Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

I am in the UK. It is completely possible for adoptive parents to contact birth parents by phone if they want to. For example, by asking social workers to pass on their phone no (or possibly a dedicated mobile) to birth parents. There is absolutely no reason why adoptive parents should not do this yet I know only a couple who have and many who do not consider the literacy issues birth parents may have.
Similarly adoptive parents generally meet birth families once "for closure" and yet it's perfectly possible to have regular visits.
These are fairly common (though again birth parents are demonised and made out to be "unsafe') in the US where many birth families have similar issues (neglect, drug use, chaotic lifestyle) to birth parents in the UK.

Sorry, picking up the phone? How many adopters do you know who have birth parents' phone number?

Are you in the UK? It is exceptionally rare for adoptive parents to have direct contact details for their children's birth parents.

I had a conversation with a gay man not so long ago about the 'LGBT community'. He said in a sense there wasn't a single LGBT community. There were lesbians that had their own closed community in which gay men didn't have a role. And there was a similar gay community. He thought there was actually a limited gay and lesbian community in which they mixed as a group as their social circles didn't interact as much as straight people perceived.

I've also heard this that assumption homosexual male sexuality was the same but the opposite to homosexual female sexuality was flawed.

He's also strayed into comments about never failing to underestimate the fetishists of gay men which is something echoed here.

I have to say I've probably fallen onto the trap of thinking along those lines and making those assumptions and over looking these points.

There's nothing homophobic in this, it's just a fundamental lack of understanding lesbians and gays and their communities because we have some rather lazy attitudes about it and aren't part of it.

I think from being on MN and listening to some of the lesbians on here, they have been driven back into the closet in an act of self protection whereas this isn't something happening to gay men in quite the same way and this being something of an important factor in perceptions.

I think there are political implications from this. Complaints about Stonewall falling to represent the interests of lesbians and gay men being oblivious to this and being late to realise what was happening seem to echo that.

So yes I think perhaps have a conversation about echo chambers / restricted social circles within the gay and lesbian community and perhaps there being an issue that paths only crossing in limited circumstances (the notable one being having offspring) perhaps is something of political acknowledgement and discussion for various reasons.

Even the T always being represented on TV by prominent transwomen is notable. Aside from Steven Whittle where are all the transmen?

The idea of 'representing the LGBT community' potentially is one which is a total myth and about as coherent as a Muslim representing the Jamaican Community just because they arent white. This isn't to say it can't be done - lots of straight, white people represent minority groups within their community successfully because they have to make the effort to listen - the problem is we assume that it's being done on the basis of lumping everyone together rather than assessing how accurate that claim of representing the community actually is and whether they do actually listen to the other minorities.

It all circles around to the reoccurring concept of the invisible women...

... And going back to the OP surrogacy itself very much has this problem...

...and how gender neutralising everything and assuming that men and women think the same and have the same interests and same goals and world views is a mistake as much as we want to have equality.

It raises difficult questions for feminism itself and what we understand to be equality.

But yes, it merits it own thread.

Plus a big argument against surrogacy is that it's more dangerous than carrying one's own egg.

I'm basing it on many, many interactions on thousands-strong FB groups of adoptive parents and one to one interactions with personal friends who are, like us, adopters. Reports from friends' experience at training groups. Etc etc.
I have to say one thing: I'm more impressed with gay male couples' attitude to their children's mum (source, friends who are adopters) than gay male couples who've used surrogates (source: social media) but that's a low bar.
I have also seen adoptive parents being really relieved when birth parents with low literacy can't keep up with letterbox, instead of thinking of other ways (like, you know, PICKING UP THE PHONE) to keep in touch.

Adoption or fostering. The same as other infertile couples. There are already so many existing unwanted children in this world but nobody wants them. They all want a cutesy perfect baby.

Ridiculous.

We'd die out pretty quickly if childbirth was banned. It can't be a new idea since it's how we all came to exist in the first place.

The new contact is going to be court mandated so adopters will have no option.

I'm not in favour. I responded to the Gov consultation to express my concerns which I suggest are similar to yours.

Imo it will be a disaster, partly of course but birth parents in the UK are not always going to be co-operative or put the child's needs first.

And also, a lot of the contact will be with other family members like siblings or aunts and uncles. A lot will be on zoom.

Anyway the adoptees want it so the Gov has acted.

And it is just not even on the agenda when it comes to surrogacy. All the agenda for surrogacy is how to make it easier for commissioning parents - names straight on the birth certificate, that sort of thing.

The whole thing needs to be remodelled imo.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your basis for this description of UK adoptive parents is. It is certainly not my experience of adoptive parents now - there has obviously been a step change in how people think about adoption so it may be generational.

The adopters I know try really hard to support their kids to build a balanced view about their birth families. They take the time to understand the factors that led birth families to be unable to care for their children, to explain that to their kids in age appropriate ways. Many of us spend time writing letters to birth parents, many of whom do not reply. Yes, many of us have anger at what birth families have put some of our kids through - think it would be weird if we didn't - and encourage our kids that they can feel whatever they feel about their experiences.

Your post is a gross generalisation, and unfounded based on my experience.

Most adoptive families I know involve gay or lesbian parents. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I know some straight friends have been more disbelieving than gay friends when I describe whats involved in adoption, and I have wondered if it is because gay couples adopting can never pretend their families are just like every other - so engaging in the things that make our families different, like life story work, is less scary. Or possibly because most of us knew early on that if we had kids it would be through some non-traditional means, whereas many straight couples have come to adoption often as a plan B. Those are just theories though.

No it's not.

You are deliberately misrepresenting and giving misinformation. It's about being anti surrogacy in all cases, regardless of sexual orientation.

Also the Primal Wound Theory is evidenced by grounded science and practicality. So you are misinformed.

The entire thread is predicated on the particular issue of gay men using surrogacy.

Here's the thing, if you direct your opposition to surrogacy primarily at gay men, even if you are in theory also opposed to it by straight couples, then that of course is homophobic.

Opposing surrogacy in itself is not homophobia. Opposing it for gay couples only, or directing your attention to gay couples only, is what is homophobia.

You are presenting this as "dreadful birth parents, they don't care about their kids, they don't want contact".
Which is the EXACT opposite of what UK, and for the most part US, adoptive parents are like.
They paint even the birth parents who are completely harmless and who children who would benefit from seeing as "a danger to my child". Rant on about how "it's MY child, how dare she, she's lost the right to be called a parent" "they look just like me" "they don't remember her so why would they need to form a relationship". Adopters used to choose to adopt from Guatemala over China as it was seen as less likely that children will find their birth parents. Vulnerable young teens find their birth family on social media and 18 year olds meet their birth family unsupported because they cannot confess to these parents who devalue their genetic origins how very much they long to connect

Surrogates who have an existing relationship with IPs e.g. sisters report being pushed out, dropped like hot cakes, upset with how their baby is being raised.

Parking the obvious homophobia in a thread targetted just at surrogacy by gay men, a lot of references to adoption here really anger me.

A couple of things to point out:

-Adoption is not a consolation prize for those who cannot have a child biologically. Positing as a 'if you want a child, just adopt' is glib and ignorant.

-More fundamentally, the claims about the inherent trauma of separating a newborn from their gestational mother are fundamentally based on Primal Wound Theory, which is a theory that can be deeply stigmatising to a lot of adopted people and, crucially, is lacking in any real scientific basis. The research about children conceived through surrogacy suggests mental and emotional outcomes comparable to other children.

This is important, because if we ground policy on the primal wound theory, then when weighing the interests of children being considered for being placed in care at birth, we risk adopting a threshold of harm that is not justified by the science. If we start from the position that removal from a birth mother is inherently traumatic in a way that causes lasting harm to a child, then the threshold of harm to justify that removal must logically be higher (than it already is). That may be right if it was scientifically grounded, but it is not.

So firstly, yes, you are right about contact being encouraged. Many adopters, however, as you probably know, struggle with the reality of that. Of course in some cases, contact is met with good engagement from birth families and can work well. In some very rare cases, in person engagement can safely happen. But for many more of us, contact is shouting into the void. We still (most of us) persist because we want to be able to look our kids in the eye and tell them we tried.

But the other thing here is that there is no real way to police the issue of contact. If you have a surrogate who is unwilling to engage in that (for very obviously reasons usually - surrogacy is usually entered into on the basis of a clean break) then there is really no way of enforcing that, just as there isn't in the case of adoption.

I don't think surrogacy 'ignores' these issues at all. Questions of how the identities of children born through surrogacy can be supported, how contact can be encouraged and supported if that is the wish are genuine and real issues. The problem with those who leap on the 'ban it everywhere' wagon is that those issues can't be considered.

The new contact is going to be court mandated so adopters will have no option.

I'm not in favour. I responded to the Gov consultation to express my concerns which I suggest are similar to yours.

Imo it will be a disaster, partly of course but birth parents in the UK are not always going to be co-operative or put the child's needs first.

And also, a lot of the contact will be with other family members like siblings or aunts and uncles. A lot will be on zoom.

Anyway the adoptees want it so the Gov has acted.

And it is just not even on the agenda when it comes to surrogacy. All the agenda for surrogacy is how to make it easier for commissioning parents - names straight on the birth certificate, that sort of thing.

The whole thing needs to be remodelled imo.

No. There is plenty of evidence of surrogacy going back to antiquity.

Adoption or fostering. The same as other infertile couples. There are already so many existing unwanted children in this world but nobody wants them. They all want a cutesy perfect baby.

What nonsense. And what's worse, there is a definite undercurrent of homophobia running through your comments. Not sure why you're being so hostile to gay people.

Do you think that infertile straight couples should have to share their child with a fertile woman? Why should any couple, gay or straight, be forced into co-parenting just to have a child?

Adoption can be very difficult and isn't suitable for many people.

Thank goodness people like you don't get let anywhere near actual decision making.