Takei-dar!

"Dude, you see the Steelers
game last night?"

-Oscar Wilde c. 1892

Well this is crap, read this article. No? Fine, I'll sum up: A guy named Aaron Pace went to sell blood and was turned down for being gay (which we'll get to in a minute). How did they know he was gay? Well, they didn't. I mean, unless he came up to the counter and and proclaimed his love of hot Takei sex, all they'd have to go on are stereotypes and his level of eyebrow grooming. It turns out he's not gay, and was turned down because he 'appears to be a homosexual.' Bullshit, right? I thought so too, but just as I was getting ready with some righteous indignation, I kept reading. According to the article, Pace was 'embarrassed and humiliated.' Really dude? Not morally outraged at an outmoded and discriminatory policy? Alright...On a side-note, I'd like to point out that embarrassed and humiliated are sort of the same thing.  

Here's a picture of Pace
thinking about boobs.

Well anyway, here's a quote yoinked from from the Chicago Sun-Times:

"It's not fair that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can't. And I'm not even a homosexual."

-Aaron Pace (who's totally not gay)

Yes, the ban is unfair and we get it, he's not gay...but is it just me or does it sound like he's got something against homeless people too? Am I reading too much into this?


Ok, this guy might have chosen his words poorly, but the policy really is screwed up. It's something the Food and Drug Administration came up with it back in the 1980's when people thought that the only things keeping the AIDS away were Ronald Reagan's confidence inspiring midnight-black coiffure and some kind of missile shield.

Most of our policies back then were based on paranoia and Atari. Also, cocaine was pretty big.

Although your post-transfusion BAC
is a good indicator.

The policy bans men who have had sex with other men after 1977 from ever donating blood. The assumption being that these men are more likely to be infected with HIV or Hepatitis regardless of testing or behavior. As a result, a safe-sex practicing, teetotaling, monogamous gay man is barred from donating for life where as Nicole Polizzi is not. Basically the FDA is totally cool with you having a half-pint of Snooki in your blood stream right now and not even knowing it.

Why not both?

Fine. The 80's were a different time and I think we can all agree that they were just a bad idea all together, but isn't it time we righted this wrong? And what the damn does the FDA have to do with blood donation? Like, is blood a food or a drug? Weren't there other government agencies more suited to set the blood donation rules? I don't know, like maybe they could have asked the Department of Health and Human Services? Surely they would get to the bottom of this crazy town ban, right?

After all, everyone knows science
and technology peaked in 1982.

Nope. Just last year (as in anno domini 2010) the Health and Human Services Committee upheld the ban even though all blood collected in the U.S. is tested for Hepatitis, HIV and robust flavor regardless of who donates it. So really the HHSC just decided to cling to the baseless fears of people who thought Max Hedroom would make a great TV show despite science, reason and a crippling blood shortage. Yep. This is the agency charged with protecting us from disease (and, by extension a Zombie Apocalypse).

Oh and in case you're wondering what's to stop a gay person or anyone else for that matter from lying about their sexual history or orientation, the answer is nothing, nothing at all. The ban is just there to make ignorant people feel safer by protecting them from imaginary threats. Advantage: stupid.

This is Colleen, the receptionist at the blood bank. She types 80 wpm, is proficient
with Excel and her gaydar is all that stands between you and catching the gay.