I hear what you're saying. That may be true in the way it's written, but the way it's communicated and the way it affects our whole donation policy is another matter.
Regarding what we're all concerned about, surely there was another way to do this. It seems to me one option would have been to leave your section 13.1.3 as the basis upon which decisions would be made. Why did you feel you had to go beyond that and have a list of exclusionary criteria that specifically identified gay men and put them at the very top of the list? Surely there was another way to do it. What was wrong with leaving it as it was in section 13.1.3?