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

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

Can we be mindful that certain posters would love to distract us by accusing us all of homophobia - rather than have us discuss the very real moral problems with Surrogacy.

They are generalisations, but not homophobic because she's comparing gay men to straight men, and suggesting "they're just the same", not in some way worse.

So do you think the sweeping negative generalisations from the OP towards gay men are not homophobia then?

What is your definition of homophobia?

There is over-generalisation there, I grant you - it's not true that all gay males support surrogacy for gay couples or any couples. And it's probably fair to say that most gay male couples aren't interested in having children anyway.

But it's also arguably true that those gay males who do support surrogacy are also exploiting and promoting traditional male privilege, in the safety of a "protected" category - knowing that hordes of people like you will falsely accuse critics of surrogacy of "homophobia".

The OP's original post is targeted at gay male and also breaks Mumset talk guidelines by engaging in sweeping negative generalisations:

1. Sweeping negative generalisations about any group, including trans people and gender-critical feminists, won’t be tolerated.

OP:

"When I was a younger women I loved having gay men in my social circle. They seemed like “nicer” more lovely men than most straight men. Now I realise that underneath it all they just the same sexist, privileged tossers as many straight men are. They want a baby? No problem - buy one! They want to invade women’s spaces? No problem - just reinvent yourself as “the most vulnerable in society”!
It’s like the scales have fallen from my eyes."

As predicted. Multiple posts into a response, the substance of which was about impacts on children, and not a single response to that.

But hey, let's talk about all your hurt feelings at me pointing out the homophobia in targeting specifically surrogacy by gay people.

No, it's criticising surrogacy. No matter who is involved. Should gay people be exempt from criticism?

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.

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.

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're demonstrating exactly the insidious tactic the OP pointed out - that by championing surrogacy in the context of gay couples, pro-surrogacy campaigners believe they can quash opposition by (wrongly) accusing critics of "homophobia".

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

are somehow not able to make their own decisions

In this scenario, one of these decisions these free and able women are making, is to deliberately inflict separation trauma on a newborn baby.

Yes, there can be cases of genuine altruism, and genuine freedom of decision making, but ensuring these things to be true is very hard. What mechanism do you propose to put in place to make sure a woman isn’t being exploited?

And even if you can, there’s still a baby who has rights produced as a result. What about the baby?

No, it's criticising surrogacy. No matter who is involved. Should gay people be exempt from criticism?

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

Where do you think the 'homophobia' lies with people who are applying exactly the same principles to straight couples as gay couples? 🤔

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.

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.