This is basically the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, who voted 9 to 6 against lifting the ban that prevents men who have sex with men from donating blood.
Heterosexual privilege #3: I can donate blood.
This sounds so simple, but it is a ban that is mired in archaic language that lumps together an entire group of people and actually prevents them from providing much needed aid to the rest of the world via donations.
When it boils down to it: this ban is hurting more than it is helping. I don't want to make the mistake of trying to make this "seem" more important by getting the attention of straights, because it's already a blatant injustice that should not need fear-mongering to make this topic newsworthy. Heterosexual people should care about this, even if it didn't affect them and their health. That being said, the logic of the Federal Advisory Committee (whom one would think would be making decisions in interest of improving the health of all) is simply unfathomable to me, given that all donors are tested for HIV before donations are accepted.
Interestingly, it's not just gay men, but African-Americans who are also at high risk for contracting HIV. I absolutely do not think that the Federal Advisory Committee should generalize and stigmatize all African-Americans in addition to gay men, as any form of discrimination is abhorrent and unwarranted. I do, however, think that this underlines the faulty logic of the FAC in coming to their decision. Unfortunately, non-heterosexuals and African Americans (note that these are not mutually exclusive categories) are two groups who suffer from discrimination within the medical field when they are sometimes the two groups that need the most medical assistance due to being at risk for contracting these and other diseases. As you could imagine, this can be incredibly problematic when it comes to preventative health care. Groups that do not feel welcome within doctors offices and hospitals may not trust medical practitioners whole-heartedly and may choose to not utilize such services when needed. Another related example is with size discrimination, as people who are considered "overweight" or "obese" are unfortunately stigmatized in medical settings, which may lead to these individuals to become less likely to take necessary steps to prevent illness.
Discrimination against particular groups in medical settings is a clear example of highly-educated people who are still largely influenced by stereotypes and misconceptions. Far too often, it is assumed that these forms of outright discrimination are only perpetuated by the uneducated, but this is a dangerous falsehood that must be brought to light. Whether perpetuated by a child playing in your neighborhood or by the board members for the FAC, these forms of blatant discrimination and slander must be corrected if we have any hope of living in a just world.
-Harvey Milk Jr.
