can we finally be done with LGBT activism?
Well the T in LGBT wouldn't really benefit much from such a ruling. They already feel marginalized by many LGBT activists, so I think there will definitely remain activism from that aspect.
They would certainly benefit, albeit somewhat less. There are significant problems at the moment for trans* individuals who marry because of existing marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. In many states, a legal sex change is difficult or impossible, so marrying someone of the same sex as their birth sex is never possible. Many courts have refused to recognize such marriages. Additionally, some courts have refused to recognize marriages between two people who were of different sexes at the time of marriage but one of whom later had a legal sex change.
I suppose it's also worth pointing out that, to the extent such labels apply, LGBs are way overrepresented among the trans* population compared to the cis* population (i.e., a much larger portion of the trans* population is attracted to the same sex as their identified gender than among the general population, and an additional larger portion consider themselves attracted to both sexes).
Might as well say that LGBTs who don't want to get married don't benefit. Even that would be more true. Sure, trans* rights are still way behind, but to say they're not benefited is deeply ignorant.
*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)
This one does have a rational basis. The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population. The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.
How reliable is testing of donated blood for HIV?
Not 100% The estimated level of increase in infection rates of going from a lifetime ban to a ban on those having male gay sex within the last year is quite small, small enough that one can argue that the increased availability of blood products is worth the risk.
However, it takes from 2 to 4 weeks after being infected before testing can detect that fact, so a ban on the donations of those who currently are MSMs makes good sense. The only question is how recently one must have engaged in male-to-male sex to be considered to be currently an MSM. Lifetime is too long IMO, 1 year is probably sufficient, but anything under 3 months would be foolhardy.
It seems to me that the change from "lifetime" to "one year" is going to capture an absurdly small number of donors, hardly enough to even be worth the time of legislating such a change.
