Another week another interesting thing. This, a footnote to a very good thread on the GRA put together by @LGBTLD

Full thread at https://twitter.com/LGBTLD/status/979328523956604929

As sorta footnote to this thread, @LGBTLD happened to mention having given blood recently "as a woman" and you would not believe the bizarre response from the usual ascientific and legally incompetent bigots.

Or perhaps you would.

@MyWebDoctorUK

For a trans woman to tick the woman box when giving blood is - horrors! - illegal (nope), dangerous (nope), could kill someone (nope), putting her own self-authentication ahead of others (nope).

Moreover the Blood Service are merely humouring her, will throw the blood away as soon as it is taken. Which is one of the most amazing claims of all: that an NHS that lacks the resource to give basic healthcare to trans peopole can yet waste millions humouring us... @GoatSarah

and...good conspiracy theory this...so brilliant are they at this deception that they can co-ordinate it across the nation in such a way that none of us ever heard of it...but the bigots have full chapter and verse. Ho hum.

Still, i did a bit of a dig. I mean: is there something to this male/female bloods thing and yep: there are some minor differences...first and foremost with respect to haemogoblin levels...

which are different (higher) in men. But that relates to testosterone and therefore the average trans woman will have goblin levels in the same range as non-trans women. And besides, the Blood service TESTS for this stuff.

So it doesn't much matter what gender you identify as on the form: the NBS will work out the composition of your bloods itself.

What though of those nasty artificial hormones that trans people take? Ah yes: those would be the same hormones as menopausal women take. Perhaps we should be booting older women off the NBS prog?

Not frogetting women on the pill. I mean: did you know you can get unpregnant if you receive blood from someone on the pill?

(No, not true either...but on a par, science-wise, with the earlier bilge).

I spoke to some current medical practitioners...not one of whom reckoned there was any issue about giving "male blood" to a woman or vice-verse. But still, i dug a bit further and i found a couple of intersting things.

The matter was raised in debates on the GRA in 2004. An individual who was a paediatrician with a side line specialism in phlebotomy raised the issue that in about 50 known cases in the UK there has been a transfusion reaction when a man received a woman's blood

Note: not a fatality, but a reaction. But still, something worth being aware of.

A little more digging reveals research suggesting that blood transfusions from SOME women - specifically pregnant or recently pregnant women - can be more dangerous for men.

How much more dangerous? Er, we are talking fatal. https://www.sciencealert.com/blood-transfusions-from-women-could-be-more-risky-for-men

Wow! That needs looking into. What though of the relative risk? We-ell... accepting the figures cited for adverse reaction we have fifty cases ever relative to a population of c.65million. That's over 1 in a million...

But not everyone has had a blood transfusion (though since this is an actuarial figure, you need the lifetime figure). And hard to find proportion of people receiving blood in the UK...but based on halving the US estimate, lets allow 25%

Then...proportion of population that is trans...mebbe .5% of which only half are trans men and their blood is only an issue for half those they donate it to (I suspect those may cancel out...but someone else check the math)...

At any rate, that gives a top level risk to blood recipients of somewhere around 1 in a billion from a trans (male) donor.

Not bad, given the odds of winning the lottery are a mere 1 in 14 million.

what, though, of the risk of a guy getting blood from a pregnant cis woman. Well, Royal college of midwives provide some interesting stats....

Around one in 2,500 people come to term, pregnancy-wise, unaware that they are pregnant. That's around 0.25%

And that assumes the risk is only from people who reach full term. The proportion of people getting to 6 or 7 months before they realise must, obvs, be higher.

So the blood from maybe 1% of donors presents a risk to approx 50% of recipients

Ooops....no...from 0.5% of donors....and still haven't worked out whether the donor/recipient gender thingy cancels out or reinforces....

But bottom line, that suggests a risk of one in 400 from blood donated by cis women.

And forgive me if i am being a bit risk averse here. But even if i am out by a decimal place here or there, it would appear that the risk to recipients from cis women is something like 2.5 million times greater than the risk from trans people.

Two out-takes. Maybe the NBS OUGHT to be testing all women for pregnancy before they give blood and....

If parliament thinks it right to debate a 1 in a billion risk from trans peeps...perhaps it should be debating a 1 in 400 risk from cis women?