This Seems Like a Big Deal


This seems like a big stinkin’ deal. But what do I know?  Maybe the Ricochet team doctors can weigh on the elevated health risks this involves.

I myself had some health drama a few years ago, the survival from which involved needing to receive four units of blood.  So the question is not really academic, I guess.

Why, it’s almost as if mass institutional delusion could have a negative effect on public health or something.  Or maybe public health is just being made to take a backseat to the desire of American Red Cross execs to be viewed as some of the cool kids.  Maybe the decision-makers at the American Red Cross are such horrible people they’re willing to risk harming their neighbors just to get more “likes” on social media.


Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward

    BDB (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    EB (View Comment):

    Red Cross page

    Thanks, EB. That’s the page I found too. It does not back up the claim in the article that kicks off this post. It has the usual yada-yada about sexual orientation, non-prejudice, etc, but nowhere does it make the ludicrous claim that the blood is okay if the donor claims they’re female.


    I copied this from the Red Cross page linked above:

    It sounds to me like they’re saying that the blood is ok if the donor claims they’re female. Although this stuff is confusing to me – perhaps I’m misinterpreting their virtue signaling.

    It doesn’t sound like that to me. They’re saying they’ll accept blood from trannies. It doesn’t say that it gets treated any differently than anyone else’s. It doesn’t give that blood some sort of automatic OK because of the claimed sex of the donor.

    If the article quoted in the post just stated, “Red Cross is no longer excluding gays from blood donation”, it would have been accurate, and we could have discussed that. But the claim in the post isn’t backed up by anything the Red Cross wrote.

    Part of the trouble with woke nonsense is that they obscure language and never come directly out and say what they mean. That makes it difficult to get clear answers. I read those two statements that you quoted above and I can’t figure out if they are just going to let people self identify their sex and go with that or not. Lefties in general are rarely honest or clear about their intentions.

    From the first statement “eligibility should not be determined by methods that are based upon sexual orientation.” But those questionnaires I mentioned above clearly and unambiguously will reject you based on your sexual orientation. So I don’t know what to think.

    Read the FDA guidance for clarity. The change is to base it on behaviors rather than orientation. That’s not unreasonable. Female prostitutes with all male clientele are more disease-risky than long-term-monogamous gay couples. They are also targeting the behavior of anal intercourse–for men or women–because of its association with HIV and the various hepatitis viruses.

    Are female prostitutes accepted donors?


    • #61
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.