Gender-neutral blood donation comes with a sting in its tail.

A complete ban on gay, bisexual men and transgender women who have sex with men (TGM) donating blood is one step closer to being lifted.

The Red Cross Blood Service has made, or will soon make, an application to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) asking that people with HBT who are in a monogamous relationship or who do not have anal sex be allowed to donate blood.

If approved, all donors, gay and straight, cisgender and transgender, will be asked the same question about whether they have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners. If they say no, they can make a donation.

For the first time since the emergence of HIV in the 1980s, blood donors will be tested for the safety of their sexual activity, rather than the gender of their sexual partner.

This supply policy will open up a new source of safe blood, make the blood supply less discriminatory and bring Australia closer to the prevailing policies of the UK, US, Canada and many other countries.

All those GBT members and our allies who advocate for a fairer blood donation system should feel proud.

However, there will likely be an edge to Lifeblood’s position.

I understand that Lifeblood will ask the TGA to double the abstinence period for those who do not meet the requirements of the new policy before they can make a donation.

Currently, all sexually active HBT individuals must abstain from sex for three months before donating blood.

Lifeblood now offers a six-month abstinence period for those who engage in anal sex in a new or multiple relationship.

In other words, if you have had anal sex, you will need to be in a monogamous relationship for at least six months to be able to donate.

While Lifeblood has given the green light to GBT people who are monogamous or don’t engage in anal sex, additional barriers have been put in the way of those who don’t meet those criteria.

Don’t get me wrong, the medical evidence is clear that a period of abstinence from anal sex with new or multiple partners is required, but I am confused by Lifeblood’s suggestion of a six-month abstinence period rather than three.

If the new six-month abstinence period is approved, some people who are currently able to donate will no longer be able to do so.

This includes BBT people who had anal sex with their male partner more than three months before donation and who will now have to wait six.

This also includes heterosexual and cisgender women who engage in anal sex.

If, as Lifeblood has repeatedly told us, it is currently safe for such people to be donors, why is there suddenly a need to refuse them?

In addition, there is the problem of ongoing discrimination.

While Lifeblood’s proposed policy is ostensibly non-discriminatory, it affects a far larger proportion of BBT people than heterosexual or cisgender people.

This effectively sends the message that there is something so dangerous about gay sex that different conditions should apply to it.

It’s as if Lifeblood thinks it needs to post extra security at the gay blood donation gate to ensure the wrong kind of people can’t get inside.

It’s as if Lifeblood thinks it’s necessary to punish gays for their “bad” behavior while rewarding their “good” behavior.

The proposed policy is a clear example of indirect discrimination against BBT representatives.

For all these reasons, countries comparable to Australia, such as Canada, the UK and the US, have adopted a three-month abstinence period for those having anal sex with new or multiple partners, without any greater risk to the blood supply.

The whole point of an abstinence period is to cover the time between the time someone might first be infected with HIV and the time it shows up in tests.

The nucleic acid test (NAT), used to screen for blood-borne diseases, usually detects new HIV infection ten days and one month after its onset.

Thus, the current three-month period is already more than sufficient to reduce the risk to a minimum.

It is because three months is more than enough that the TGA has approved a three-month abstinence period for all HBT people in 2020.

So why is the TGA now asking for this period to be extended for some BBT members?

Lifeblood’s rationale doesn’t add up.

This indicates an increase in new HIV infections among GBT people, but the reality is that HIV infection rates are simply returning to pre-pandemic levels, as has happened in other countries with a three-month period of abstinence from anal sex with new or multiple partners, and remain so low that they pose no significant risk.

Lifeblood blamed the TGA, saying it was known to be extra cautious, even though the TGA had already approved a three-month abstinence period for people on BBT.

Lifeblood states that it includes sex workers in its application to the TGA and requires special caution that some people with haemophilia may still have residual concerns about HBT donation, and that (without clear justification) same-sex couples should remain monogamous longer to be safe.

It feels like Lifeblood is looking for reasons for policies it knows don’t make much sense.

From my discussions with Lifeblood, it is clear that they are desperate to end the ripple effect of the current GBT ban, with a growing number of businesses and government departments holding off on donating blood until their GBT employees are able to donate.

The organization also appears to be committed to guiding as many BBT people as possible into plasma donation, which does not require a period of sexual abstinence, a path it has been pursuing for several years.

He may also want to reassure countries buying Australian blood products that they are strictly guarding the gates of gay donation.

Those of us who advocate for gender-neutral blood donation can rejoice that our efforts are working.

But there is still work to be done, as Lifeblood supports policies that indirectly discriminate against BBT people.

The Let’s Give campaign will submit its own application to the TGA, supporting gender-neutral donor screening but challenging the six-month abstinence period as unnecessary and stigmatizing.

Please sign the blood equality petition here: