KJK opposing fertility treatment for gay couples

TLDR but I am a lesbian with a wife and two donor conceived children. We were able to have our kids through “assisted conception”. Neither of us were infertile and, as such, we did not seek infertility treatment on the NHS, we paid for it ourselves. I do not see this as a women’s issue, nor is it something that I believe should be covered by the NHS. I do think the ‘fresh sperm DIY market’ accessed by many lesbians as a cheaper route to pregnancy requires some serious regulation though!

I have thought long and hard about the ethics of donor conception and do have some concerns still about what we chose to do, but I feel we have a good understanding of the issues around our kids not knowing the male half of their biological origins, and agree with someone upthread that this is an issue which requires additional parenting input to navigate, rather than it being a hard moral line that should not be crossed. We have worked hard to be open and honest about this with them, and to help them feel secure within their family. Their donor is contactable at 18 and they know that. My thoughts around surrogacy are very different.

I don’t find KJK’s comment as a stand alone anti-lesbian, and am all for pro-realism and clear language, but I can see how it could act as an open invitation for homophobes to express anti-lesbian sentiments openly.

Only because your thread backfired!

You started a thread about KJK’s alleged homophobia.

What you got was a pretty good discussion about the ethics and consequences of donor gametes., regardless of the sexual orientation of the gamete-recipient.

You were trying to shut down KJK’s opinions and ongoing discussions on the ethics of Big Fertility by plugging up people’s ears with false accusations of homophobia.

You failed,

Oh stop with the conspiracy theories
It's really annoying, isn't it when people when people speculate about what you really meant when you said something?
Or about what you were secretly thinking when you said it?
Or about why you chose to say it in the first place?

I'm so bloody annoyed at myself for spending nearly an hour reading this thread but I just couldn't stop. It's like a car crash! Sapphos, love, your take on this is truly bonkers, I mean, I don't even know what else to say.

If this is done for the purpose of the police interview then fab, KJK should be home before teatime.

Donor conceived children do not have the biological connections of children conceived by straight couples.

Again, this is you putting your spin on it and inferring the worst possible meaning. And forgetting that plenty of straight couples have donor conceived children.

Lots of people (myself included) struggle with the ethics of donor conceived children. This doesn't make us anti-lesbian - I have the same reservations about donor conception for single women and straight couples who need a sperm or egg donor.

I agree. How entitled and conceited do you have to be to think you deserve to go through life without a moment’s ‘offence’, and that this should be achieved by stopping other people from talking?

I don’t think people should shy away from talking about uncomfortable topics because they’re ‘not kind’. I’m currently on another thread discussing whether somebody who is reliant on benefits through disability is ‘entitled’ to have a baby and raise them at the expense of the public as they’re ‘unable’ to work. As a disabled woman who does work, I say no. But we can’t be seen to ‘deny’ LGBTQ/disabled/mentally unwell people anything because it’s ‘discrimination’ or ‘right wing’. Naturally the cost of whatever is requested always falls to the taxpayer, or women.

That is going to needlessly upset a lot of lesbians.
Well, you're certainly doing your best to make sure it does, Sappho.

I'm done with 'this upsets me' as a rationale for closing debate.

Totally. We’re adults! It’s ok to be upset and it’s ok to take offence but that’s not a reason to stop other people from stating upsetting realities or saying things that we personally find offensive.

I find everything Jeffrey Marsh says about women, and especially mothers, extremely offensive but I’d rather hear it and be able to argue against they’s points than stick my fingers in my ears and try and get everyone else to plug up their ears too.

Donor conceived children do not have the biological connections of children conceived by straight couples.

Of course KJK is entitled to her opinion but this is anti lesbian.

Well of course these children don't! And of course they are entitled to ask about their origins. There are lots of children in this situation (dad fucked off before they were born, mum doesn't know who the dad is, orphans, adopted etc). The adoption process now specifically requires parents to openly discuss and provide info as to their biological parents (where known) as it's acknowledged that this is beneficial to the child.

Why are children of gay couples exempt from awareness that some additional, specific parenting might be required on this issue?

You added the bit about state funded treatment all by yourself...

A lot of KJK’s views on this stuff have been formed by listening to lesbians such as Dr Sheila Jeffreys and Dr Julia Long

Straight single women also have babies via donor conception.

These opinions are not a heterosexual women/homosexual women divide and it’s completely disingenuous of you to suggest it is.

Indeed, the op is the only person inventing stating that. That is not in the tweet by KJK, only in the op's post.

But it's not needless if one's viewpoint is that it's not in children's best interests.

If someone really believes that then they should prioritise advocating for children above the feelings of adults.

You disagree and find it offensive, but that doesn't mean it's homophobic or shouldn't be said or has no basis.

I'm done with 'this upsets me' as a rationale for closing debate.

We do get told this. My DH is infertile. You have no idea how many of his friend's offered to provide us with sperm. A few offered "to do it in the usual way", others offered to go via an IVF clinic, others offered to proceed for a turkey baster at home.

Clearly OP, you have absolutely zero experience in this arena.

Gay people are not suffering from infertility. They are suffering from lack of sperm or lack of egg and womb. There are non-medical options available for both, including the old turkey baster which doesn't require any medical at all or surrogacy via the same route.

There is also no treatment for infertile men BTW. Azoospermia cannot be treated, fixed, cured. Go look it up.

This is common to all donor conceived children regardless of the sexual orientation
of the parents!

So the OP views 'fertility issues' as wanting to have a child but not being able to conceive.
So it applies equally to:
Lesbian couples
Gay male couples
Single straight women
Single straight men
Celibate heterosexual couples.

If they want a child they would all need the same sort of intervention a heterosexual couple would need if their reproductive biology was not working.

It's describing infertility as wanting something you cannot have, but the reasons are different.

For this to be logically and fairly applied we'd need to offer the same level of treatment to anyone who wanted a baby but who couldn't have one for any reason.

E.g. single heterosexual women would get fertility treatment on the NHS because they didn't have a partner.
Would you support that OP?

Quite!

it’s one thing to discuss these matters in theory and another to shout them in an
individuals face.

I have some pretty big issues with grammar schools in their current iteration (middle class kids tutored within an inch of their lives or sent to private prep with the sole aim of state grammar entry, property hot spots in catchments etc) but I don’t stand outside the nearest grammar at 4pm shouting the appalling discrepancy in free school meal recipient percentages between the grammar and the nearest high school at parents through a loudhailer 🤷‍♀️

OP, If you genuinely believe it's a fertility issue, maybe post on the infertility boards and see what kind of response you get.

Actually, don't do that. The idea that same-sex couples have a fertility issue is hugely offensive.

I want to support the woman but when she Tweets that lesbians trying to procreate is not a fertility issue she is claiming lesbians should not have access to state funded fertility treatment.

Except she isn't claiming that. She is stating a simple fact (based on what the word "fertility" actually means), and you are inferring that she believes lesbians should not have access to state funded fertility treatment. Your inference may be correct, but it may be wrong.

It must be very hard to go through life choosing to believe the worst possible twist you can put on other people's words. It must be exhausting.

The thing is, no one wants to be homophobic. No one wants anyone else to struggle with fertility. But no one can be guaranteed a child, just as no one can be guaranteed good health.

We've allowed stuff in the name of 'be kind' that is not at all kind to babies.

You just can't have two opposite things at the same time.
If you want a baby, you need a bloke involved somewhere. If you don't want a bloke involved, you can't have a baby.

I don't know what triggered the KJK tweet but she commented a couple of days previously about surrogacy.

And then following on from the infertility tweet, she tweeted again to say that we should be centring the baby's welfare in all of this.

I think it's hard to argue against any of that.

You are completely misrepresenting what she actually wrote in her tweet.

And again it is not anti anything it is just a statement of fact.

The fact you have gotten it so twisted and are reading into it things that it just does not say or imply is on you.