China: Nine nations in one?
Thanksgiving turkey conundrum? The solution: Taobao
"Haibao is coming"
Nuclear fallout Beijing: Mao's underground city
'Stateless in Shanghai': Nov. 21 and 22
Renowned sexologist and sociologist Li Yinhe (李银河) writes in a recent blogpost on China's laws against gay blood donors. A group of lesbians in Beijing are now fighting for the right to donate blood:
The rejection of gay blood donors is a grave political error
Recently, a lesbian who went to donate her blood was told her blood would not be accepted. This was in line with China's blood donation regulations which stipulate that homosexuals may not donate blood. In China, homosexuality is legal. Of all the laws we have in China today, this is the one and only law that is guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This is a discriminatory law, and the guiding philosophy behind that law is wrong.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same blood. Han Chinese and people of other minorities have the same blood. Aryans and Jews have the same blood. The sort of logic that leads to the rejection of gay blood donors is the same logic that leads Han Chinese to discriminate against people of ethnic minorities, and it's the same logic that leads Aryan people to discriminate against Jewish people. This is one class of people asserting its supposed superiority over another, this is fascism, and this is something that should not be tolerated in any modern democratic society.
The reasons behind this discriminatory law may be that AIDS first exploded among the homosexual male population in Western nations. In the early 1980s in the Western world, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for up to three quarters of HIV transmissions. But this was the situation in the West. The situation in many Asian nations today is not the same. For instance, in a report on HIV transmissions that came out of Thailand in June 1995, 66.5% of HIV patients were male heterosexuals, 10% were female heterosexuals, 7% were drug abusers, 6.6% were mother-to-child transmissions, 1% homosexuals, 0.2% botched blood transfusions, and 8.7% of transmissions were unaccounted for [Source: Thailand's Ministry of Health, Nov 1995]. Our analyses of HIV transmissions in China shows a similar situation to that of Thailand. Homosexual transmission accounts for less than 1%. This figure is now slightly higher, but it's still about 3%. The Chinese Ministry of Health has published the below data:
MSM transmissions: 0.4% in 2005, 3.3% in 2007
Heterosexual transmissions: 10.7% in 2005, 37.9% in 2007
Given the above data and using the logic that led us to those discriminatory blood donation laws, if we were to assess a person's suitability for blood donation purely based on his or her sexual orientation, we should be banning heterosexual blood donors instead. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that statistics indicate that in the spread of sexually transmitted infections, lesbians not only have a much lower rate of infections than gay men, they also have a much lower rate of infections than the general heterosexual population. In this light, the ban on lesbian blood donors is even more ridiculous.
In any case, whether you're looking at this from a philosophical or a practical point of view. the ban on gay blood donors is wrong. As a socialist democratic nation, for us to continue to engender Hitler's discrimination based on ethnic and sexual orientation (Hitler persecuted the homosexuals and threw them in concentration camps along with the Jews) is a serious political error. China's blood donation laws are a grave and serious political mistake.
The original Chinese post follows right after the jump:
拒绝同性恋献血是重大政治错误
最近，一位女同性恋者献血被拒绝，依据是我国的献血条例，其中规定同性恋者不可献血。在我国，同性恋是合法的，在所有的法律法规中唯一涉嫌性倾向歧视的就是这个献血条例。
这是一个歧视性条例，其指导思想是错误的。
同性恋者的血液和异性恋者的血液是一样的，汉族人的血液和少数民族的血液是一样的，雅利安人的血液和犹太人的血液是一样的。拒绝同性恋者献血背后的逻辑和汉族人歧视少数民族、雅利安人歧视犹太人一样，是种族优越论的，是法西斯主义的，是现代民主社会不能容忍的。
歧视性条例的来源可能是由于艾滋病在西方首先从男同性恋人群中爆发。在上世纪八十年代初的西方国家，男同性恋者一度在艾滋病例总数中占到四分之三。但是这只是西方的情况，东方许多国家并非如此。例如据泰国截至1995年6月对艾滋病感染来源的分析：66.5%来自男性异性恋者；10%女性异性恋者；7%使用针筒吸毒者；6.6%母体遗传；1%同性恋者；0.2%输血得病；8.7%原因不明。(泰国公共卫生部，《同健通讯》1995年11月号) 在中国对艾滋病感染来源的分析中，情况与泰国相仿，同性恋渠道传染一度低于1%，现在略高，也不过占3%。官方公布的艾滋病传播渠道的数字如下：
男男性传播，2005年占0.4%；2007年3.3%。
异性性传播：2005年占10.7%；2007年占37.9%
按照上述数字和献血条例的逻辑，如果要根据人的性倾向甄别献血资格，应当禁止异性恋者献血才对。尤其值得一提的是，统计表明，在性病传播方面，女同性恋不但比男同性恋要低得多，而且比一般的异性恋性行为还要低。相形之下，不许女同性恋者献血就更加荒诞。
总之，无论从理念层面还是实践层面看，禁止同性恋者献血都是错误的。作为一个社会主义的民主国家，承袭希特勒的种族歧视和性倾向歧视（希特勒曾经迫害同性恋者，将他们抓进集中营，跟犹太人关在一起）理念，是一个严重的政治错误。因此，我国目前的献血条例是一个犯有严重政治错误的条例。
Read more posts on Li Yinhe here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
post to facebook
I translated an Chinese article on this:
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/07/30/homosexuals-banned-from-donating-blood-protests-soared-online-to-protect-equality/
Someone (of any nationality) talking (humane) sense on an issue. A rare thing these days.
I'm curious which blood-donation regulation (献血条例) these people are talking about. Shanghai's local regulation does not have anything on homosexuality:
http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node2314/node3124/node3125/node3127/userobject6ai345.html
@ccyy: Have you ever gone for a blood donation? They usually ask you about your sexual orientation in a short interview before the procedure.
Red Cross also refuses to accept blood from homosexuals. It's fairly safe to rule out discrimination as the primary reason here, even though as a gay man I was initially a bit offended. It comes down to the fact that HIV infection rates among gay men are generally significantly higher than for straights, and in many cases are comparable to rates in sub-Saharan Africa (Bangkok: 28% gay men infected; Sydney: 16%; Shanghai: 3-5%). I imagine citizens or recent visitors to countries with a high level of infection are also excluded.
There are quite a few other factors that can render someone to be an unacceptable donor including recent illnesses, visits to certain countries, etc. It's very easy to get up in arms about discrimination, but in this case it's more of a practical decision to protect the health of those receiving blood. Nobody wants another Henan to happen (300,000-1 million infected with HIV contaminated blood) so precautions like this are wise.
Li Yinhe's data is a little bit skewed, I think. She won't get very far arguing that infection rates are the same or lower for gay men. They are higher.
She'd get much better mileage by suggesting that lesbians (who may have the lowest infection rates out of anyone) should be treated separately from gay men. It would be a sensible policy and give the health organization a chance to show that they are not discriminating against homosexuals. Or at least that they're not quite as bad as Hitler.