STILL DEFERRED


BLOOD AND HEROES 

 Mary Coble 2015 


Still Deferred 

By Mary Coble 


DON’T BE SUCH A WUSS. Give blood. 
BE A HERO. Give blood. 
BE HUMAN. Give blood. 


These are examples of slogans from blood donation campaigns. Others are: ‘Drops 
for you, life for them’ / ‘Good people give’ / ‘Together we can save a life’ / ‘All types 
needed’ / ‘Find the hero in you. Give blood 3 times a year’. Except that, not everybody’s 
blood is wanted and not just anyone can give, save a life or be a blood 
donation hero. This is what Still Deferred is about. 


As part of my ongoing inquiry into discriminatory practices against the queer community, 
Still Deferred addresses the targeted exclusion of men who have sex with 
men, or we could broadly say: gay men, from blood donation (in the United States 
and abroad). This is a political deferral based on homophobia and fear rather than 


on scientific fact, which has been argued time and again by medical researchers 

and gay rights advocates alike. This publication offers examples from that debate 
as well as documentation of my performance Deferral, which also functioned as a 
contribution to the discussion. 

The Discriminatory Policy 

The blood donation policy developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) in 1983 stated: “A man who has had sex with another man (MSM) 
since 1977, is permanently deferred from donating blood in the United States.” The 
FDA argued that: “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk 
for the presence and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV...”. 

However, following the lead of countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Czech 
Republic, Hungary, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden and 
the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland) a more recent draft of the guidelines 
from the US FDA as of summer 2015 suggests that a man should be deferred 
(or barred) from giving blood only for one year after he has had sex with another 
man. 

While many have applauded this as a successful step towards gay equality, this call 
for celibacy still targets sexual orientation over actual risky behavior. The original 
deferral of gay men was instituted out of fear and lack of knowledge in order to protect 
the blood supply as a reaction to the AIDS crisis; less was known about transmission 
and testing was unreliable. It is true that the US blood supply was seriously 
compromised and that numerous people were infected with HIV through blood 
transfusions. It is also correct according to the US Centers for Disease Control (as 
of July 2015) that “gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men of all races 


and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.” What is 
discriminatory and wrong to assume is that all gay men are likely to be HIV positive 
regardless of their sexual behavior. 

Even this most recent proposed regulation ultimately continues to perpetuate stigmatization 
against gay men and is reflective of institutionally supported homophobia. 
The FDA’s statement reinforces outdated prejudices that HIV is only a ‘gay 
disease’. Regardless of the apparent progress in the new draft, gay men are still 
deferred based on these prejudices. 

The Heteronormative Campaigns 

In response to this policy, and in order to raise awareness and protest, eleven gay 
men and I spent 4 days in 2013 at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC 
creating a work entitled Deferral. It is important to note that the Corcoran Gallery 
of Art is located across from the White House, where the President of the United 
States resides, and next to the American Red Cross National Headquarters – an 
organization that holds more than 200,000 blood drives every year and supplies 
around 40% of the US blood supply. 

When researching for the work and looking at blood donor campaigns, including 
those of the American Red Cross, through the lens of the deferral policy, I found 
that negative stereotypes and exclusion are perpetuated through rhetoric that favors 
“Those who give [blood]”. “Don’t be such a wuss, give blood”, a statement used 
by the American Red Cross, becomes the agitator with a donor call that bolsters a 
traditional, heteronormative form of a strong masculinity necessary in order to give. 
In demanding, “Be human, give blood” and by claiming, “Good people give” how are 
these campaigns framing those who are not allowed to or cannot give? 

The blood donor campaigns use strategies of positive reinforcement toward “those 
who give” by framing blood donors as a certain type of ‘healthy, normal and heroic’person. “Be a hero, give blood” is a slogan coined by the World Heath Organization 
(WHO), which in the context of the exclusionary practices that negate sexually active 
gay men from being able to donate blood begs the question of whom is allowed 
to be this hero and under what conditions is this possible? 

I of course acknowledge the importance of blood donation. According to Blood Cen


ters of the Pacific someone needs blood every 2 seconds and 1 pint of blood can 

save up to three lives. The need and thus the urgency is real. However I suggest 
that the tactics used by these organizations that have agreed to follow the FDA’s 
policy must be more aware of the formulations in their campaigns to not further disseminate 
exclusionary practices and to really consider the ‘we’ that they constantly 
refer to in their zeal to collect.



Deferral – a Performance of Defiance 

Deferral was a live performance and installation, which confronted visitors in the 
atrium as soon as they entered the museum. My own as well as my gay male collaborators’ 
bodies were enclosed behind hospital curtains that surrounded us with 

quotes from blood donation campaigns and images of one particular figure from a 

WHO campaign: the blood donation hero or ‘Superman’, which I had slightly modi


fied with gestures mimicking what could be stereotypical ‘gay’ postures. 

The eleven men stitched over the heroes with various shades of red thread in place 
of their own ‘illegal blood’ in an act of re-envisioning their own gay male hero. The 
WHO’s ‘Supermen’ were transformed into heroes that desired garter belts and nipple 
rings; heroes with faces masked and hands bound, heroes who have hearts, heroes 
donning pink capes; heroes that were punctured, split and sewn back together. 

Simultaneously a pint of my own blood was drawn onsite, which I used to blot the 
word “deferral”, in Morse Code onto adjoining curtains that brandished words and 
phrases from the blood donation campaigns. The bloody dots and dashes of this 
language that only can be translated by some, pricked, slashed and disrupted the 
divisive and normative campaign text. 

Visitors in the gallery were able to witness as blood bled through the text and to 
observe the piercing and embracing of the heroes as arms wrapped around the 

curtains, fingers pressed needles, and thread slowly modified and reclaimed the 

images. 

The visitors were outsiders to the interior actions, and to see what was going on 
inside the curtains they had to move to the higher level of the gallery space, which 
implicated them as spectators as they looked down upon us like specimens in an 
anatomical theater. 

Inside this ‘theater’ a secluded community formed during the 4 days, as the signs 

of protest (the stitches and the blood) gradually filled the curtains and as, inside the 
space, the modified heroes visually became connected through a growing network 

of thread. The acts and movements by the participating men were subtle gestures 

of defiance against the institutional homophobia of current blood donation policies. 

The performance resulted in a ‘hospital installation’, which aims to function as a 
reminder of the discriminatory divisions between ‘healthy heterosexuals’ and gay 
men that are continuously seen as potentially ‘sick’. Deferral and Still Deferred is a 
collective protest against institutional homophobia and a claim for the right to give 
blood – and to be someone’s hero. 

Co-written with Louise Wolthers. 

Documentation from Deferral Photo Credit: Mikhail Bezruchko 



Documentation from Deferral 

Photo Credit: John Malis 


Photo Credit: Mikhail Bezruchko Photo Credit: John Malis 


DON’T BE SUCH A WUSS (from Deferral) 

Hero Modified (from Deferral), Collaborators: Armando Lopez-Bircann, Bill Kellner, 
Chris Hinojosa, Jason Tucker, John Edmonds, John McGirk, Keli Anaya, Mitch Story, 
Sheldon Scott, Tim Christensen, Zack Child 


Afterword 

Thoughts on the institutional negotiations of Deferral 

As a further, involuntary contribution to the hysteria and fear surrounding the linkage 
of blood and gay men, I feel it is important to relay the negotiations that I had to 
undergo to have Deferral created in the Corcoran Gallery of Art. It was an intensive 
process that resulted in a re-formulation of the work itself, which I am ultimately very 
happy with today. However the negotiation process illustrated that outdated, sci


entifically disproven myths of infection still exists even within large institutions that 

arguably should know better. 

In the following I outline some pivotal moments of the process, leaving out names 
for privacy and the full details/correspondence that are too vast to include here. 

My original proposal was to invite gay men into the space to donate their blood, 
which I would then use to paint onto the curtains that would encase us. The Corcoran’s 
administration, after consulting their lawyers made it clear that I would only be 
allowed to use pre-screened blood if this performance were to happen. 

The curator formulated it like this: 

“The biggest concern he [the Corcoran’s layer] had was with the handling of blood in the 
galleries, and any potential risk—however remote—that is being assumed by you, by visitors, 
and by participants in the performance. Since your idea is to have blood drawn onsite and 
then paint with it, he is concerned with any contaminants that might be in the blood—HIV, but 
also hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.” 

I argued that I would accept all risk involved by following standard safety precautions 
when dealing with blood such as wearing gloves, having a medical professional 
draw the blood and not letting it come into contact with open cuts or my mucous 
membranes. However, I refused to have the blood of gay men that were invited to 
donate for this project tested, as I believed this was an extension of the fear and 
homophobia that the work itself was trying to address. 

The response from the curator read: 

“Not having the blood tested (among other issues) could be a deal breaker. 
I’ve spoken with pathology experts and they believe that it’s likely illegal (we’re checking with 
DC Dept of Health) and is certainly unsafe (the head of pathology at one hospital called it 
“just plain stupid”).” 


In a letter from the District of Columbia Department of Heath, Heath Regulation and 
Licensing Administration dated April 29, 2013 they responded to questions by the 
Corcoran’s General Council including the following:


After reading this I followed the advice of an experienced performer and researcher 
of body art, and drew up a Risk Assessment Form that is standard for venues that 
support live work, suggesting ways that the perceived ‘risks’ that the Corcoran was 
focusing on could be placed into a category of low or acceptable. I referred to other 
artists using blood in their work including a reference to two past pieces of my own, 
which I assumed the gallery was already aware of. However, the institution could 
not accept the piece if it involved any untested blood. 

From the curator’s response: 

“Just to reiterate, the resistance that we are encountering here comes completely from a 
legal, not an artistic, historical, funding, or audience perspective.” […] this is somewhat 
uncharted territory for the museum and while we want to keep pushing ahead, we as curators 
and programmers are having a hard time coming up with a legal and medical argument that 

will sway our lawyer. Ultimately, in our institution at this time, the lawyer has the final call 

[…].” 


Based on the institution’s resistance and realizing that the piece needed to be 

modified or it simply would not happen I decided to rethink the work as the issues at 

stake were just to important to be silenced. I chose to use my own blood and have 
myself tested. Instead of demanding this from the gay men who agreed to help me, 
I asked them to use red thread in place of their blood. 

I had to provide documentation of the testing of my blood “by a medical professional 
for the following blood-borne pathogens and diseases, which are also screened by 
the Red Cross: Hepatitis B and C, West Nile Virus, Human T-Cell, Syphilis, HIV/ 
AIDS and Chagas.” I also had to sign a contract where I agreed “to not knowingly, 
willfully or recklessly engage in an activity that might alter the blood test results 
between the time I had my blood tested (June 18th, 2013) and the time of the 
performance (August 8th, 2013).” My collaborators were asked to sign a participant 
release form stating: “The performer acknowledges that there is an inherent risk 
of bodily injury, illness or death and property damage when working with or in the 
vicinity of human blood, including but not limited to fainting, contamination, spillage 
and infection” 

In addition I was asked to rope off the performance area to provide additional ‘protection’ 
for the audience against my already tested blood that was blotted onto the 

curtain. I also had to accept to have the floor directly under the performance space 
covered in plastic wrap to protect the floor, while it was ignored that this made the 
floor extremely slippery for my collaborators and myself. 

On August 8th 2013, the performance began 1 hour later than scheduled because 
the Corcoran’s lawyers unexpectedly showed up and demanded that an additional 
length of plastic be laid down that extended outwards beyond the actual perfor


mance space. They also asked to speak with the certified medical professional 

whose license has been pre-submitted and approved, to ask if she “knew how to 
safely draw blood”. Looking back, the lawyers’ interventions can be seen as part of 
the whole piece since they manifested the alarmist tactics surrounding the process 
leading up to the performance. The lawyers took stage before my collaborators and 
myself, and their interference- surrounding us by a ‘protective zone’- became an 
unintended symbolic illustration of the deferral that we would be protesting against 
over the next four days. 

All quotes by the Corcoran’s curator are from emails to the artist. 


“The FDA recently announced that gay and bisexual men may finally be 

allowed to donate blood after being banned for life since the ’80s—but only
if they remain celibate for one year. 


So straight guys can have safe sex with woman after woman and still donate 
blood. But gay and bi men who have had safe sex for an entire year—
even with a monogamous partner—would still be banned.
Sounds like discrimination to us.” 


This is a petition by GLAAD and GMHC to “pressure the FDA to screen all 
prospective blood donors based on risk, regardless of their sexual orientation 
or gender identity.” 


For more information visit: 


http://celibacychallenge.com 




Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Human

Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by 

Blood and Blood Products 

Draft Guidance for Industry
This guidance document is for comment purposes only. 


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
May 2015 

Slogans from blood donation campaigns 




Man says blood center rejected him because he appeared 

gay 

Aaron Pace is admittedly and noticeably effeminate, but he says 
he’s not homosexual.Still, his looks, character and behavior 
prompted a blood donation center to reject him when he tried to 
donate blood recently and he’s miffed, to say the least.“I was 
humiliated and embarrassed,” said Pace, 22. of Gary. “It’s not 
right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals 
can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.” 

Pace visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for 
blood and plasma donations, up to $40 a visit. But during the 
interview screening process, Pace said he was told he could not 
be a blood donor there because he “appears to be a 
homosexual.” 

No one at Bio-Blood returned calls seeking comment, but donation 
centers like it, and even the American Red Cross, are still 
citing a nearly 30-year-old federal policy to turn away gay men 
from donating. The Food and Drug Administration policy, implemented 
in 1983, states that men who have had sex — even 
once — with another man (since 1977) are not allowed to donate 
blood. 

The policy was sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that 
causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. And, back then, 
screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not yet been 
developed. 

Today, all donated blood is tested for HIV, as well as for hepatitis 
B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases, before 
it can be released to hospitals. This is why gay activists, 
blood centers including the American Red Cross, and even 
some lawmakers now claim the lifetime ban is “medically and 

scientifically unwarranted.” “It is unfair, outrageous and just 

plain stupid,” said Curt Ellis, former director of The Aliveness 
Project of Northwest Indiana, an agency that’s been educating 
the public about HIV-related issues for many years. “The policy 
is based on the stigma associated with HIV that existed early 
on,” Ellis said. “It seems like some stigmas will just never die.” 
The Indiana State Department of Health doesn’t have a policy 
regarding the collection of blood and its criteria. “Nor do we advise 
blood donation centers on their individual policies,” spokeswoman 
Amy Bukarica said. 

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last 
year voted again not to recommend a change to the FDA’s policy 
of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. 
“The deferral of men who have had sex with other men is still in 
effect in Indiana and across the country — with all blood banks, 
not just the American Red Cross — because all blood banks 
must be in compliance with FDA regulations,” said Karen Kelley, 
spokeswoman for the American Red Cross. 

“We recommended that the deferral criteria be modified and 

made comparable with criteria for other groups at increased risk 
for sexual transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections,” 
she added. 
“While we are disappointed with the committee’s decision, our 
organization is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth 
by the FDA regarding donor eligibility,” Kelley said. 
The American Red Cross, which supplies approximately 40 percent 
of the nation’s blood supply, determines a potential donor’s 
sexual history through standardized health and lifestyle ques


tions in a private, confidential health history review, she said. 

This is similar to how other blood donation centers, such as Bio-
Blood, screen potential donors. 

By Jerry Davich, Sun-Times Media, July 15, 2011 


Thank you to my collaborators on Deferral including: 
Armando Lopez-Bircann, Bill Kellner, Chris Hinojosa, 
Jason Tucker, John Edmonds, John McGirk, Keli Anaya, 
Mitch Story, Sheldon Scott, Tim Christensen, Zack Child 
and Mary Kendell. 

This work could not have been possible without your 
dedication and activism. 

Special thanks to my support staff, organizers and 
photographers: Mikhail Bezruchko, Sarah Durkee, 
Jon Malis, J.J. McCracken, Laura Roule and 
Louise Wolthers. 

This publication supported by: 



For more information please visit www.marycoble.com 
Follow the Gestures of Defiance Project at: 


http://gesturesofdefiance.blogspot.se 

2015 

ISBN: 978-91-982585-1-6