In Scotland, Male Blood Donor Rejected for Refusing to Answer Question on Whether He was Pregnant
Not all heroes wear capes.
Real science indicates that one blood donation can save up to 3 lives.
So, when mindless bureaucrats base policy of fantasy science, real lives are at stake.
Take, if instance, the experience of one long-time blood donor in Scotland.
Over nearly 50 years, Leslie Sinclair has given a formidable 125 pints of blood.
But on his last trip he was turned away after refusing to answer a question on whether or not he was pregnant.
Mr Sinclair, 66, was told to fill in a form which asked whether he was expecting a child or had been pregnant in the past six months.
When he complained that as a man in his 60s this question did not apply and he should not have to answer it, Mr Sinclair said staff at the clinic told him they could not accept his blood.
Sinclair spoke for millions when he assessed the requirement for him to answer that specific question.
The retired driver, from Stirling, Scotland, told them it was “stupid” and “got on [his] bike and cycled away” after going to the centre at Albert Halls on Wednesday.
He said: “There is always a form to fill in and that’s fine – they tend to ask about medical conditions or diseases – and clearly that’s because the blood needs to be safe.
“This time around, there was a question I hadn’t seen before: ‘Are you pregnant, or have you been in the last six months?’ which required a yes or no answer.
“It is nonsensical and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help.
Sinclair is being hailed for his actions.
He obviously knows what a woman is and what a man isn't. Good for him.
— US Army Veteran 🇺🇸 1776 (@freevettwoA) June 19, 2022
Good for him. They only have themselves to blame when there is a blood shortage. ANYone who can think for themselves knows this is a ridiculous and offensive question to realists.
— AAWells (@wells_aa) June 19, 2022
A test of state power making citizens conform even when it is a blatantly obvious irrational requirement.
— James Staunton (@TheStaunton) June 18, 2022
Not all heroes wear capes.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, it’s possible,
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/e/e5/TaskmasterWillieTSTO.png/revision/latest?cb=20170708192034
This male pregnancy stupidity needs to be kicked to the curb, and then stomped upon, so damn hard!
What needs to happen is to not just refuse to give blood, but openly mock anyone stupid enough to ask the question or present one with such a questionnaire.
It’s way past time to fight back against these people. Anything else is just going along with the perversion of the marxists.
Dear God in heaven. This absurdity has now reached the critical level of destroying an already hard to maintain blood supply?
Was it really that important for them to know this? What would change if he answered “yes?”
Well I wouldn’t say it’s destroying the blood supply just yet. It’s more like an example of just how far this stupidity has spread and is affecting people where they didn’t expect it.
I only say that because they have been begging for blood on the airwaves ’round here, and rejecting people for some perceived “transphobic” slight can not be helping.
I think I have transnausea….
“Was it really that important for them to know this?”
Which ledes to the bigger question, “Are women who are pregnant forbidden from donating blood?”
Pregnant women do have higher than normal levels of certain hormones in their blood, which can be problematic for some potential recipients.
>> Was it really that important for them to know this? What would change if he answered “yes?”
Donation probably would have been refused. I don’t think Red Cross guidelines allow pregnant women to donate, and I suspect the same is true for the UK.
If he had checked “yes” and donated anyway, the donation would probably have been flagged due to the answer when it was being processed, and very likely discarded. Even in a sane world, the people doing the review wouldn’t know if it was that question or the one about sex which had been answered incorrectly.
Back when I was at BU in Boston, I used to donate blood at least twice each year. The last time I donated was in the early 80s when the AIDS epidemic was roaring. That time, I was subjected to a barrage of questions that could easily be dismissed with “No. I am not gay. I have never had sex with a man.” After about 6-7 questions, I told the nurse to “Stop One more gay question and I am leaving”. I left. I haven’t donated blood since.
I don’t care if they are “required” to ask those questions. A little common sense should also be “required”. Today, I would have no problem responding with misleading wise-ass answers until they got up and left. “Pregnant? No, I’m having my period.” “Yes. I am pregnant but I will be having an abortion.” “Pregnant? I hope so! I’ve been trying for so long!”
I can keep going forever.
I recall that they came up with a way for you to have AIDS, give blood to avoid any stigma, then discarded the blood.
Total waste of resources.
Variation on a theme of lacking common sense. EVERYONE buying alcoholic beverages here (Tennessee) is required to show ID for proof of age. It could be someone whose wrinkles have wrinkles and walks with a four-post cane. The clerk is required to ask.
The clerk asking for age is more the clerk getting close enough to determine if you are too intoxicated to purchase. It is more a liability issue similar to bars that don’t serve patrons after a certain point.
Red Cross in the US used to have certain questions like this until someone in programming figured out how to put in extra answer options such as “does not apply.”
I have not donated with them since encountering an unqualified phlebotomist who I am guessing was there via the Affirmative Action pathway. At that point I was a double-digit gallon Oneg donor who never ever had issues donating, and they basically blew off my complaint. It was truly the donation from Hell. When I called as a follow-up, the person on the phone could find no record of the complaint. I guess “get woke, run out of blood” applies here.
The clerk asking for age is more the clerk getting close enough to determine if you are too intoxicated to purchase. It is more a liability issue similar to bars that don’t serve patrons after a certain point.
No, we clerks ask for ID because we must abide by state liquor laws that provide for draconian and unreasonable penalties for making even one mistake and selling/serving to an underage person. We ID everyone because the state that provides for those same draconian laws/regulations actively sends underage persons into licensed establishments (with the aid of the
nazistate patrol) in an attempt to catch the clerk out and see if they’ll make that one mistake – selling to underage person. And they don’t make it easy either. They don’t send in in an 16 years-old. Or even an 18 years-old. They’ll send in the 19 years-old. Hell, one time I had a kid come in one week from his 21st birthday. If I hadn’t required his ID I’d have been in one hell of a situation. So, do I enjoy asking a 93 years-old for ID? Hell, no. But in the interests of fairness I’m required to do so.And just to note, the state I live in prohibits me from selling alcohol to anyone that is impaired on alcohol and/or drugs. They don’t have to be intoxicated or even legally drunk. Just impaired. How’s that for a gotcha.
The reason they ask everyone is that the state will send in testers of all ages to see if the ID is being asked for. Even if the person buying the alcohol is clearly an old person not asking for the ID could get the store in trouble. A store could lose it’s liquor license if it’s not following the laws of the state.
There is another reason why you ask everyone. It’s so you don’t make a judgement mistake. As a volunteer for the high school years ago, our group were the only ones allowed to conduct alcohol sales at a major speedway. The reason is we were the only ones that never got nailed selling to an underage person. The local cops would run underage through all the time. Slip up and you go to jail. I once refused a guy that looked 35 and had Army ID. His birth date was the next day when he would turn 21. He was the son of one of the cops.
You get long lines during cautions (noosecar) and it’s best not to think, just check every ID.
Just write DNA
(does not apply)
And still be denied as you haven’t answered the question, “Are you now pregnant or have you been pregnant in the last 6 months”.
Meanwhile, I haven’t donated blood since the mid ’80s because of a false positive for one of their quickie AIDS screening. Never mind it was a false positive, never mind I have a less common blood type that tends to be in short supply – nope, I would never be allowed to donate again.
I wasn’t even allowed to donate blood in advance for my father when he had an upcoming surgery once (he was the same blood type as me, just that he was RH+ and I’m RH-). Nope, ONE false positive is enough to put you on the blacklist, blood shortage be damned. Makes me wonder if they cry wolf about supposed blood “shortages” when they can turn away ready, willing, and able donors.
Well, the Red Cross pretty much burnt its own reputation in the years around Y2K, so anyone who still looks on them as paragons of virtue and efficiency hasn’t been paying attention.
Here is a perfect example of govt insisting upon an orthodoxy of approved thought be put into practice. Average people don’t want to participate and will withdraw from voluntarily doing so. The wider implications of the take it or leave it attitude of the establishment institutions, the politicians who empower them and the ideological bureaucracy who administer them will get pushback where the average Citizen holds the upper hand.
Blood donations are only the tip of the iceberg. Are your religious institutions and the charities they administer out of step with your own beliefs? Stop donating your money and time. Does the local school board or youth sports league push a woke agenda? Don’t contribute funds, don’t volunteer as a coach or referee.
A starve the beast strategy is applicable to every voluntary choice we have. Deny these corrupted institutions your support at every opportunity.
“A starve the beast strategy is applicable to every voluntary choice we have.”
That’s because conservatives give 10x more to charity and are better tippers than liberals. The dirty little secret is that Liberals are not really liberal.
There’s a silver lining in there somewhere.
The lining is the silver stays in our pocket.
Right.
He should have lifted up his kilt and proclaimed, “There be no wee bairns exiting from this tadger, my freen!”
https://64.media.tumblr.com/6c0ca826068daeb91b6c84943d27c582/tumblr_nlm4xfKCkW1up9ojio1_1280.jpg
Time for a new keyboard!! ROFL!!
I thought the Scots were better than this.
Scotland wants to breakaway from the UK and join the EU. They believe that will solve all their problems.
The old days were so much better. Seems like the 2 big wars took out all the good DNA
That and those yearning for freedom leaving for America.
i have donated 192 pints over 40 years…. that’s 24 gallons.
they ask the same question on the form each time….
it a no brainer… i put “N/A”…. stands for — not applicable.
they never twitch…
there are many public form that can be used on.
Male, no baby. Female, maybe, baby… It’s a pun and an incontrovertible, uncontroversial state of humanity.
I am not sure what is more troubling the stupidity of the question or the appalling rationale offered for pursuing the issue to the point of rejecting a genuine and longstanding blood donor. This is governmental idiocy par excellence and an excellent example of dysfunctional and self-destructive wokeness.
Also in Scotland, a Midwifery school is teaching students that biological males can get pregnant and give birth. Students are afraid to question the lesson.
Are pregnant men are where baby sheep come from?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10762699/Midwives-taught-university-help-biological-men-penises-birth.html
Hamish enters the sheep barn to find Duncan in a compromising position with one of the stock. Ever the quick-witted one, Duncan exclaims, “Congratulate me! It’s a girl!”
He should have replied, “I’m not sure. I missed my last period. Please give me a pregnancy test.”
Organizations petrify.
When younger I donated regularly (O- universal donor). Decades after leaving the army I tried to donate – I had been stationed in Germany during the cattle thingie – was informed that they no longer wanted my stuff. Apparently they think 29 years is not long enuf to be sure you don’t have mad cow disease.
Nothing about little north Korea surprises me any more! 🤣
These fuckers can only afford luxuries like these questions because the English bastards (you have to say that with a thick Scottish accent) down south keeps Scotland solvent with all that lovely taxman lucre!
Left unexamined about this whole Charlie Foxtrot is the datum that this patient — man or woman notwithstanding — is 66 years old.
But I suppose they still have to ask the question because you never know when some woman will choose to identify as non-menopausal.
every man in Scotland should stop giving blood until the NHS comes to its senses.
They should offer a million dollars, or pounds to the first male who can produce a human baby.
Leftism wants you to believe 2 + 2 =5. With full faith that its true.
Where “they” is the National Enquirer. (are they still around?)
I have donated approx. 30 gallons of blood to the American Red Cross so far — 40 years, time 6 pints per year. Virtually every 8 weeks of my adult life.
I think that in the US, the question about pregnancy is asked only of females. And the question about sex with a male is directed only to male donors. But even if they ask me a stupid question (if I am pregnant), I would simply answer “no” and move on. Donating blood is part of my family tradition. I would not allow the stupidity of the question keep me from donating.
You get to handle it your way. But, when you don’t refuse to answer, you are going along with the degeneracy.