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

LEatslikeacat on 22/06/2022 - 17:14
Last edited 22/06/2022 - 17:16

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?

Health & Beauty

Comments

    • saltysalt on 23/06/2022 - 11:42
      +4

      too long on the internet for you buddy.

    • LFO on 23/06/2022 - 11:56

      How do you define pregnant?

      GOOD POINT!!

      2 days pregnant counts as pregnant?

      1 month pregnant counts as pregnant?

      When is "pregnant"?

    • Ughhh on 23/06/2022 - 12:54

      Can you identify as "boiling", "protein synthesis" or "growth"?

    • Davo1111 on 23/06/2022 - 13:36
      +2

      Passing a pregnancy test, or some other scan that shows you are pregnant.

      Anyway, they ask because they want to protect the donator.

  • anzacpaul on 23/06/2022 - 11:41
    +12

    It's a generic form. Tick no and move on with your life.

    Guy is an idiot.

    • outlander on 23/06/2022 - 13:04

      Guy is helping people at no profit to himself. Indeed, by current capitalistic standards, he is an idiot.

      Not a great society to build when being selfless becomes synonymous with stupidity.

      But your general sentiment is correct, and it is indeed a stupid media beatup designed to push an agenda (The agenda being 'oh no, everything is going nuts and society is breaking down! We need to go back to the good old past, where everyone had to pretend to be normal to fit in, and people with hair dyed slightly too far from the acceptable standard could be locked up in prison)

      • Domingo on 23/06/2022 - 15:34
        +6

        Guy formerly helped people at no profit to himself, but then decided not to rather than tick a box on a form*

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 06:06
        +1

        The guy is not helping anyone. If he's serious about contributing his blood to the system then he should be open and honest and forthcoming about any questions that they have instead of just getting upset. The process is designed to weed out bad donors and to create a barrier to entry so that we only get quality donations. He was stupid and not selfless. Selfless would have been ticking "No" and moving forward. He didn't do that. Instead he got angry, made himself ineligible and created a stink. How is any of that selfless?

        • outlander on 24/06/2022 - 21:24
          +2

          Dude gave blood for 50 years. There isn't a specific number on how many times he gave blood during that time, but assuming once every six months that's 100 times.

          Each time you give blood it takes 45 minutes. Add in the time before, after and travel etc and you're looking at about 2 hours worth of time donated each time. Plus the value of the blood, which I would estimate around $40.

          At $25 an hour, plus the blood, that's a $90 donation each time, for which you get nothing back.

          For all estimated 100 times, that's $9000 worth of value donated to the community. It's hard for me to call somebody stupid who willingly gives that

          Let me ask you this: If a homeless man asked you for money, and you felt like he deserved it and were going to give it to him, and then he asked you to fill in a questionnaire first before he'd accept the money.. would you be happy with that?

          • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 22:00

            @outlander: Dude is not helping anyone because he's 66 and so he's no longer legally able to donate blood anyhow as the maximum age you can be to donate blood in the UK in 65. So it doesn't matter how much blood he has given in the past. He isn't allowed under the laws of the UK to donate blood at the age of 66 - so yes he is currently not helping anyone.

            https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

            Also you literally called him an idiot and then say that it's hard for you to call someone stupid for doing something for the community. It clearly wasn't hard as you called him an idiot in your first post. Sigh.

            Also the value of donated blood is zero. You can't give value to something that is illegal to trade in in the UK. Blood has zero financial value. So I'm not sure how you applied the value of $40 to it. There's not even a gray or black market for blood in the UK. And you have no clue what travel time he had to deal with. Maybe the clinic is a 5 minute drive for him. You're just making numbers up. I donate blood regularly - the whole process takes around 30 minutes tops. So I don't know where you've gotten the number 45 even to begin with. Maybe someone's first session might take 45 minutes. But if you're regular you are in and out in 30 minutes tops.

            And to answer your question of course I'd fill in the questionnaire if that was his request. If he was happy with that process I see no reason why I wouldn't be happy with it either. Let me ask you this: Why would it bother you to fill in a questionnaire if the homeless man requested you to do so? Especially if it was a simple 3 minute task? And if he asked that of you, would you get angry, instantly refuse to help him and then contact the media and make a massive stink about how awful homeless people are today? If not then why are you at all defending this guy?

            • trapper on 25/06/2022 - 00:39
              +1

              @rightguy:

              You can't give value to something that is illegal to trade in in the UK.

              Must be why the cocaine is all free aye… lol

      • RefusdClassification on 24/06/2022 - 15:57

        People should be paid for providing blood, organs or other body parts. Tradesman won't provide you with a service without payment. Capitalist societies are where relationships are solely based on $ (unfortunately).

  • saltysalt on 23/06/2022 - 11:42
    +11

    What a stupid beat up by a rag. Just answer the damn question and move on. These right wing snowflakes are worse than the left wing ones.

  • LFO on 23/06/2022 - 11:53

    And talking about "exclusions", aren't sexually active male homosexuals banned for blood donation?

    • Davo1111 on 23/06/2022 - 13:39

      https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/eligibility/sexual-activi…

      Fyi it's quite a bit more broad than you think. They're also not banned for being gay

      • LFO on 25/06/2022 - 18:43

        They're also not banned for being

        I clearly stated sexually active male homosexuals. Active being the red flag.
        A chaste male homosexual will be welcomed as the potential risks diminish.

        • Eeples on 26/06/2022 - 00:10

          The ‘exclusions’ are about sexual activity not sexual orientation.

          For example recently sexually active bisexual men who have sex with males would also be excluded.

          Using orientation labels is not really helpful (as what is of interest is recent sexually activity).

          • LFO on 26/06/2022 - 19:12

            @Eeples: That is why I methodically state: sexually active male homosexuals. Active

  • Seepy on 23/06/2022 - 11:57
    +8

    Asking if you are pregnant and what sex you are are standard on most medical procedures. I honestly believe he's just trying to unnecessarily provoke the system in lieu of his personal views.

    Now I am all for common sense. It is obvious that if he presents as male and has identified appropriately as male then he almost certainly cannot possibly be pregnant. However, common sense does not override liability. The form is essentially a statement of your physical state and not one of your personal views. If the practice assumes that you are not pregnant from just the basis of your biological sex and this happens to not be the case (albeit incredibly rare, but I would imagine not 0%) then the practice becomes liable for any ensuing damage. The statement is designed to shift the liability to the donor and I believe that this is only fair as their only job is to take blood and not run a physical exam. I believe it is firmly within the right of the blood clinic to reject him on that basis.

    tldr: The man is being an unnecessary (profanity). The form he signs is a declaration of his physical status to which only he can adequately answer.

  • drillvoice on 23/06/2022 - 12:11
    +7

    It is very possible for men to simply say "no I am not pregnant".

    It's also quite relevant for a blood service to promote inclusivity - they may also want trans people to donate blood where they are eligible to do so (or they may have trans or non-binary employees). This is really no skin off anyone's teeth to just fill out the damn form.

  • peterw1 on 23/06/2022 - 12:39
    +1

    Looks like the JW’s are winning.

  • auna on 23/06/2022 - 14:01

    Good on him. Blood donators should be paid and people properly screened. If the donators want, they can donate their money. Until they do this there is no blood crisis.

  • AEKaBeer on 23/06/2022 - 14:18

    I'd say all 66 year olds should be exempt from answering the question. badum tishh

    • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 12:34

      66 year olds are exempt from donating blood in the UK anyways so I don't get what this whole thing is about. The guy wasn't eligible in the first place

      https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

      • AEKaBeer on 24/06/2022 - 14:50

        The article reads like a traffic generator, hit a subject that is very divisive and just have people talk and argue about it and the daily mail get ad revenue. I doubt it's a real story and that mr sinclare even exists.

  • kungfuman on 23/06/2022 - 14:19
    +2

    the entire world is F'ed up we need to do a reboot of society to remove the trash.

    • lachhelix on 24/06/2022 - 21:09

      Hopefully they'll all die out in 40-50 years

  • Dack Smith on 23/06/2022 - 14:57

    Petty squabbles, storm in a teacup, social justice warriors unite!

    People have really lost the plot I think.

    I blame climate change and the teal movement

  • Richmond Tigers on 23/06/2022 - 15:13
    +1

    I identify as a cactus, where's my option?

    • Davo1111 on 24/06/2022 - 08:16
      +3

      You're trying to be funny, but you can donate as a cactus. You still have to confirm if you're pregnant or not.

  • ozbjunkie on 23/06/2022 - 17:04
    +1

    At 66 he has obviously gone through manopause and can no longer be pregnant. Duh.

    • Cluster on 23/06/2022 - 21:37
      -1

      What if he identifies as a 25 year old?

      And before someone says 'well that's stupid, of course he's way above 25!', I say 'how do you know?' Are you making a judgement about him/they? It's quite possible in the future people will identify as whatever age they feel they are, and everyone will have to go along with it.

      • Waffles on 23/06/2022 - 22:23
        +2

        "It's quite possible"

        Dude, just stop, please. It's sad. Noone is arguing age, the spectrum rather than binary reality of biology is more complicated and actually real, whether it upsets you or not.

    • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 12:35
      +1

      At 66 he can't even donate blood due to his age in the UK which makes me think this story is utter bullshit

      https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

  • Waffles on 23/06/2022 - 17:31
    +5

    I'm a long time donor and last I saw the actual questions you fill out prior say 'i am male' as an option. I'll admit I didn't check all the other hate filled comments to see if anyone else had raised this point.

    But imagine actually giving a shit and chucking a tanty over something like this, moreover as for all sorts of reasons people could be pregnant regardless of anything else you might assume you know about them. The problem here is the outrage machine who never does anything as useful in their life as donating blood.

  • KBZ on 23/06/2022 - 17:33
    +5

    I'm confused at the amount of comments on this thread.
    Did anyone actually go thru the link with the questionaire, or is everyone just having a tantrum over wokeness.
    Pretty generic form I found, sounds like he wanted to be offended over nothing.

  • striker5950 on 23/06/2022 - 17:45
    +1

    he might have been an attack helicopter they need to include a box for that or they are being attackhelicopterogynists

  • jacross on 23/06/2022 - 18:38
    +5

    You don't need a 'not applicable' box. Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Sex and gender is irrelevant.

  • oz-dave on 23/06/2022 - 18:43
    +2

    I find it weird that if you are a man who engages in oral or anal with another man you are considered "at risk" and can't donate, but if a woman were to engage in oral or anal with a man (potentially even the same man) she is NOT considered "at risk" and can donate.

    It is also quite amusing that getting paid for sex makes you "at risk" but if you do it for free you are ok to donate ;-)

    • Alligator Arms on 23/06/2022 - 19:47
      +2

      And what about if you're a man and engage in oral or anal sex with another man that identifies as a woman?

    • Jolakot on 23/06/2022 - 20:17
      +5

      Literally just based on (historically at this point) HIV risk, there isn't much higher thinking involved, just statistics

    • trapper on 24/06/2022 - 15:25

      It's not weird at all. That "at risk" comes straight from the statistics.

      Gay and bisexual men are 73x more likely to have HIV than the general population for example.

      Also injecting drug users are 14x more likely to have HIV

      https://www.better2know.com.au/blog/2022/06/10/hiv-statistic…

  • gregsurname on 23/06/2022 - 18:49

    They wouldn't let me donate because I wouldn't leave my 7yo kid alone out in the lobby. They wouldn't let them accompany me into the interview room.

    • Waffles on 23/06/2022 - 22:24
      +1

      It's a medical clinic with syringes and blood products. I wouldn't want my kid there.

      • trapper on 24/06/2022 - 15:33
        +1

        lol what, no that is ridiculous. Do you actually have kids?

        I can assure you a seven year old is quite capable of sitting quietly in the same room for five minutes while you donate blood.

  • aimpacc on 23/06/2022 - 19:01
    +1

    How to piss off multiple groups of people at once:

    I'm male and I identify as vaccinated.

    • amzinguserman on 23/06/2022 - 19:17
      +2

      I forget Ozbargain is filled with one joke conservative boomer humor.

  • MessyG on 23/06/2022 - 20:48
    +4

    So you all need a bit of a history lesson. Number one is that transgender people have been around as long as humans have, but they haven't been as visible as they are right now. Second of all, it was only until fairly recently that people who identified as a gender that was not seen as consistent with their biological sex were thrown in jail by the medical profession reporting them to police - at best, and hunted and murdered at worst. Older transgender people are often terrified of the medical profession and will never disclose anything, not even their pronouns - they're very different to the younger crowd. It is very possible for older transgender men (perhaps not that old) to be pregnant and it's probably happened that a pregnant person has donated blood in this way, without this question being asked because of their assumed gender, and harm coming to them. Or they haven't felt like they can disclose. All of this manufactured outrage to sell papers, outrage over 'wokeism', "jokes" about identifying as aeroplanes, must feel really good to people because they keep parrotting it all on and on. There's a lot beyond the media space on this, the history, the HIV pandemic, the relentless persecution, even up until now. I suggest everyone take a deep breath and appreciate that they don't know what they don't know, and imagine that a teenager struggling with this is reading what you write, and for gods sake, being kind about when you post, even if you have reservations.

    This 66 year old man who should know better has gone crying to the Daily Mail and generated disproportionate media and hate, to a tiny segment of the population, who historically have been persecuted for a very very long time. I hope he's proud of himself.

    • grasstown on 24/06/2022 - 15:13
      +2

      Appreciate the write up. But the 66 year old has a valid point. There are high instances of irreversible surgery happening today. Of people who later regret it. There is influence and Red Cross should not be indulging it. You cannot change the meaning of words, men do not get pregnant. You called them a transgender man. That is what they are. That is not what they are being called today. Little children are being confused. There is a lot of questioning of reality happening, this is one.

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 16:14
        -2

        Define high instances. I can't find a single shred of data to back up your claim. I've done a search on Google Scholar. I've scoured multiples search engines and there is literally zero to back up your claim other than essentially sites that also seem to say that the Holocaust was bogus and that Reptiles control the world. Is that what you used as a source?

        And you can change the meaning of words any time. Language isn't a fixed thing. If you were to go back in time and speak to someone speaking English 400 years ago you would find a lot of words have changed meaning or pronounciation. This happens constantly and is regional as well. A thong in Australia is different to a thong in the USA for example. Gay once had no relationship to a sexual orientation.

        Your worry about children is ridiculous. It's not that confusing. Heck I know a number of trans kids and their classmates aren't having any issues with confusion. Of course if we teach children to be ignorant such as you are they will be confused. If we pretend kids don't have the capacity to understand issues of gender and identity then of course they are going to wind up being confused. Just like if we don't teach kids sexual education in schools and/or at home they will be confused. People don't magically understand anything other than a few innate things. They need to understand things. But there are quite literally cultures on this planet where men breastfeed and women hunt and gather. There are cultures where men were long flowing dress like clothing and women wear pants. There are cultures on this planet where languages have no gender, where languages have two genders and where languages have three genders. We are a very malleable and adaptable species and we have adapted and our languages and cultural practices have adapted over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Stop pretending that everything has to stay frozen in time in 1955 and that we aren't allowed to progress past that point in our cultural history. It's ludicrous. And ultimately people like yourself will just get left behind in the dust being cranky and claiming that the world has gone to hell. You're like an old man getting angry because Elvis is swiveling his hips and this will now spell doom to the entire human culture. It's sad. The honest truth is that you're a small minded bigot. Accept that and recover from that if you like.

        • grasstown on 24/06/2022 - 18:23
          -2

          I am a Christian. My creator became man and taught me. I would much trust the saints than you. Our culture is based on the teachings of our creator.

          • SBOB on 24/06/2022 - 18:35
            +1

            @grasstown: You could have just said you didn't have any actual facts to back up your claim…
            Would have been less awkward..

            I assume based on your fact source you also adhere to all the other teachings from the same 'creator' based rules….

            • grasstown on 24/06/2022 - 18:37
              +1

              @SBOB: Just search YouTube for what I posted and you will see. What I wrote is true and I stand by it

              • SBOB on 24/06/2022 - 18:52
                +1

                @grasstown:

                search YouTube for what I posted

                blinks
                Not even a bit surprised……

                • grasstown on 24/06/2022 - 19:36

                  @SBOB: Did you search what I wrote?

                • rightguy on 25/06/2022 - 07:54
                  -1

                  @SBOB: This guy has clearly never read his own bible and knows nothing about his religion that he hasn't learnt on Youtube. It's sad that someone has decided that instead of doing the work of actually understanding their faith they'll let someone else do that work and they'll just follow those people blindly. That's one of the major issues with religion is that people want to believe in something but ask them, for example, to read the 27 books of the New Testament and they'll just never get around to it. Instead they'll read a book or two and then they'll just let someone tell them what's in the other 25 or 26 books and feed their head with utter bullshit. There is nothing in the New Testament that states that transsexuality is a sin. But we have a huge amount of Christians believing that somehow it is. And then they'll go back to Genesis and say well god created man and woman so that's that. Well god also told you never to drink blood twice in that same book and yet plenty of Christians eat blood sausage or bloody meats. And god created man and woman and created them in his image. How can one interpret that as god forbidding a man from becoming a woman or a woman from becoming a man? You have to start putting words in god's mouth at that point. And if man and woman are created in god's image and given free will then what is stopping them from exercising those free will opportunities? Typically biblical laws tell those of its faith what the limits of that free will might be. For instance in Leviticus there's a long list of people you can't have sex with including close family and animals (and again most Christians aren't even under the laws of Leviticus). But nowhere in the New Testament is there a single passage that limits free will around gender identity. Obviously the Jewish bible perceived it as a problem and denotes that men aren't to wear women's clothing and vice versa (Deuteronomy 22:5).

                  My favorite is that the New Testament clearly advocates that there is no gender anyways. Galatians 3:28 clearly states "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." So how so-called Christians avoid the fact that their bible explicitly states that there is no gender anyhow is beyond me. Clearly no one has read the New Testament but everyone claims that they are experts on it. And then this guy has the insane nerve to ask you to look at Youtube for answers instead of pointing to his bible. It's insane. This guy isn't a Christian he's a Youtubian. Youtube is his bible.

          • rightguy on 25/06/2022 - 07:39

            @grasstown: Your god taught you that "there are high instances of people regretting their irreversible surgery"? Please elaborate. By the way, your god, was a circumcised man who underwent an irreversible surgery to his genitals when he was 8 days old. As did all his apostles. As did Luke, Mark, John and Paul who you believe wrote the New Testament.

            There is quite literally nothing in your bible or teachings that indicate that undergoing a sex change is wrong. There are zero prohibitions against it. There are 1050 laws in the New Testament and absolutely zero of them have to do with changing one's sex. However multiple of them have to do with being sober and especially not getting drunk on wine.

            You would have to believe that you were still under the laws of Leviticus to start arguing that there is something in Christian teachings that states that a surgical sex change is against the religious teachings - but then you'd also have to stop eating shellfish and any animal that doesn't have split hooves and chew its cud, or any fish that doesn't have scales or fins and you'd have to celebrate the Jewish holidays of Passover, Pentecost, Yom Kippur, etc. The laws of Leviticus have laws against men wearing women's clothes and vice versa and about altering your body in any shape and form such as with tattoos or body modification (Leviticus 19:28). But again, you as a Christian would have to follow all the laws of Leviticus if you believed in that which means keeping kosher, not having sex with a woman until after she's gone through a baptismal process each month after her period, celebrating the Jewish Sabbath to the laws of the Jewish Sabbath, etc.

            For someone who claims so strongly about their culture being based on the teachings of Jesus that has been captured in the New Testament you honestly seem to have no understanding of what the New Testament and what Jesus' teachings have to say about transsexuals. Spoiler alert - they have nothing to say about it. The New Testament has as much to say about transsexuals as it does about watching movies - it says nothing about either. Hence the only way for you to claim your god told you that transsexualism is bad is to put words in his mouth that he never uttered. I can't believe that your god would appreciate you saying he said things he didn't say.

            Maybe you should actually read your bible instead of just making up crap and putting it online for people, such as myself, to just cringe at the bullshit you espouse. I have read and studied the New Testament and put that work and effort into doing so - for you, as a Christian who goes online and pounds your bible in order to damn others, to have not done that is utterly sad and pathetic. Read your bible and follow your laws. And stop making up bullshit and posting in in public forums.

        • trapper on 25/06/2022 - 00:50
          +2

          And you can change the meaning of words any time. Language isn't a fixed thing. If you were to go back in time and speak to someone speaking English 400 years ago you would find a lot of words have changed meaning or pronounciation.

          No. The natural evolution of language over time is a very different thing from the deliberate manipulation of language.

          • rightguy on 25/06/2022 - 07:11
            -2

            @trapper: Sorry are you under some insane belief that language is some natural thing that has zero connection to human beings and is instead at the mercy of some universal force life evolution - because that is utterly nonsensical. Language doesn't evolve naturally. It has to be manipulated. Language isn't some natural thing. It is entirely a human construct. The only way for it to change is through manipulation where humans decide to alter it somehow. It doesn't evolve naturally in a vacuum. It changes wholly by deliberate human manipulation. You really need to educate yourself because your understanding of language is utterly insane.

            • trapper on 25/06/2022 - 11:07

              @rightguy: Are you always this toxic mate?

              • rightguy on 25/06/2022 - 11:18
                -1

                @trapper: Toxic? Dude you're spreading absolute lies here and essentially making up stuff to try to pretend that you have some authority over the topic of discussion. Any reasonable person would just say "I don't know" or "I need to do more research" they wouldn't just pretend they have knowledge they don't and then make stuff up. Forgive me if you feel it's toxic for someone to call you out on openly making stuff up. But being under a belief that language evolves naturally without human manipulation is insane. That's like believing that rocks can talk or that pockets of iron embedded in the earth can evolve naturally into cast iron pots. Language is a human construct. It has no basis outside of human manipulation. There's no universal force involved. Just constant human manipulation and human progress. Stop feeling so hurt when someone calls you out for posting something that's utterly illogical and instead start learning the tools of logic and using them when forming an argument. There's plenty of tools that you can use to educate yourself. If you feel it's toxic for someone to offer you advice that you ought to educate yourself further about something then I'm at a loss to tell you what's wrong with your thinking.

                Your the one whose thinking is toxic in that you are attempting to tell someone they're wrong about something that all evidence and understanding currently indicates is a valid theory. Your theory has no evidence or understanding. It's invalid. Please don't label me toxic for informing you that you should try to stop posting bullshit theories online.

                • trapper on 25/06/2022 - 11:47

                  @rightguy: You post these screeds of nonsense, yet it is everyone else who is "under some insane belief", "utterly nonsensical", "utterly insane", "spreading lies", "pretending to have authority", "openly making stuff up", "feeling so hurt", "utterly illogical", etc

                  This is not healthy, you need to do some self reflection.

                  • rightguy on 25/06/2022 - 13:03
                    -1

                    @trapper: Calling you out because you preach that language is some natural force in the universe and isn't a construct that is guided by a human collective is not unhealthy. You believing in stuff that is akin to believing that the world is flat is unhealthy. GO EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU POST BS ON A PUBLIC FORUM. It's that simple my friend. You have a major cognitive bias that is making you see the world as it isn't. All the data and understanding we have about language is that it is entirely a social construct guided and manipulated by a human collective. Unless you're from a different universe that has a different set of data then please engage and deal with the knowledge we have in this reality and stop posting BS in public forums. It's that simple my friend. Much love to you on your journey back to reality.

    • lachhelix on 24/06/2022 - 21:06

      Perfectly well written post - it's nice to see since decency for a change

  • DiscoJango on 23/06/2022 - 20:54
    -4

    i feel sorry for the next generation:

    i dont have a mum and dad, i have an "it" and a "they"!

    • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 06:07
      +3

      I feel sorry for your family, friends and colleagues who have to deal with a sad antiquated and hateful person in their lives.

    • keejoonc on 24/06/2022 - 09:08
      +1

      Yep, the world has gone mad and people have been brainwashed by mainstream media and garbage from Hollywood.

    • Pidapipo on 24/06/2022 - 10:15
      +2

      I feel sad for you, for not being able to differentiate between nouns and pronouns.

      • DiscoJango on 24/06/2022 - 13:38
        +2

        thanks, i feel sorry for you feeling sorry for me, for getting upset with pc nonsense

        neg away its and theys of the world, no one cares!

  • provision on 23/06/2022 - 20:57

    My question is if you're taken to a hospital hospital for emergency help, do you request to be treated as your biological gender or what you identify with.

    • MessyG on 23/06/2022 - 21:26
      +11

      Hospital doc here - most good organisations give us training in health issues related to transgender people, and in communication skills around this very issue. There's not a whole lot of biological sex related specific acute emergencies anyway, but for the very few that there are, if they don't raise it we don't raise it (especially the older group - see my post above). A lot of us wear badges with our pronouns to help them feel safe to disclose if they want, but it's really not required if they don't want to.

      It's a bit of a culture shock to work with transgender people from time to time as part of the day job and for it to be no issue (in a well trained workplace at least), and then go onto the Internet and read all the relentless hate about them…

      • ozhunter on 23/06/2022 - 21:46
        +2

        There's not a whole lot of biological sex related specific acute emergencies anyway, but for the very few that there are, if they don't raise it we don't raise it (especially the older group - see my post above).

        Because what they identify as is irrelevant? And more than likely you can tell what sex they are.

        • MessyG on 23/06/2022 - 21:50
          +11

          There's biological sex, there is no definable biological sex (intersex) and there is gender identity and they can be different and that's okay. That's been a thing for as long as humans have been around. The only difference now is grassroots social media highlighting their existence and demanding not to be persecuted, and the fact that it doesn't get you thrown in prison anymore.

        • p1 ama on 24/06/2022 - 10:30
          +1

          Because what they identify as is irrelevant?

          The funny thing is, this is what the vast majority of people recognise, but the political right seems to keep missing. Yes, what people identify is absolutely irrelevant. Yet you're the one who seems particularly aggrieved by it.

          I don't understand why you care so much, but hey, you do you.

          • ozhunter on 24/06/2022 - 19:16
            +2

            @p1 ama:

            Yes, what people identify is absolutely irrelevant.

            But what they actually are is relevant in some cases, especially when they want other people to identify them the same way. FINA and the International Rugby League had just made it a lot harder for transwomen to compete in the women's category lol.

            Yes, what people identify is absolutely irrelevant.

            I don't feel aggrieved by it, I find it hilarious.

            • p1 ama on 25/06/2022 - 11:55

              @ozhunter:

              But what they actually are is relevant in some cases, especially when they want other people to identify them the same way. FINA and the International Rugby League had just made it a lot harder for transwomen to compete in the women's category lol.

              Not sure why this is a "lol", but sure - they are a private sports league and can ban whoever they want to ban. Again, I don't see why this is a particularly relevant issue.

              I don't feel aggrieved by it, I find it hilarious.

              I also don't get why it's funny. Old mate Jimmy decides he wants to live his life as a woman. Who the bloody fk cares mate?

      • Waffles on 23/06/2022 - 22:26
        +3

        It's a bit of a culture shock to work with transgender people from time to time as part of the day job and for it to be no issue (in a well trained workplace at least), and then go onto the Internet and read all the relentless hate about them…

        Thanks for not being disgusting! :)

  • bajillionaire on 23/06/2022 - 21:32
    +8

    God damn I hate the OzB forums.

    • DiscoJango on 24/06/2022 - 13:38

      its the ozmoron forums, get it right!

    • ScuffedPanda on 24/06/2022 - 15:09

      I didn't realise the forums were this reactionary until now

    • whatgift on 24/06/2022 - 15:21

      Why? There's just as many (if not more) sensible people on there, and we need some idiots to balance them out, otherwise it's not a discussion! If you want to see a true dumpster fire, go to the news.com.au comments.

  • Melong on 23/06/2022 - 21:42
    +1

    https://youtu.be/EShUeudtaFg

  • lost in transit on 23/06/2022 - 21:54
    +4

    I IDENTIFY as needing BLOODY PLASMA Weekly and they need to sort this crap out YESTERDAY.

    They don’t want to offend anyone and that means EVERYONE….

    A BIG THANKYOU for the people that take precious time out of there day to DONATE and keep me alive and functioning.
    YOU MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO PEOPLE LIVES, Although you don’t see it…

    • Waffles on 23/06/2022 - 22:27

      Thanks for inspiring me after all this crap, I'll get it done ASAP.

  • koalabargains on 24/06/2022 - 00:09
    +1

    I’d do the same.

    If they want t accommodate a fraction of a percentage of people at the risk of dehumanizing women and rewriting reality, then they should go ahead and get woke blood exclusively.

  • FittyFitty on 24/06/2022 - 01:02
    +2

    What if I consider myself pregnant but I'm really not; will my misplaced feelings be taken into account?

    Cross-dressing gone mad, I say.

    • Davo1111 on 24/06/2022 - 08:20
      +3

      You wouldn't be allowed to donate.

      The whole pregnant question is to stop you from having a miscarriage. Whether or not you're a male is irrelevant, you're shown the door.

      Plus they wouldn't want people who can't fill out a form properly

      • trapper on 24/06/2022 - 15:37
        +1

        Plus they wouldn't want people who can't fill out a form properly

        This is just stupid, they should want anyone healthy to donate blood.

        • Davo1111 on 24/06/2022 - 15:57
          -1

          You risk having your blood discarded anyway, which is a pointless waste of resources.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2022 - 01:29
    -2

    What a pity EVERYONE doesn't stop donating blood until this nonsense is removed.

  • benderz on 24/06/2022 - 11:12
    +2

    This is the sort of guy who complains loudly about snowflakes while acting like a snowflake.

    "But it's the principle"
    No, you are just being an annoying prick.

  • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 12:01
    +2

    Can we talk about how this story is likely fabricated. A 66 year old man is turned away from donating blood in a system where the maximum age of a donor is 65

    Doesn't that sound a little fishy to anyone else???

    https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

    • AEKaBeer on 24/06/2022 - 14:57
      +1

      Didn't see your post about it being fabricated before I said the same thing. It reads very much like a click bait article designed to farm traffic.

    • AustriaBargain on 24/06/2022 - 16:12
      +3

      Like how that transwoman at a spa controversy turned out to be fabricated.

      https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/wi-spa-la-transphob…

      Except it turns out it wasn't fabricated, and the person was actually a serial sex offender.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charg…

      What a rollercoaster that ordeal was in the war for hearts and minds.

      • rightguy on 24/06/2022 - 16:18

        Thanks for quite literally adding nothing to this conversation. Do you actually have anything relevant to say about this topic or do you just want to prove what a sad and pathetically irrational person you are and play the needless whataboutism card?

        I've offered proof that a 66 year old man is not allowed to donate blood in the UK. That a 66 year old man is complaining about not being able to donate blood and blaming it on some element of a document is weird considering he is not legally allowed to donate blood in the UK based solely on his age. Are you saying that he actually is legally able to donate blood in the UK and if so please provide me with a source saying that he is. I'm quite happy to call the UK in a couple of hours and put the question to the NHS Blood and Transplant department if you would like to settle this?

        • AustriaBargain on 24/06/2022 - 16:34
          +2

          Please do call the UK, I'd be interested to hear what they say to you. I don't really have skin in the game either way, but I am interested to know what they would say.

  • postform on 24/06/2022 - 12:32

    How does this even have to do with woke or LGTI? Isn't it just a cost cutting measure / lazy way from the questionnaire?

  • illogicalerror on 24/06/2022 - 14:06
    +3

    Remember back in the good old days where cross dressing was just fun.

    • Eeples on 26/06/2022 - 00:15

      I think ppl dress up as Furries now for fun.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join