a person in history who has had the ability to get someone else pregnant and become pregnant themselves.

        • morse on 23/06/2022 - 03:50
          +5

          https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/teenager-raised-as-a-boy-a…

          Not sure if this person could also get someone pregnant. Also not sure what happened with the baby ie if they went to term or not.

          Also this
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/

          Sure it’s incredibly rare but I don’t know why there’s a need to have such a technical assessment of whether men can get pregnant or not. There are definitely trans men who have had babies and breastfed, whether old mate blood donor ‘agrees’ with it or not. The guy should have just ticked ‘no’. Women who can’t have babies are also asked the same question.

          • AustriaBargain on 23/06/2022 - 04:59
            +12

            @morse: That teenager was always a girl, she could never at any point in her life impregnate someone because she always lacked male gametes.

            Also that study you linked to is about the hermaphrodites getting pregnant conventionally with someone else's male gametes. Spontaneous pregnancy doesn't mean immaculate conception, it refers to IVF or some other kind of assisted reproduction. It is notable enough to be investigated by this study probably because true hermaphrodites are very rare and usually infertile.

            It really is impossible, at least in humans. It can't even happen to mammals in general, or even birds. Wikipedia sums it well:

            there have been no identified cases of a human reproducing as both male and female, with some biologists saying hermaphroditism cannot occur in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

            Anyone who wants to support transgenderism is barking up the wrong tree if their argument hinges on the existence of some people truly being both sexes. Also gender doesn't refer to your biological sex, gender is just what you identify as. Transgender people identify as the opposite sex, they aren't actually the opposite sex. I mean I don't know why that's even a controversial thing to say, it's literally what being transgender is all about, your gender not matching your sex. It's the very reason transgender people want to transition in the first place, because their sex doesn't match their gender.

            • morse on 23/06/2022 - 07:21

              @AustriaBargain: The point about intersex is that there isn’t ‘both sexes’ there are there are male, female and some people who have features of both. Whether intersex people can get pregnant or not is irrelevant to the fact
              that they have some combination of sex organs and hormone profiles. The reason that this is relevant is that many people just say that your gender aligns with your sex and there are only two options. Intersex people existing means that the idea that you have to be male or female in either sex or gender is ridiculous. That said it shouldn’t really matter as even if everyone had genitals that neatly aligned to one sex or the other it would still be okay for people to have a different gender or no gender.

              • AustriaBargain on 23/06/2022 - 08:31
                +8

                @morse: No, you misunderstand what intersex is. They aren't both sexes. In the case of the one you linked there was female with a penis, but she didn't have male gametes, she didn't have male chromosomes. When they were born the doctor looks and sees what looks like a normal penis and says "yep it's a boy", and then no one checks the penis carefully again until a decade and a half later in that girl's case. But her sex was still female and always was female. Everyone could tell she was obviously a female even the kids at school, if you read the article. She just had like a vestigial penis so the parents were incorrectly told she was male, so she was incorrectly told she was a male. Intersex is a bit of a misnomer if you take it to mean "both sexes" or "in between both sexes", just as "hermaphrodite" was an incorrect term too for mammals. If you're talking some insects or molluscs then the term hermaphrodite as you and most people seem to understand it applies. Telling this girl that she is both a biological male and biological female is totally incorrect, but it probably wouldn't offend her because she already knows her sex. She got pregnant for christ sake, how much more clear cut does her biological sex need to be?

                I don't doubt that people have the right to identify with whichever gender they want and I'm certain that gender dysphoria is real and that mentally transgender people are the gender they identify with. But their biological sex is different to gender. And the whole point of being transgender is that the gender they identify with in their minds does not match their biological sex. If a transwoman were female then they wouldn't be a trans woman, they would just be a regular woman and they wouldn't be transgender. If their biological sex were female then they wouldn't qualify for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and so they would not be able to medically or legally transition. Their biological sex is exactly the same before and after the transition, changing your biological sex is currently science fiction and it will be impossible within all of our lifetimes. If it were possible to change your sex then there wouldn't be transgender people, they would simply change their sex and then their gender would match their sex.

                The fact of biological sex does not make it "not okay" for people to have a different gender or no gender, and the fact of biological sex is actually a key component of being transgender, it's an essential component of being transgender to have your biological sex (your actual body) not match your gender (how you identify in your mind).

                • morse on 23/06/2022 - 13:55

                  @AustriaBargain: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm There really isn't just two biological sexes. but it seems we agree that there is no issue with being transgender or no gender and that means gender not aligning with sex. Not everyone feels this way, so the reason intersex is often mentioned is because of people who say things like "god created men and women, if you've got a penis your a man, if you have a vagina you're a women". It's probably not fair to intersex people to bring them into what is often a unhelpful and damaging conversation already. Having said that many intersex people don't feel comfortable with the gender they were raised as or don't align with one gender or another. There's a good 'you can't ask that' episode on intersex people which shows some different perspectives of intersex people.

                  • trapper on 23/06/2022 - 14:06
                    +1

                    @morse:

                    There really isn't just two biological sexes.

                    Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones.

                    There is no third gamete, there is no third sex.

                    • morse on 23/06/2022 - 14:11

                      @trapper: On a practical level in humans though there is more to consider than gametes. From what I have read there are biologically males, females and people who fall into neither category. This isn't a 'third' category/sex as there are differences between all the people who probably don't strictly meet the criteria of being biologically male or female.

            • BLN39 on 23/06/2022 - 20:33
              -1

              @AustriaBargain: It is just a game of words.
              Gender = sex.
              Anything else is a psychiatry case. If your reality does not match the facts - it is schizophrenia.

          • brendanm on 23/06/2022 - 20:48

            @morse:

            Not sure if this person could also get someone pregnant.

            According to the article:

            My male parts came back infertile

      • hippyhippy on 23/06/2022 - 00:43

        You are plain wrong…

    • lost in transit on 23/06/2022 - 06:08
      -1

      Apparently they can these days 🙄

    • Eeples on 25/06/2022 - 23:51

      You are assuming the form asked if the donor is male or female.

  • Porker on 22/06/2022 - 17:49
    +2

    Heard of a case where a couple come in pregnant to hospital, but it was the man that was pregnant.

    Man had a sex change to woman. The woman had a sex change to man. Doctors called the pregnant parent 'mother of baby', but he/she got offended because they wanted to be called father.

    Not at all confusing. Men can apparently be pregnant too.

    • Eatslikeacat on 22/06/2022 - 17:52
      +2

      Tsk tsk tsk, it's birthing person now. Or is it? Keeps changing.

      • ThithLord on 23/06/2022 - 09:00
        -1

        It's okay, snowflake. They aren't going to hurt you. You're safe. The scary Transgender people can't hurt you

        • 91rs on 23/06/2022 - 10:49

          Dunno I've seen a video filmed at a gamestop and this guy was pretty intent on knocking the F out of the other person who wouldn't call him ma'am.

          • ThithLord on 27/06/2022 - 11:22

            @91rs: I've seen a video of a assigned male at birth man being violent, therefor they're all violent.

            Logical conclusion using your logic.

    • Nillionaire on 22/06/2022 - 22:58

      Link to case?

      • Porker on 23/06/2022 - 08:35

        No link - information was from a doctor friend that worked at the hospital.

        • SBOB on 23/06/2022 - 08:54
          +5

          My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious…..

        • michaelTito on 23/06/2022 - 13:47

          Source: Trust me bro.

          • Porker on 23/06/2022 - 13:51

            @michaelTito: 'bro' might be politically incorrect (eventually).. :\

            "… Trust me you…"

  • shaybisc on 22/06/2022 - 17:53
    +18

    Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! This is scandalous. Oh, did I happen to mention I'm outraged by this? Took me all day to find it but then again I don't read the Daily Mail.

  • sjj89 on 22/06/2022 - 18:05
    +4

    It’s insurance

  • jjjaar on 22/06/2022 - 18:07
    +1

    Legitimate question as I have nothing to do with the medical field: Can a persons sex be known by blood only?

    • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 18:35
      +9

      XX & XY.

      Nature is a wonderful thing.

      • AustriaBargain on 22/06/2022 - 19:38
        +2

        How much more scarce is blood going to be if they need to perform that test on every donation they get because they can't trust that the donor accurately disclosed their sex?

        • greatlamp on 22/06/2022 - 23:22
          +8

          0%?

          The tests they already do are far more complicated and costly.

          It's still moronic to refuse to answer a question on a medical form.

          • AustriaBargain on 22/06/2022 - 23:54
            +4

            @greatlamp: Well it's good to hear that their organisation has so much blood that they don't need any morons to donate.

            • parsimonious one on 23/06/2022 - 09:41
              +2

              @AustriaBargain: If a moron won’t answer a simple question on the medical screening form because they (the person answering the questions) don’t think it’s relevant/ important, I’d be concerned about whether they are answering other questions, that they might not see the relevance of, truthfully

          • Jolakot on 23/06/2022 - 18:01
            +1

            @greatlamp: Karyotyping is an entirely different beast than the standard tests they run per donor, would increase testing costs by several orders of magnitude

      • terrys on 23/06/2022 - 08:30

        There are a few more steps in the development before the embryo/foetus begins to develop sexual characteristics, even ignoring that that is what is usual, but not what is assured in any human.

      • ThithLord on 23/06/2022 - 09:01
        -1

        You didn't include your genetic makeup: an extra chromosome.

  • kusama on 22/06/2022 - 18:12
    +2

    My Red cross profile says I'm male, so answered it at some point

  • p1 ama on 22/06/2022 - 18:19
    +42

    My view is that the main mission of collecting blood is to save lives and it's not about promoting inclusiveness. They should be focused on science and not turning donors away. I think that a 'not applicable' box is a good catch all third option that can then trigger a human assessment before the person gives blood. In that way a human can with sensitivity assess if the person is biologically pregnant or not regardless of external gender appearance.

    They are focused on the science - a person can be pregnant or not pregnant, there are two choices. The man said himself that it is impossible for him to be pregnant, which would imply that he is not pregnant.

    This has nothing to do with inclusiveness (or if it does, I can't see it), simple question, simple answer.

    It will be terrible for a war over political correctness to deprive blood donations. Every drop is precious and given out of kindness.

    I don't see where the "political correctness" angle to this is?

    PS: What if a person cannot be biologically pregnant but identifies as pregnant?

    Who cares?

    • Techie4066 on 22/06/2022 - 18:27
      +21

      Typical conservative low IQ confected outrage. Forgets that forms may not be gender specific lmao. That'd be tOo WoKe!?!>!

      • ThithLord on 23/06/2022 - 09:02
        +9

        I refused to complete my tax return last year because it asked me if I am an Australian citizen for tax purposes. I obviously am! But not for tax purposes. PC CULTCHA

    • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 18:37
      -3

      Men can get pregnant, males can't.

      May be they should use males to reduce confusion?

      • AddNinja on 23/06/2022 - 10:41
        +3

        Why was rektrading downvoted? They allowed “men” to be used as a gendered term that anyone can use and reserved “male” for XY chromosome people that can’t get pregnant.

        Were the downvotes from the left who want “male” to be a gendered term or from the right who don’t want “men” to be a gendered term. Or both.

        • rektrading on 23/06/2022 - 10:47
          +2

          People woke up and chose 🔫 👊.

    • Eatslikeacat on 22/06/2022 - 18:40
      -8

      You assumed gender pronouns. You can't say "man" anymore.

      • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 18:48
        +2

        You can't say "man" anymore.

        I think Hollywood still makes movies that says fk you, man.

        May be not Disney.

      • p1 ama on 22/06/2022 - 21:55
        +2

        Yes, if you say "man", the feds are gonna knock your door down and send you to Gitmo. What are you even on about my man?

      • ThithLord on 23/06/2022 - 09:02
        +6

        God, this is pathetic level trolling. Get some original material

      • smartazz104 on 23/06/2022 - 18:23

        Aw man…

  • csandoe on 22/06/2022 - 18:27
    +46

    Just tick no if you're not pregnant. It's not hard, crikey.

    • parsimonious one on 23/06/2022 - 09:44
      +11

      Nah, better to refuse to answer, create a fuss, then squeal to the daily mail

      • smartazz104 on 23/06/2022 - 18:23

        Daily Mail? Male? Oh no…

  • djones145 on 22/06/2022 - 18:32
    +34

    I'm disgusted they ask for country in the adress box
    like I've entered the postcode, the suburb and the states its obvious I'm in Australia.

    ticked me off and I didn't donate blood
    the nerve of them to ask

  • GordonD on 22/06/2022 - 18:39

    Actually, if you go to the Red Cross and choose platelets that you want to donate, rather than whole blood or plasma, you are refused unless you are male. Because there is a rare medical condition called TRALI (transfusion related acute lung injury) which occurs "more commonly" (that's a quote) in women. That's not very inclusive of the Red Cross to exclude half the potential platelet donors - anyone who is not male - just because if the platelets are transfused into a woman she is a little bit more likely to get an adverse immune reaction to them if they are from another woman than if they are from a man.

    • AustriaBargain on 22/06/2022 - 19:33
      +1

      Yes, but what does the word "male" even mean anymore? It used to mean a biological male, but it's in the process of being conflated with the gendered term "man", which itself used to be interchangeable with "adult human male", and the entire concept of a biological male or female is soon going to be taboo/transphobic to even bring up. If a person with a vagina identifies as a male then they just might tick the box marked "male" and if they are stealth they may choose not to disclose their assigned sex at birth.

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 05:34

        That's why the questionnaire addresses that issue. Again, this is a non-issue that you've created out of thin air. If anyone wants to lie on a form and harm other people that's possible. But realistically do we believe that an honest donor is going to do that? You're essentially worrying about something that is so unlikely to happen that we don't have to worry that it ever will.

  • mskeggs on 22/06/2022 - 18:41
    +49

    This gentleman was happy to answer questions about any male to male anal sex, but was offended by being asked if pregnant?

    • rektrading on 22/06/2022 - 18:50

      👭 have limits.

    • JimmyF on 22/06/2022 - 19:23

      Maybe he didn't get that far in the question list? :)

    • digitalbath on 22/06/2022 - 19:25
      +5

      Up the bum, no babies.

    • donga100 on 22/06/2022 - 19:49
      +15

      This gentleman was happy to answer questions about any male to male anal sex

      That's why he felt the pregnancy question was redundant.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join