What's the problem with FiLiA?

Quite.

claim the way they conceived their children should not be legal

Anyone notice that Sappho just made this “claim” up?

And of "equal"

Sappho has changed the meaning of ‘gay rights’.

And you could say the problem with FiLia isn't left leaning women and lesbians hearing a range of different views which is good and healthy.

It is left leaning lesbians discovering their fellow attendees oppose the equal rights they have fought for. It is discovering their fellow attendees claim the way they conceived their children should not be legal. This is personal and more than healthy disagreement.

When gay marriage was being debated 10 years ago, some people claimed it would pave the way for incest and paedophilia to become legal.

10 years on now lesbians have finally secured fertility equality some people are claiming it will pave the way for surrogacy to become legal.

Gay rights are fragile and of course women are going to push back if these rights are being challenged, especially gay women attending a women's liberation conference.

Surrogacy has so many additional ethical issues- it is in a totally different league.

However obfuscating language eg- ‘equal fertility rights’ and smears eg- ‘all ethical concerns are homophobia’, etc, paves the way for surrogacy.

Athough I don’t like the phrase ‘donor’ because it obfuscates the reality of biological parenthood, there are different ways to be a ‘donor’ father - there was the stuff provided about ‘known donors’ upthread shared by @JoanOgden.

There is a symmetrical lie being floated about lesbian mothers to the one about men buying babies from surrogate mothers.

This is the argument:

1. (Fertile) lesbian women and gay men are only able to become parents in one way. By using their preferred fertility services to anonymise the opposite sex parent or purchasing the baby from the surrogate mother. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
2. If people disagree with this untruth, that the preferred way is the only way, for lesbians and gay men to become parents, then they disagree with lesbians and gay men being parents. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
3. Unless people agree that lesbians and gay men wanting a child should have everything they want, prefer and find most convenient, irrespective of the child’s rights, then they do not support lesbians and gay men becoming parents. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
4. Agreeing that lesbians and gay men can only become parents by their wanted and preferred methods and that these preferences as prospective parents override any rights of the prospective child, is central to supporting lesbian and gay equality. [AN OPINION WHICH CAN EASILY BE CONTESTED].
5. THEREFORE people who do not agree that lesbians and gay men are only able to have a child by their preferred and most convenient means and that this preference and convenience overrides the rights of the child, they disagree with ‘lesbian and gay equality’ by definition. [THIS IS ONLY TRUE IF YOU CHANGE THE VERY DEFINITION OF LESBIAN AND GAY EQUALITY, FROM WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND IT TO BE].

Falsely claiming that lesbians are not able to become mothers without the use of fertility services (ie- claiming that they are unable to do it DIY with a ‘known donor), is a dangerous lie which paves the way for men to claim ‘equal fertility rights’ - to purchase babies from surrogate mothers.

I think surrogacy is completely different, tbh.

Do you think surrogacy is okay as long as the child knows who his or her biological parents are, that they have an ongoing friendship and don't draw on state resources or services anymore than any pregnancy would?

Do you have the same lack of opinion about surrogacy?

Saying that only right wing women have reservations about donor conception is remarkably disingenuous, but that's your MO

I wasn't saying that, I was giving an example of when values may clash.

Some women consider all forms of donor conception to be a bad thing including lesbians conceiving using donor sperm.

This is obviously going to clash with the values of other women (and I would say the majority of FiLia attendees) who support lesbian couples conceiving using donor sperm and who support lesbians receiving equal NHS fertility treatment to straight couples ie gay equality.

Personally I think using donor sperm is worlds away from exploitative donor conception using donor eggs and surrogacy but I know there is another person on the thread who fiercely disagrees.

Neither of those options summarise my argument.

Endlesstea is your objection the use of NHS resources by lesbians or the belief that rights of the nonexistent/potential child outweigh those of existing women?

Saying that only right wing women have reservations about donor conception is remarkably disingenuous, but that's your MO.

Also having been to several FILIA conferences I'd be astounded if there were any women there who didn't believe in gay equality.

Thanks for explaining that EndlessTea. I suppose as a hetersexual woman who had children without using fertility services (and appreciate how lucky I am), I don't feel it's my place to decide who should be able to use them and in what circumstances.

I don't see that as a problem tbh. Clashes and disagreements are necessary and can/should be productive.

If you don't like hearing a range of opinions and views, then I get that a conference isn't really your thing.

I think the problem with FiLia is there are many left-leaning, liberal, socialist, feminist, lesbian, gender critical women who attend.

There are also many right leaning, conservative, individualist, femalist, heterosexual, gender critical women who attend.

These women mainly get along fine, but sometimes there is a clash of values. For example if a woman from the second group does not believe in gay equality or that lesbian couples should conceive using donor conception. That kind of thing.

Thanks for responding.

The reason why I am on this thread is because Sappho referenced something I said, on a different thread, but implying I am a group and represent a more than one person in such a way she could rally together lesbians to join her in a siege mentality in this thread. It means you caught the tail end of a bigger conversation.

My beef is this.

Fertile people have different options for starting a family. Clearly this is pretty straightforward for fertile heterosexual couples. Finding a mate is still not straightforward though. Loads of heterosexual people can’t find someone to start a family with and many end up not having a family at all. I don’t know any straight fertile people who chose an anonymous donor/surrogate opposite-sex parent to start a family. I do know of single women who have adopted children though.

Fertile lesbian and gay couples also have options. They don’t have the most straightforward one that heterosexuals have, but there are choices and, of course, none of them are ideal, they all involve bringing an extra adult into the equation.

Coming to an agreement with, for example, a gay couple of the opposite sex, will bring a lot of complexity - potentially eight grand parents wanting contact, needing to consider three other adults if you want to move away, etc, possibly, tug-of-love custody battles, etc, etc. Its complicated. Definitely.

Heterosexuals are not immune to all this though are they? Hence the common themes on relationships board on this site.

What I take issue with, is false idea currently being floated - that lesbians and gay men ‘only have one option or they cannot be parents at all’ - to use fertility services to provide them with a random unknown person as the opposite sex parent, and for the fertility service to remove all the standard risks and difficulties of finding a suitable person, for taking away the need to negotiate with that person, or to come to a legal agreement they are happy with.

I can understand why prospective parents don’t ’want’ or would prefer not to have those standards risks and difficulties.

However, wants and preferences are not rights.

Thats not why fertility services were created either. They are intended for people who are unable to conceive. Using these services to avoid standard risks and difficulties for people who simply prefer not to have them, because they don’t ‘want’ them, is a misuse of these services.

If anyone frames their wants and preferences as ‘rights’ is being entitled.

That’s the context.

You proffered that some women might choose to parent a child without the child's father being in the picture because they couldn't be arsed with finding a suitable person.

Which is why I said that single or same-sex parenthood is generally a bit more complex than not being arsed.

Perfectly logical.

I do understand your point about the importance of a child knowing its biological parents in most circumstances (or about them if they have died or are abusive etc). This is from my own personal experience.

I don't agree that other people should have to adhere to my beliefs and values though, which I think is different to what you're saying.

Ask Sappho

This is very true. I wouldn’t even go as far as to call it competing ‘rights’.

Children have ‘rights’ and prospective parents have ‘wants’ and ‘preferences’.

Fertile people have many options if they want to become parents, but none are guarantees.

There are lots of ethical issues around using anonymous parents, aside from the child’s rights side of things, what about natural selection? In the case I talked about before about the gay man who would make a great dad, he would also have great genes to pass on - healthy, handsome, intelligent, happy disposition, artistically talented. With anonymous donors, mothers are completely side-stepping this important part of choosing a good genetic father for their child. Maybe there is a reason the men opt to donate their sperm anonymously - it means they can bypass women’s aversion. It is a big step to leave this to the fertility services to make this choice for you.

The way things are currently spun, is that unless you support people doing, what I believe, at the most, should be the last resort, after all other options have been exhausted, as a first resort, then you somehow ‘don’t think lesbians and gay men should be parents’ and are therefore ‘homophobic’.

I can understand why everyone is so prickly and defensive about what I am saying on this thread, so they are mischaracterising what I am saying, however, I believe that people who want kids should have every intention of having a lasting relationship/friendship with the opposite sex parent, even if that doesn’t work out. I believe it is unethical to intentionally bypass it.

Please start a new thread. I'm interested in the issues with Filia not ; infertility, in vitro, whether children need a male + female parent.

You saying this led to my response.

Yes, you didn’t explain how your response related to what I said. It doesn’t logically follow.

People seem to be misunderstanding why I said this.

In the development of ‘fertility services’ the rights of the child have historically come far, far behind the wishes of prospective parents and the curiosity of fertility scientists.

I remember seeing an interview with one of the first ‘test tube babies’ - he said he felt a profound sense of violation that his conception took place in a petri dish at the hands of scientists and how he was broadcast all over the place.

I remember the arguments against allowing children to trace their biological parents because then prospective bio parents might not ‘donate’ otherwise. People felt very strongly that the biological parents should have an absolute right to privacy and really waved off any consideration of the child’s rights.

I am absolutely delighted that this has changed and the child’s rights have started to be considered, but this still ruffles feathers. Prospective parents and biological donor parents tend to ‘not want to think about that’ and focus on all the good, happy feeling they get about potential happy parents.

On the AMA thread by the ‘egg donor’ ie- potential biological mother who had relinquished all parental rights, etc, said she had written a letter to her potential biological offspring, saying she would be happy to meet them and to introduce them to their biological relatives. Another woman who was considering using a donor egg said she felt very uncomfortable at the thought of that. Someone else asked the AMA woman how she felt about having children out there. She said “I try not to think about that”.

Even with children being able to contact the bio parents who ‘try not to think about them’ when they reach 18, read a letter, meet their relatives, etc, although it is a huge step in the right direction, it is still not really putting the child first. It’s all about the parents and what the parents want.

It's not surprising the outcome for children of lesbian parents is positive. By default these children were very much wanted and planned.

Fwiw, I do think it's important that children have an age-appropriate understanding of where they came from and who they're biologically related to, and are able to be in contact with relatives throughout their childhood. But I also see that real life is really complicated and often unpredictable, and a huge proportion of families I know fall short of that ideal. I won't hold lesbian families to a higher standard than straight couples just because it's harder for us to shove this stuff under the carpet. As pattihews has pointed out, the data on outcomes for children born to lesbian parents is repeatedly very positive.