Jarenlang werd hier om gevraagd en ze vinden pas de motivatie wanneer de bloedbanken bijna leeg zijn? 🤔
Grappig hoe die dingen werken in België…
>Oppositiepartijen N-VA en Vlaams Belang onthielden zich bij de stemming. Beide partijen verwijzen naar een advies van het Rode Kruis, dat aanmaant tot voorzichtigheid.
As expected
Gooooooood
I’ll just keep my gay blood for myself as long as I’m going to be treated as a walking HIV factory. I’m in a monogamous (homogamous? 😆) relationship for over 20 years now, do they really expect me to not have sex for any period of time before I’m considered “clean” or “safe” enough?
Honestly: fuck off.
And also fuck off with your 5 euro stickers. If you’re going to discriminate me on the basis of who I sleep with, well then my gay money also carries a higher risk of not getting in your pockets.
Call me petty, but place yourself in my shoes. It hurts. And it’s not fair.
Edit: From the article
“In Nederland mogen homo- en biseksuele mannen sinds vorig jaar bloed geven zonder wachttijd als ze in een monogame relatie zitten en wordt er in een vragenlijst gepeild naar het seksueel gedrag in plaats van de seksuele geaardheid op zich.”
That’s the way it should be done. Hup Holland hup!
I think it’s really too bad that the Red Cross says this means more staff will be needed. Yes technically that is correct, but the lack of empathy bothers me. I know it is due to wanting to maintain a neutral ground but in this case it is easy to see it as homophobia.
You can tell someone that their iron levels are unsuitable or that their recent tattoos introduce a risk that is too great and people will generally get that. But the risk of HIV is often talked about in a way that sounds as a disapproval of life choices and that just gets ugly. I’m not sure why they don’t hire some communication experts to help with the nuance and correct use of language. It makes it very easy to think it is intentional when it isn’t.
Hopefully in future with faster and cheaper testing we can move past this.
It’s kind of funny because the studies actually show that in recent years HIV infections have declined in the gay community to the point where most people in Belgium with HIV are people with origins outside of Europe.
And yet there’s no discrimination based on immigration background only sexuality.
Also as a sidenote how do they define sex? Is it purely anal, what about oral, handjobs?
What about sex with trans men, does that count as MSM?
Honestly the whole rule doesn’t make sense. It’s blanket discrimination with no recent scientific evidence.
But what about monogamous gay men, this is still unfair to them. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to change for het rode kruis.
7 comments
Jarenlang werd hier om gevraagd en ze vinden pas de motivatie wanneer de bloedbanken bijna leeg zijn? 🤔
Grappig hoe die dingen werken in België…
>Oppositiepartijen N-VA en Vlaams Belang onthielden zich bij de stemming. Beide partijen verwijzen naar een advies van het Rode Kruis, dat aanmaant tot voorzichtigheid.
As expected
Gooooooood
I’ll just keep my gay blood for myself as long as I’m going to be treated as a walking HIV factory. I’m in a monogamous (homogamous? 😆) relationship for over 20 years now, do they really expect me to not have sex for any period of time before I’m considered “clean” or “safe” enough?
Honestly: fuck off.
And also fuck off with your 5 euro stickers. If you’re going to discriminate me on the basis of who I sleep with, well then my gay money also carries a higher risk of not getting in your pockets.
Call me petty, but place yourself in my shoes. It hurts. And it’s not fair.
Edit: From the article
“In Nederland mogen homo- en biseksuele mannen sinds vorig jaar bloed geven zonder wachttijd als ze in een monogame relatie zitten en wordt er in een vragenlijst gepeild naar het seksueel gedrag in plaats van de seksuele geaardheid op zich.”
That’s the way it should be done. Hup Holland hup!
I think it’s really too bad that the Red Cross says this means more staff will be needed. Yes technically that is correct, but the lack of empathy bothers me. I know it is due to wanting to maintain a neutral ground but in this case it is easy to see it as homophobia.
You can tell someone that their iron levels are unsuitable or that their recent tattoos introduce a risk that is too great and people will generally get that. But the risk of HIV is often talked about in a way that sounds as a disapproval of life choices and that just gets ugly. I’m not sure why they don’t hire some communication experts to help with the nuance and correct use of language. It makes it very easy to think it is intentional when it isn’t.
Hopefully in future with faster and cheaper testing we can move past this.
It’s kind of funny because the studies actually show that in recent years HIV infections have declined in the gay community to the point where most people in Belgium with HIV are people with origins outside of Europe.
And yet there’s no discrimination based on immigration background only sexuality.
Also as a sidenote how do they define sex? Is it purely anal, what about oral, handjobs?
What about sex with trans men, does that count as MSM?
Honestly the whole rule doesn’t make sense. It’s blanket discrimination with no recent scientific evidence.
But what about monogamous gay men, this is still unfair to them. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to change for het rode kruis.