This is just a simple poll of the SLF community:
Do you support President Trump these days?
Yes
No
Indifferent/Undecided
This is just a simple poll of the SLF community:
Do you support President Trump these days?
That is too simplistic a question for me to give an answer because I like some of the things Trump has done. I hate some of the things Trump has done.
So you tell me Bae, do I support him?
I’d be interested to know what things trump has done that you like.
Maybe you would pick the third option, undecided?Originally Posted by iris lilies
Nope, nope, nope.
And I didn’t vote for him either!
But to be literal, I am not indifferent or undecided. So those answers don’t work for me either.
Well, the first one to pop into my mind is Executive Order 14168, a well written and comprehensive piece of government policy. I like it.
And thanks for asking because that caused me to revisit it and I see something I need to address with RFKjr. So
I am off to write a letter about FDA non-compliance with EO 14168.
Iris, I am wondering what you want/expect on non compliance? In part I am wondering about Time frame (it would be a different story of course one day verses months), as well as all the times I have seen sex listed/responded to as "yes please", and am wondering as years ago, I remember a company application that had M F H, and who I knew that was given the form, didn't know the term/medical diagnosis Hermaphrodite.
This made me laugh remembering that.
The specific case of non-compliance I am concerned about is the intake questions of the Red Cross for blood donation. The Red Cross asks my “gender” not my sex.
There are health related reasons for accuracy in identifying the sex of the donor. Not the damn “gender,” the sex. From the “gender is fluid” crowd the Red Cross doesn’t get accurate formation (and some of them will lie about their natal sex, too.) There are studies suggesting males with certain health problems have increased problems with blood transfusions from females.
The Red Cross tells me it is the FDA that has determined these intake questions. RFKJ heads up the FDA. if they’re not already being taking this into consideration, they need to in order to comply with the executive order 14168.
I would encourage you all to ignore Iris’s opinion on the blood supply.
I see units of human blood products nearly every day. I am familiar with their ordering, storage, and use. I am familiar with the labeling on the units. The label does not specify sex, the bar code (ISBT 128 is the official spec) doesn’t even contain a field. There is a donor ID, but that’s used for traceability, and is anonymized from the user-end. (There is a protocol for how to use the donor number for all sorts of useful things, a moment of clever searching would point you at endless processes and procedures.)
My understanding, though I’ve only worked the donor van a dozen times, is that gender is indeed asked/observed on intake of a donor, and that screening is used generally to protect the *donor* from anemia and other donation-related things. And has next to nothing with what happens to the blood once we have it in the bag.
As to the current overall state of medical research, boy Howdy I’d encourage you to ask a professional, or to really do your own informeded investigation from examining peer-reviewed sources, and to ignore what you hear on the Internet.
There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote