The Australian Red Cross Blood Service (Lifeblood) has announced it will lift its ban on sexually active LGBTQ people from donating blood.

The Star Observer, an Australian LGBTQ newspaper, on Wednesday reported “gay and bisexual men and transgender women” were previously not “able to donate plasma if they had been sexually active with men in the last three months.” The ban will end on July 14.

“Lifeblood has been working to make blood and plasma donation more inclusive and accessible to as many people as possible, whilst maintaining the safety of the blood supply,” said Lifeblood on Wednesday in a press release that announced the new policy.

“In the first of the rule changes, from Monday, July 14, 2025, Lifeblood will remove most sexual activity wait times for plasma donations,” it added. “Under this world-leading ‘plasma pathway,’ most people, including gay and bisexual men, and anyone who takes PrEP will be able to donate plasma without a wait period, providing they meet all other eligibility criteria. Extensive research and modeling show that there will be no impact to the safety of the plasma supply with this change.”

“Once implemented, all donors will be asked the same questions about their sexual activity, regardless of their gender or sexuality, and most people in a sexual relationship of six months or more with a single partner will be eligible to donate blood,” notes Lifeblood’s press release. “In addition, most people with new or multiple partners will also be able to donate blood if they have not had anal sex in the last three months. The change will bring an end to men being asked if they’ve had sex with another man.”

Lifeblood Chief Medical Officer Jo Pink said the new policy will allow 24,000 additional people to donate blood each year.

“We’re excited to be able to welcome more people from across the community into our donor centers from next month,” said Pink.

Let Us Give and other advocacy groups for years had urged Lifeblood to allow LGBTQ people to donate blood without restrictions.

“We thank the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) and Lifeblood for removing a ban that limited the supply of safe whole blood and stigmatized gay men, and bisexual men and trans women who have sex with men, as a threat to public health,” said Let Us Give spokesperson Rodney Croome.

As queer people around the world celebrate Pride month, their Kenyan and Ugandan counterparts are also marking it with a strong message of defiance and resistance.

Their agitation for “dignity, safety, and liberation” in homophobic environments follows last month’s second Pan-African Conference on Family Values in Nairobi, whose delegates were concerned about the push to normalize so-called LGBTQ practices on the continent and resolved to resist.      

The Initiative for Equality and Non Discrimination, a Kenyan LGBTQ rights organization, for instance cites Pride’s founding spirit of protest to resist the attempt to “erase, silence and oppress” queer people.  

“In a world that tries to diminish our existence, choosing joy becomes a radical act. Queer joy is not just a celebration, it is resistance. It is healing. It is a bold declaration; we are here, we are whole, and we deserve to thrive,” INEND states. 

It affirms that queer people have space for rage, resistance, softness, and joy as they honor the roots of Pride packed with a variety of activities for the group throughout the month.    

“We demand inclusion, we bask for visibility and we dance through the fire. This, too, is revolution,” INEND says. 

During the Pan-African Conference on Family Values meeting, which delegates from national governments, anti-LGBTQ lobby groups, academic and religious institutions, and international partners attended, Kenyan National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula affirmed the country’s position on marriage between a man and a woman as the constitution states. Wetang’ula advocates for laws that protect the “traditional family” and cultural values against what he described as Western imports.

“I urge our legislators that they should shield the good provisions of our constitution on family from ideological redefinitions of marriage seeking to recognize outlawed same-sex relationships,” Wetang’ula said. 

He also asked lawmakers to enact laws to prohibit comprehensive sexuality education in schools and only permit a science-based curriculum that is appropriate to the age, development level, and cultural background of school children without normalizing same-sex sexual acts and relationships.

“In modern times, across all nations, there have emerged two forces: one fighting for, and the other pursuing ideologies, positions, and acts that are against the traditional family,” Wetang’ula said. 

The delegates during the conference, which sparked criticism from Kenyan queer groups committed to resist the imposition of LGBTQ rights and other so-called external values under the pretense of development aid, international agreements, or donor partnerships that conflict with national laws and cultural integrity. They also committed to establishing, strengthening, and coordinating “pro-family” advocacy platforms and multi-sector coalitions at national, regional, and continental levels to engage with policymakers, legislators, and public education players.  

This pledge was in response to the delegates’ concerns over external manipulation of national legislative processes through covert or overt efforts to influence or bypass national parliaments in adopting judicial decisions that redefine family, life, and gender. They were also concerned over the global push to normalize gender fluidity and “non-biological” sexual identities in law, education, and healthcare, contrary to established biological, African culture, and religious norms.  

The delegates asked the African governments, parliaments, the African Union, and regional economic blocs to urgently undertake legislative reviews and reforms to ensure all national laws align with constitutional protections for the family, life, and parental rights. The Initiative for Equality and Non Discrimination, however, argue that describing queerness as un-African is a lie and a tool of imperialism used as a weapon to justify violence, exclusion and erasure, which should be rejected as it was enacted by colonial powers. 

Kenya’s queer community has nevertheless lined up a month’s worth of Pride events in Nairobi, the country, and across the country. Some of the locations are not publicly disclosed because of security reasons.

The events calendar that Galck, a group of 16 LGBTQ rights organizations, released includes entertainment and socializing every Friday evening in various places for queer party lovers. The celebrations also include queer community networking events to empower each other, meet-ups in safe places for soft, acoustic jam sessions and reflection, queer community days where the group gather to connect and celebrate queer lives. 

The calendar also invites queer people to participate in an open conversation with Galck, a trivia and karaoke event with the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, a supportive healing circle termed ‘Healing out Loud’ for distressed queer people, and a queer community potluck for the group to enjoy food, fun and connection. 

Other Pride events include queer love edition for singles, an art exhibition that includes rainbow- themed painting, a healing-centred therapy workshop termed “Chosen Family, Chosen Self,” a literary forum for bookworms to celebrate queer African literature, and movie night for film lovers.

The Cosmopolitan Affirming Community, a Nairobi-based church for queer people, has organized Gospel Sunday. Trek Tribe Kenya, an outdoor activity organizer, is also organizing activities that include climbing Mount Kenya, Africa’s second-highest mountain, hiking the gorges of Hell’s Gate National Park, and enjoying a “Pastel in the Park” wellness treat. 

“Respect the spaces you attend as they are safe, affirming environments, and take care of oneself and each other during Pride fun fare celebration,” Galck urges.  

‘Pride is not just parades or celebrations’

Their queer counterparts in Uganda are also having an eventful Pride month, despite persistent challenges.

“Pride is not just parades or celebrations. It is solidarity for many who cannot celebrate or march. It means refusing to be erased and choosing to simply be who you are,” said Sexual Minorities Uganda, which LGBTQ activist Frank Mugisha leads.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical care for transgender minors, several of the plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed disappointment with the outcome but stressed that the fight was not over.

While the decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti will shield Tennessee and more than 20 other states from litigation challenging their anti-trans healthcare restrictions, the majority decision was not so broadly written that opportunities to fight for expanded rights and protections — or to push back against the Trump-Vance administration’s discriminatory policies — were extinguished, they said.

Addressing reporters during a press call hours after the decision was released were Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, and Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee.

On the one hand, the lawyers were adamant that the conservative justices in the 6-3 majority opinion “got this completely wrong,” as Cameron-Vaughn said, because Tennessee’s law is “clearly a sex based classification and transgender based classification” on its face.

At the same time, he said “the fact that it’s a narrow ruling means that we will continue to fight and stand with trans people and their families in Tennessee with all the tools at our disposal to continue to stand against the assault from the government.”

Explained Strangio, “The court did not rule on whether or not transgender status independently warrants the type of heightened scrutiny that sex based classifications also trigger,” meaning that “lower court decisions — for example, in the 9th and the 4th Circuit that have already recognized that transgender status triggers this type of heightened scrutiny — will remain good law, and that government discrimination targeting transgender people, either through facial classifications or invidious discrimination, are both contexts in which the [Supreme] Court has today explicitly left open for heightened scrutiny.”

“The most immediate effect is on our clients and other young, young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban,” added Strangio, who is the first transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. “And for them, we are devastated, and we know that we will continue fighting so that government discrimination against transgender people will end.”

“This is a setback in many ways,” he said, “but we continue onward in the fight and we can, you know, hold simultaneously, both the pain of this decision and all of the possibilities of the future we’re building.”

Responding to a question from the Washington Blade about whether the justices considered the potential harms of cutting off access to treatments for young people who have begun to medically transition, Strangio said he and his co-counsel stressed the issue in briefs and during oral argument.

He continued, “I think one of the frustrating things about the type of deference that this court found would apply here” as opposed to a more heightened level of scrutiny “is that they don’t really look at the underlying evidence, and so they can just sort of defer broadly and uncritically to state legislatures or legislatures more more generally.”

Strangio noted that while the dissenting opinions from the liberal justices, particularly Sonia Sotomayor’s, addressed harms related to the sudden loss of access to treatments for transgender youth, “that did not figure in in the majority opinions, in the ways that we all wished that it would have.”

“And we know how devastating it is for people to lose access to medically necessary care,” he said.

Responding to the same question, Loewy said “I would just lift up Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in as much as her questioning of Tennessee’s attorneys during argument was a recognition of the real harms to our actual clients. And her dissent really talks about what it meant before our clients had access to the gender affirming medical care that they needed, and the real harm of that now being unavailable to them.”

“So, there was definitely some recognition during the discussion, during argument, of what this really means for trans young people,” Loewy said. “And you know, it was clearly not part of the calculus that the majority was willing to really consider.”