The federal Food and Drug Administration is the latest government institution to substitute a mix of societal prejudice, stereotyping and public hysteria in the place of sound scientific evidence and cool-headed judgment when it comes to policy-making.
On May 20, the FDA issued new rules that prohibit any man who has had sex with another man in the past five years from being an anonymous sperm donor. The same day, the FDA also issued recommendations barring the human tissue of gay men (or, more likely, deceased gay men) from being used to help save the lives of others. Examples of vital tissues that will not be used from gay men for medical purposes include bones, veins, cornea and ligaments.
The rulings are allegedly out of concern for transmitting HIV. But in reality, they are less about stopping the spread of disease than they are about propagating stereotypes.
In the case of sperm banks, no one wants HIV transmitted unwillingly to babies. But something as simplistic as banning gay men from being anonymous sperm donors defies scientific logic. And it doesn't do anything to help protect babies.
The chances of HIV-positive sperm getting into a sperm bank by an anonymous donor of any sexual orientation are extremely small.
This is because virtually any sperm bank, and certainly any reputable one, already takes a lot of precautions to screen sperm to make sure it is free of a host of diseases, including HIV, before it is used for insemination.
After taking a sperm sample from a donor, it is standard industry practice for the sperm bank to freeze the sperm and put it on hold for six months. The donor is tested for HIV (and a host of other diseases, like hepatitis, syphilis, mad cow disease and gonorrhea) both at the beginning of the six-month period, and at the end of that six-month period.
Only after the test results all come back negative is the sperm tagged as 'OK' for use.
HIV tests are now not only very accurate, they are faster, easier and cheaper.
But the rules mean that even if sperm from a donor passes the stiff scientific hurdles that are in place—that should remain in place—to ensure that the sperm is disease-free, the sperm of a gay man gets rejected out of hand. Not because of any scientific or medical reason, but because of social prejudice.
The new rule does nothing to protect babies from becoming infected with HIV.
It does, however, both play on and placate public fears. It also reinforces the prejudices and stereotypes that gay men are dirty, irresponsible human beings whose seed shouldn't be trusted to make human life—all simply because of the single characteristic of being gay, regardless of personal behavior.
What this means is that a straight man, who may have had scores of unprotected sexual contacts, is still eligible to be a sperm donor, but a gay man who has practiced nothing but safe sex for the past five years is automatically disqualified.
Luckily, the system in place should catch any sperm that is potentially dangerous. And that's exactly the point.
Though the sperm-donor rule is likely to catch more attention because of the titillating topic, the FDA rule prohibiting the use of tissues from gay men may be the one that actually has the greatest impact, by decreasing the pool of available human body tissue that can be used for medical procedures.
I doubt that either of these issues strikes such a chord with gay men that we will see protests in the streets or demonstrations on college campuses, or big letter-writing campaigns. Most gay men will be concerned about 'donating' their sperm elsewhere.
But the rules are upsetting because they were made by members of a government body that is supposed to use hard scientific facts in making decisions to protect and regulate a wide range of health-related areas. The fact that the FDA came up with these recommendations nearly a quarter of a century after AIDS came into public consciousness speaks volumes about how little our government—and our society as a whole—has moved in understanding HIV.
But more so, it speaks to the fact that while gay men and lesbians have made immense strides for fairness in the past 35 years, there remains a level of social discrimination, unfounded prejudice, and yes, fear of us from much of the straight mainstream.
