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

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.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68371108/united-states-v-king/

Found these court documents, he's still in jail awaiting trial, based on the prosecution's evidence of him being a vile predator the judge refused to release him under bail conditions.

Parents of children born by surrogacy are going to have the same effect that parents of “trans kids” have had on that debate.

Helen Joyce spoke so well about how entire organisations have been effectively silenced because one member of staff has transitioned their child. It’s all well and good to debate anonymously online but as mentioned by another poster upthread, she wouldn’t have been able mention the health of the surrogate mother in a workplace environment.

Although this has became a general discussion about surrogacy, the OP was pointing out, in particular, the excessive fawning and fussing when a gay, male couple buys a baby. I really do think this is an issue in light of the above.

The feeling that an objection to surrogacy is somehow homophobic, will be an enormous barrier to sensible discussion in real life.

I believe it's this case, though there may be others:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/5037086-surrogacy-man-plans-to-abuse-the-baby-he-is-buying

Men get angry when women won’t do what they are told, even handing over their baby. It’s easy to see who these posters are, even if they try to hold back.

So what else is it called when a human being is bought and sold?

I was a bit shocked recently to read a substack by the hairdresser George Northwood, where he talks about choosing a surrogate by the country in which the egg donor has less rights for when to back out - as he wants to eventually have full siblings.

It was interesting because he also talks about checking the sex of the embryos and for things like Down Syndrome, there are presumably so many things that could go wrong legally as well as physically. It did stick with me that it’s never really rich women signing up to be surrogates, unless within their own families.

hysteria

Charming. But that misogynistic slur matches the tenor of disdain for women you have.

Exactly. Get back to us @Vubui when rich people are giving birth to poor people. It reminds me of the Baby M case where MaryBeth Whitehead (the surrogate) was the stay at home wife of a garbage man and the intending/paying parents (Bill and Betsy Stern) were a Biochemist and a Paediatrician. As Whitehead's lawyer said in his summation comments; it will always be the wife of the garbage man who will bare the children for the paediatrician.

You'll only have a valid argument when rich women agree to gestate for a stay at home wife of a garbage man. Until that day, you have no argument, Vubui. It's only poor women needing money that do this. Not the other way around. It's basically prostitution, Vubui. That's what surrogacy is. A form of prostitution. And no, girls don't grow up dreaming of being a sex worker either.

This issue of men and abuse makes me think about other things. I thunk the key thing is that unlike a male couple or single man adopting, there is no checking in surrogacy process before baby is given. Otoh these men may be biologically related, which does lessen risk of abuse. But it's obvs still there, as in this case. And no mother around to protect.

Oh my God....do you have a link?

That's definitely true, some people never find the right person to start a family with...

Ikwym w people in the past, including gay people, focusing more on pragmatic reasons for marriage..
Still, I don't think our customs today are necessarily worse. I know some men who were only romantically into men (or vice .versa) did sometimes marry someone who was happy w an 'arrangement', but a lot of the time lies and deception were involved, and I doubt many women would really have been happy to marry someone w no desire for women. Straight people in a more pragmatic arrangement might ofc find it easier to grow a real bond over the years, but there is a lot of evidence throughout history that people have preferred to marry someone they were in love with.

Otoh the pragmatic arrangement does have the benefit of placing children at the centre. It would be good for modern relationships in general to have more of that mindset, focusing solely on adult desires is partly the root of divorce issues that harm children. And obvs this surrogacy issue...

Or raising the kids together w an opposite-sex friend as the other bio parent.

The child doesn't exist. No child consents to being born.

The child doesn't consent. The child is the person most affected.

All your examples in this thread are about force.

Rape.
Sexual exploitation aka rape on a huge scale.
Forced marriage.
Parents of children from forced adoption. I dont really understand why you're blaming adoptive parents here. Surely the blame belongs with state institutions and societal "shame".

These are all a far cry away from consensual acts that result in children.

Where's the shame?

This discussion is not about individuals.

I agree there are considerable problems with surrogacy and discussion is needed.

Shame isn't.

Hard as it would be for many people I personally think that IVF should not be NHS funded. At least not until everything else is sorted, I just don’t think it should be a priority for public spending. Having children is not a right.

I recall how a week or so after I’d given birth I found out an ex colleague had just announced the arrival of his baby (via surrogate) and I had this strong feeling of wanting to know how the mother was doing.

I felt able to casually ask my friend who’d told me the news, but it struck me that I probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable asking in a workplace environment, as if it’s rude or hurtful - or yes, unkind - to acknowledge the role of the woman who’s carried and birthed the commissioned baby.

My friend replied with a sort of ‘oh, don’t know, I just know the mother was a surrogate’ and there was no mention of the woman’s condition in his announcement.

Perhaps she was thrilled to be in her position and fine after the birth with support from family. We have no idea though. That’s before you even get to what’s best for the baby. It just struck me then as another way women can be erased and exploited.

Sorry have not read entire thread, but maybe someone has mentioned cases such as the married couple of men in USA, who bought a baby by surrogacy. Once the contract is signed, the mother, according to law in their State, cannot back out,. A contract is the same as any other sale of goods.

One of the two husbands is a rich and popular preacher, who is also a fashionable 'trans'

One of the couple had posted online in excitement, mentioning that he just can't wait to get the newborn home, so he can start to ....use the little body, for insertion... he mused that he might get some pals round to join the party.

A court refused to overturn the purchase contract. There was a bit of a fuss when the announced purpose of the surrogacy became public. But the online boaster has ostensibly gone to stay nearby at his mum's house, for a while, which makes everything alright, doesn't it?

The fantasy that men can never want access to naked women and children except for pure motives, is no more or less sensible than the fantasy men can never want control of an infant because they intend to abuse it.

You earlier avoided answering the question of whether you would condemn parents who gained their children through forced adoption.

How about children conceived through rape? You'd not condemn the rapist father? Or children conceived through sexual exploitation or forced marriage or....?

No one is talking about condemning children in any of these cases as you well know.

No. I haven't accepted that surrogacy causes the 'same' trauma - that's your biased interpretation. I didn't say that at all.

You wrote, in the post I replied to:

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

So you said that surrogacy and adoption “surely leads to the exact same trauma”. So it wasn’t my biased interpretation, you said they’re the same.

Interesting article about the growth in single men using surrogacy, often gay men. Yet again it's all about the man, impact on the children is hardly mentioned https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2025/08/single-fathers-by-choice-america/683885/