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

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?

Comments

      • +2

        Good point. You can ask me any questions you like about anal sex with men and intravenous drug use but don't ask me if I'm pregnant.

        • +4

          If I've already told you that male to male anal sex is the only sex I have then don't ask me if I'm pregnant. So rude!

  • +15

    I guess this story gives something for some people to get up in arms about rather than looking at the real issues going on.

    • +12

      That's how MSM distracts you and keeps you content with your life whilst the elite steal from society in broad daylight.

  • The organisation everyone identifies as the one you give blood to, and provides it to people who need it, is the Red Cross. But for some silly gimmicky marketing reason in 2019 it renamed itself "Lifeblood". They threw away a perfectly good name that had universal identification and a hugely positive image, and gave it a silly name.

    • +6

      This is incorrect. The Red Cross name has not been discarded. Australian Red Cross is the name of the entire organisation; Lifeblood is one division of it. The rebranding involved changing "Blood Service" to "Lifeblood".

    • Actually to a lot of people Red Cross does not have a hugely positive image. In many countries, like Canada, they absolutely bungled blood donations decades back and indiscriminately killed thousands of people and sentences tens of thousands more to a life dealing with diseases they could have avoided. Canada, for example, overhauled their blood donation system in the late 90s because of the bungling of it by the Red Cross. The Red Cross now has nothing to do with blood donation in Canada and it's now known as Canadian Blood Services.

      As for your comment - it's just ignorant. They didn't change it to Lifeblood they changes it from Australian Red Cross Blood Service to Australian Red Cross Lifeblood. The only words that changed were "Blood Service" which changed to "Lifeblood" - not sure that that's a huge game changer like you believe it to be.

  • +3

    Of course males can get pregnant, you are just illiterate here. There is even a documentary about that!

  • +24

    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

    Hence why they ask you if you are pregnant. So

    There should be a "not applicable" box.

    Well there was…. it was the No box as you either ARE pregnant or you're NOT, regardless of what bits you have or don't have, there is no in the middle ground for this question regardless of sex, what you identify as etc. You either ARE pregnant or you're NOT.

    • -15

      A word can carry a tremendous amount of emotional meaning. The fight for the word 'marriage' for gay people was hard fought. They didn't settle for 'civil unionised' or whatever it was. The word 'murder' carries more force than the phrase 'involuntary homicide'. And being called a 'man' or a 'woman' is important for many people as it goes to the very core of their sense of self. Words matter. Bullying people or cancelling people into giving up words is not a passive act. Calling someone a man or woman does not have to exclude non-binary people and using gender appropriate pronouns to affirm a person's sense of self is a wonderful thing. What I don't support is having it shoved down someone's throat even passively. It's the thin edge of the wedge, a form of reverse discrimination on the majority.

      • +9

        Reverse discrimination? Hmmm but 'sex' aka if you are a 'man' 'woman' etc isn't important to the blood bank, they don't care what you are.

        They do care about things like if you are pregnant or not. Had high risk 'intercourse' etc.

      • +8

        Logically gay people should always have had the right to marry, because the ability to marry a couple is a state power, not a religious one. Religious officials are granted that state power, not the other way around. It was truly terrible that the government made us vote on it instead of just doing the right thing themselves like we elected them for in the first place. On the flip side, at least the vote officially showed us all how religion doesn't really matter any more in Australia.

        I don't think anyone wants to deny trans people the right to call themselves and be called men and women. We just want to preserve the concepts of male and female because they still have important uses. Sex is something you are born with, compared to gender which is something you identify as. You don't get a sex change operation, you get an operation that affirms the gender you identify as. Your sex literally cannot be changed no matter what you do or think. Maybe one day in the far future it'll be possible to change your sex, but until then a sex change is science fiction. And it's important to know what someone's sex is. If a type of cancer affects a certain sex more than another, then it's important we have accurate statistics on what people's sex is if they have that cancer. It does our science and medical research no good if a transwoman adds a data point to a study that indicates they have a certain kind of cancer and are female, when that cancer is actually due to their male genes.

        • -3

          Logically gay people should always have had the right to marry, because the ability to marry a couple is a state power, not a religious one.

          Don't think they were denied. The individuals' sex mattered, not their orientation.

          • +7

            @ozhunter: There was no legal or logical basis for denying two people of the same sex the right to marry. There's only a religious basis for it, but marriage is not a religious thing in any way shape or form in Australia, it is a state thing. If marriage were a religious institution in Australia then maybe you would have an argument, but it's not. It's a state thing in law and so there is no basis to deny same sex couples from marrying.

            • -1

              @AustriaBargain: As an individual, they weren't denied, they just had to follow the same criteria as everyone else.

              Funnily enough, Penny Wong said in 2010, On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect

              So I disagree that there's only a religious basis to not change it.

              • +2

                @ozhunter: Well it seems Australia's single largest political party by membership and the majority of Australian voters disagreed with you.

                • @AustriaBargain: I am aware of how the vote went, lol. It's funny though how some people are shocked that there are those that disagree with same-sex marriage. Even now, only 30 countries have legalized it. A little under 20 countries do recognize civil unions.

                  • +2

                    @ozhunter: Even if the majority of people disagreed with same sex marriage, the state still should let same sex marriages happen because it's a state power. The majority of people in Australia probably think a lot of things that the government should never let become law, like capital punishment for crimes against children.

                    But as it happens the majority were in favour of same sex marriage and only a minority were against it. Some countries cut your head off if you teach females to read, doesn't mean we should wish to do the same.

                  • @ozhunter: Your comments imply that you disagree with same-sex marriage. Are you able to provide some insight as to why you disagree with it? I'm genuinely interested to understand your point of view.

                  • @ozhunter: It's quite normal to be shocked that there are those who disagree with same-sex marriage in 2022. There are still places on this planet where divorce is illegal or where having sex with an animal is legal. The legality of something in another state doesn't effect our shock over the fact that there are some abhorrrent attitudes that still proliferate that shouldn't. There's plenty of countries where people continue to starve from state caused famines - should that not shock us? Dude your logic is beyond pathetic. You should honestly take a few courses in critical thinking before posting on the internet and making an arse out of yourself.

              • +2

                @ozhunter:

                As an individual, they weren't denied, they just had to follow the same criteria as everyone else.

                Crikey man, is that the best you can do? What a sad existence people with that attitude must lead

                • +2

                  @ThithLord: Its kind of like saying black people in the US werent discriminated against when refused entry to stores, they just had to follow the same criteria as applied to everyone. If they only bothered to be white then they can enter, but if they decide to be black then they are still being treated against the same criteria as everyone, so its totally fair.

                  • @dtc: The gayz had the same rights as the str8s!!1! they could marry any1 they like, just had to be the opposite gender1!

      • +9

        A word can carry a tremendous amount of emotional meaning.

        Facts don't care about your feelings bro.

        The fight for the word 'marriage' for gay people was hard fought. They didn't settle for 'civil unionised' or whatever it was.

        It's not about the word "marriage", it is about having the same legal rights and recognition as same-sex couples. To be honest, my view has always been that "marriage" is a religious concept that has no place in secular society. All unions should be "civil unions" based on the fact that the union is secular in nature. That's neither here nor there.

        The word 'murder' carries more force than the phrase 'involuntary homicide'.

        They mean different things - murder implies intent, involuntary homicide (as the name suggests) implies that it was involuntary (i.e. an accident).

        And being called a 'man' or a 'woman' is important for many people as it goes to the very core of their sense of self.

        Great, so live and let live. Let people identify as whatever they want.

        Words matter. Bullying people or cancelling people into giving up words is not a passive act.

        Non-binary people face far more bullying than everyone else, so who's being bullied?

        Calling someone a man or woman does not have to exclude non-binary people and using gender appropriate pronouns to affirm a person's sense of self is a wonderful thing.

        Yes, which is why people have become more open-minded about accepting whatever pronouns others wish for them to use.

        What I don't support is having it shoved down someone's throat even passively. It's the thin edge of the wedge, a form of reverse discrimination on the majority.

        Since when has anything been shoved down anyone's throat? If my name is James and I say "call me James", is that shoving down your throat that my name is James? I don't get this.

      • +2

        A word can carry a tremendous amount of emotional meaning.

        Oh really?? that's funny actually…

  • +2

    zie zim zir zis zieself
    sie sie hir hirs hirself
    ey em eir eirs eirself
    ve ver vis vers verself
    tey ter tem ters terself
    e em eir eirs emself

    • +4

      ich bien ein berliner

      • +2

        There's only two kind, jam or custard!

  • +16

    What do you think?

    I think many people look for reasons to be offended, so they can complain about things like woke culture, when in reality they are just people looking for reasons to be offended.

    Strangely they are often the same kind of person that says things like 'back in my day we use to work hard, didn't complain, kids these days are soft' etc etc

    • At least kids didn't talk back to their elders!

      Or so I was told by my elders. Then again, they were probably stuck cleaning the chimney.

  • +5

    You can't donate blood while chestfeeding. This is something that people who menstruate and bodies with vaginas need to be aware of because it could affect the quality of their chestmilk if they have recently become a birthing parent.

    • +3

      What happened to breastfeeding?

      • +6

        Transphobic. It makes transmen uncomfortable to hear that word.

        • +5

          I feel like I went to sleep and woke up in the Disneyverse.

          • +4

            @rektrading: And it might make transwomen uncomfortable too, if they are not able to produce enough milk from their breasts to feed their child. I have nipples Greg, can you milk me?

            • @AustriaBargain: Bad the f&%k luck.

              Do pregnant woman have to avoid going next to woman who can't get pregnant because they might feel uncomfortable?

              Do young people have to stay away from the elderly as the elderly might get upset that they're no longer young ?

              Society has to stop pandering to minorities; the funny thing is, it's not even the people in the minority who are getting upset, it's people in the majority who just want to feel high and mighty, thinking they're doing a good thing by getting offended for an issue that doesn't even concern them.

          • +4

            @rektrading: Additionally, women giving birth are now referred to as birthing people.

  • +3

    Is it possible that someone may identify themself as male but is actually pregnant?

    • +4

      unfortunately, yes.

      • -1

        why unfortunately? I'm assuming that you're some freedom thumping person who is all about personal freedom. So why the hell do you give two (profanity) if someone wants to be called Mr or Miss? Grow the heck up and stop being a troll.

    • +10

      It's possible for someone to identify as a microwave oven and still get pregnant.

      • +2

        No doubt,shortly it maybe "yes" (but it may be offended by the word "pregnant",so we may have to look for another word…. suggest trying "genetic multiplication")

      • +2

        "Why yes, I DO have a bun in my microwave oven!"

  • +2

    Their paper based questionnaire (years ago) used to have "I am male" as an option when it asked about pregnancy.

    Guess the PC police caught up with the red Cross.

  • +8

    FFS we have all these comments about nothing

    It needs one comment - This is all based on an article in the DAILY MAIL (and is about the UK, presumably) - no need for any other further discussion.

  • I donate blood, next to Are you Preggers is another declaration "I am male" which nullifies that mandatory question.

  • +5

    He must be very proud of himself

  • +15

    Of all the hills to die on…

  • +13

    Who gives a crap.

    As part of eligibility forms I've had to fill in before (not blood related) I have been asked 'am I pregnant?' - I'm male… I just select no and move on in life.

    There's no wokeness about it. Just pedantry on both his side and the NHS too.

  • 🫃 pregnant man emoji lives matter too!

  • +3

    i like trains

    • +1

      Stay strong trains is hard job.

  • +7

    are you anti-woke people still living in 2016

    • Yep they're still mad that someone with a vagina dared to make a video game that didn't have shooting in it. It's so sad that a whole movement of dudes being upset and whining about everything started because some angry incels got upset about a video game about depression getting a decent review. What an utterly pathetic movement.

  • +2

    You know women are asked this question constantly in the medical field?

    To the point where we say no and they still make you perform a pregnancy test, just incase you have no idea.

    Got a headache? Feeling tired? Want to throw up? Need the pill? Need an x-ray? Want an MRI? Cat scan? Surgery?

    Must be tested for pregnancy first.

    About time the other half of the population is asked this prevalent annoying question too…

    • +4

      Given the instances of a genetic male getting pregnant are exactly zero, and the impact upon recommended treatment varies a lot with pregnancy, surely it is a valid question to be asking those not genetically male, even if annoying

  • +2

    Sigh…imagine a veteran reading this and realising what he fought for….

    • +3

      veteran

      .

      he

    • +8

      Well my grandfather is a vet and can understand people wanting to identify as whatever they want.

      Imagine not fighting in any war and being outraged by a question on a generic form.

      • -3

        i think you are missing the point, i think he is looking at the broader picture, when common sense goes out the window society will collapse, i am an attack helicopter so i know what it feels like to be misrepresented in society. you might not get it but i just "feel this way"

        • +5

          Yes, the common sense to tick "no" to the question if you're not pregnant?

        • Seeing you identify as an Attack Helicopter I would assume you would be more inclusive of others lol. Anyway, this is just a massive beat up on a complete non issue. But hey, feel free to be outraged.

  • If it is important to know whether a donor is pregnant or not, then it will need to be tested either way, so better to just remove the question.

    Otherwise, the format can be easily changed to a tick box, something like: "Tick if you are pregnant [ ]"

    • No - the whole point and design of a blood donation form is to make it unsettling so that if you are holding anything back you get up and leave and don't donate. It's as important to the blood system to weed out bad donors as it is to get good donors to donate. If someone wasn't serious about donating - such as this 66 year guys in the UK - then it's important to the system to get him to get up and walk out. That's what you want from the system. We do not want to make it easy for people to donate by avoiding questions. We want to create a barrier to entry where we weed out people who are not willing to be honest, open and forthcoming about their issues. That's how we avoid tainted blood getting into our system. Losing one donor isn't going to really affect the system but having one bad donor donate can cripple things and require dozens of bags of blood to be discarded. Remember that they only test for 5 things of every blood donation. But they will test for more things like malaria and syphillus depending on your answers on the questionnaire. Not all donated blood goes through the same testing. The questionnaire is designed to determine what other testing needs to get done and to scare people who are bad donors away from testing.

  • +4

    He couldn't have just ticked "No" and moved on with donating blood to, as he put it, "vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help" ?

  • +5

    It's just a bloody question,answer the bloody thing. So what even if it asks 'Are you a Martian'? "NO". Is that so hard?

  • +1

    Maybe the man in the story had had a lifelong battle trying to conceive and this was just the straw that broke the camels’ back.

  • +9

    He must get awful angry at online forms that ask him to tick "I'm not a robot"

  • +1

    Hmmm I donate blood as often as I can - but I am positive it used to have an option: I am male. which just skipped the question…..

    Edit: Found the WA one and it includes exactly what I remember: Link

  • +2

    Meanwhile Queensland charges married couples higher power prices!
    He was a hard working engineer and he does have the right to make a statement!

  • A LIFE STYLE IS NOT A GENDER.
    ME STICKING A FEATHER DUSTER IN MY BUTT AND CALLING MYSELF A ROOSTER IS NOT A GENDER.
    THERE ARE TWO GENDERS.
    MALE AND FEMALE.
    THE REST ARE LIFESTYLES OR MENTAL ILLNESS.
    END OF.

    • +4

      I feel sad for you and your family. Let people do whatever they want, they aren't hurting you..

    • +2

      Calm down ma'am

  • How good is humanity LOL

  • Change the questionnaire to ask, were you born with a penis or a vagina and take it from there.

  • Maybe they need DNA scanners and then we get barcoded as either cheap mince or prime beef.

  • +1

    If only people had common sense!…

  • +4

    Silly old [email protected]@er with a pole up his @rse.
    Blood folk probably quite happy not to have to deal with him and all of his ‘back in my day……’

    Not sure where there’s even a story here…..

  • +12

    Oh, they wanted a clickbait headline? Try this one:

    Man chooses not to save lives, instead uses form to make childish political statement

  • -2

    Sorry, I also refuse to participate in this ridiculous leftie woke nonsense. And the Blood bank can't afford to be throwing donors away. If you insist on putting rubbish questions in, then one should be "of course not, you idiot I'm a man and an old one at that".

    The more we give in to this stupidity, the more it continues to grow. The only good thing is that the snake is eating itself. Most of the stuff being done now (woke or not) can not be maintained. Like paying stupid politicians for life! Including secretaries and bonuses with flying and stationery, cars, secret service etc. Once they are no longer working there should be a maximum of 5 years at half pay with no bonuses.

    They all sell the soul in a book afterwards, and most are millionaires, to begin with. As for the woke brigade, sorry but when they dig your bones up or have to take your DNA it is going to report you as the sex you were born as. So, why should we deny science when you all insist on your own science for other work nonsense.

    • +3

      I understand what you mean about woke. But I think this person is misguided, using a generic form to raise a different issue. I bet if we pulled out donate blood forms from 20 years ago, it would have the same question

      The hospital really can't win on this one. You either have a single form, and get everyone to complete, or you have combinations of forms and ask up in the waiting room. Which causes a whole level of drama.

      The whole pregnancy question is about protecting the donator, not the end user.

    • +4

      Gosh what a long, rambling incoherent thought train. Good contribution, snowflake

      • +1

        spitting out those RWNJ talking points like fire!!

        They don't even make sense to their deluded mushed-brain followers, clearly.

    • +2

      one should be "of course not, you idiot I'm a man and an old one at that"

      They do? It's often labeled as "no" on most forms

    • -1

      Blood Banks throw blood away all the time. It's just as important to weed out bad donors as it is to get good donors. Your belief that blood banks just need all the blood they can get is silly. They need quality donations only. They don't need donations from people who are unwilling to answer a questionnaire to the best of their ability. By refusing to answer a question he has shown his unwillingness to be open and transparent. No one needs blood from someone who is unwilling to be open and transparent. That's how you get a bad supply and harm innocent recipients.

      I don't know what any of this has to do with pensions for politicians. You seem to have some deep cognitive biases. I highly recommend taking a course in critical thinking as you have some serious issues of critical thinking.

  • +12

    I've filled out various medical forms for work trips, and they ask me if I am pregnant. It's a non gender specific form, I ticked no and move on with my life

    My guess is the dude is salty that they're changing forms and adding barriers to entry, rather than making it as easy as possible to donate. It's not actually a gender issue

    Ive seen first hand where you ask someone to complete something, then 30 seconds later they realise they ticked the wrong answer, it didn't understand the question. If you go and get a scan (CT? MRI?) I was asked at least 4 times if I had piercings or a pace maker.

    • +6

      I was asked my name, date of birth and what surgery I was getting like 5 times in the space of an hour when I got my wisdom teeth removed.

      The alternative is one day there is a mistake, and I wake up missing a kidney or without a foot. I'm pretty happy to answer the repetitive questions than the alternative.

    • +6

      Please don't bring facts into a good culture war article

      • +4

        Haha yep. "But I'm angry now'

    • Correct - for some reason many people here have this false belief that blood donation should be made as simple and as easy as possible where the whole design of it is to create a reasonable barrier to entry so that we can avoid bad donors. There's a reason why we don't pay for blood like they do in the USA. There's a reason why we ask numerous annoying questions. The whole process is to deter bad donors and ensure that those who do want to donate are willing to deal with that barrier because those are the type of candidates you want to donate blood. I'm happy that the system worked and that someone who is unwilling to be honest and forthright about their details was told he could not donate. That's what you want from any healthy blood donor system.

  • +1

    "My view is that the main mission of collecting blood is to save lives…"

    Then do not donate blood in Australia. We send our blood to our soldiers that invade other countries to kill people. There is no option on the form to select against this secretive shady practice.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-18/blood-frozen-for-defe...

    • +3

      At the hospital, you don't know who it's going to. It could be put into your own mother, or a pedo. In the end, it's keeping someone alive.

  • name of clinic plz

  • +5

    There were so many opportunities for this situation to be saved: Mr Sinclair could have said: "I'm clearly not pregnant and can easily tick this box indicating so". I guess baby boomers can be snowflakes too. The staff could have also been more tactful and said "Sorry Mr Sinclar, we can see that you are male and will tick the "no" box for you. We appreciate your feedback and can pass it on to our form development department". My best guess is he was turned away for becoming disproportionately angry (he acknowledges his anger twice in the article) which would impact all other donors and staff present. Now excuse me while I go on my overseas holiday to get a new tattoo and have male-to-male sex with a prostitute while under the influence of intravenously injected drugs.

  • +7

    Conservatives lost in both US and here, get over it

  • +6

    Yeah, sorry, but the real 'snowflakes' are the people offended at a yes or no question on a medical form. If you'd rather make a fuss with the Daily Fail over a simple question than donate blood to save people's lives, you're a virtue signalling (profanity).

  • +6

    He didn't fill out the form properly. That makes it invalid.
    Why would they open themselves to a lawsuit if something was to happen.

    More culture war BS from the DM

  • +8

    Sounds like the guy could have just ticked no. He showed that his desire to make a petty point was more important to him than donating blood. This isn't about PC gone mad, it's about one guy's wish to exert his power over a charity.

  • +4

    Hate to say but I’m with clinic on this one as they have a duty to fulfil before you are taken to the donor seat. You can’t donate blood if you are pregnant, if you can’t answer that they are not authorised to proceed.

  • +1

    How do you define pregnant? Or can only people who identify as pregnant define it? I think I'll identify as pregnant today to get a seat on the bus.

Login or Join to leave a comment