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

I think it is you not quite understanding to be honest.

Tandora is saying, as I understand it, that the research proves that genetically unrelated men in a step-parent role (I’m using that term to describe any partner of a parent who has come into the child’s life without the primary objective of being their parent) pose a higher risk.

What Tandora is disputing is your claim that this research proves that the higher risk is because of the lack of biological connection.

And she is right I think. The research proves a correlative relationship but not a causative relationship between biological relationship and risk.

To actually make the claim that is being made stand up, you’d need to control for things like the age at which the individual entered the child’s life and whether they were always an intended parent of the child or not.

It’s not hard to see why - a step dad who meets a mum of a 12 year old is very different to a parent who adopts a 2 year old or who becomes a genetically unrelated parent through surrogacy. The latter two were the child’s parents or intended parents from the start of the relationship between them and the child. They have never known the child except in the context of a parental relationship. They will have all of the usual parent child bonding moments that biological parents have (obviously in the case of adoption this may depend slightly on age of the child at adoption).

So the claim being made requires evidence that the reason that males in step-parent roles pose a higher risk is because of the lack of DNA, rather than the lack of intention to be a parent to that child or the lack of bonding moments in a parent child context.

We are almost saying the same thing, but in a different way.

This research apparently didn't stratify results by sexuality, so we do not know whether or not sexuality is a factor. We can't say 'gay dads are more of a risk'.

We agree on this, yes?

However, you've muddied the water by choosing to exemplify two very specific sub groups (group A - heterosexual dads who shares DNA with their child, and group b - unrelated gay male partners of surrogate dads) from the more generalised data.

Group A are less of a risk because they are genetically related. Sexuality is irrelevant. This group is just a cherry picked heterosexual subset of the bigger group 'dads (of any sexuality) who share DNA with their child, which is a group tested by the research.

Group B are more of a risk because they are genetically unrelated.
This group is just a cherry picked subset of the gay members of the bigger group 'genetically unrelated dads' group from the research.

So your unfortunate example actually works according to the research. But not for the reasons you are incorrectly attributing to me, and other PP, ie 'gay dads are more of a risk'.

I have no reason to believe this statement as it's not what the research linked by the pp said.

These subtleties are really important when interrogating datasets.

We are almost saying the same thing, but in a different way.

This research apparently didn't stratify results by sexuality, so we do not know whether or not sexuality is a factor. We can't say 'gay dads are more of a risk'.

We agree on this, yes?

However, you've muddied the water by choosing to exemplify two very specific sub groups (group A - heterosexual dads who shares DNA with their child, and group b - unrelated gay male partners of surrogate dads) from the more generalised data.

Group A are less of a risk because they are genetically related. Sexuality is irrelevant. This group is just a cherry picked heterosexual subset of the bigger group 'dads (of any sexuality) who share DNA with their child, which is a group tested by the research.

Group B are more of a risk because they are genetically unrelated.
This group is just a cherry picked subset of the gay members of the bigger group 'genetically unrelated dads' group from the research.

So your unfortunate example actually works according to the research. But not for the reasons you are incorrectly attributing to me, and other PP, ie 'gay dads are more of a risk'.

I have no reason to believe this statement as it's not what the research linked by the pp said.

These subtleties are really important when interrogating datasets.

It absolutely does not. Where are you getting that from? Please link to the studies please.

So unrelated women are a risk too? Like mothers through egg donation who aren't genetically related to their child?

Ridiculous.

I don't think you've quite understood.

AFAIK, the research doesn't mention the sexuality of the 'unrelated males' in the child's environment.

'Unrelated', as previously explained, means in this context 'someone who doesn't share DNA' with the child.

[This wording is not a value judgement on the relationship that people with no genetic connection to their children have with them, like adoptive or step parents;it is what the research showed. They needed a descriptor for that group and 'unrelated' is what they chose].

So a gay male partner of a biological dad would be 'unrelated' for the purposes of this research.

In the same way that we know that men as a group are a risk to women ona population level, we know that unrelated men are a risk to children. This does not mean that every unrelated males is a risk (or that every man is a risk to women).

Its not saying 'if you have no genetic connection to your children you are definitely a risk to them'.

Its the 'genetically unrelated' part that is the apparent risk factor, not the 'gay' part (you would have to stratify the sample into representative 'gay' and 'straight' groups to get data on whether sexuality was a factor as well).

To put it another way:

No there is no evidence that suggests that gay surrogate parents are an increased risk to their children compared heterosexual dads who share their kids’ DNA.

This is absolutely what the research does show.

But the sexuality part that you've picked out in your example is a red herring.

The research shows a difference between Dads who share their kids DNA, and unrelated male partners of people who use a surrogate to have children (whether or not they are gay or straight, or the partner who is related to the kids is male or female).

Its the 'unrelated male' that is the issue. The rest of your scenario is extrapolation, but it's consistent with what we can say according to that data.

sorry couldn’t follow this incoherent response. “Scientifically confused” lol.

No there is no evidence that suggests that gay surrogate parents are an increased risk to their children compared heterosexual dads who share their kids’ DNA.

You are trying to generalise/ extrapolate from evidence in ways that are not valid because the sample of people included in that evidence cannot be shown to reflect the population to which you are trying to generalise.

HTH.

sorry couldn’t follow this incoherent response. “Scientifically confused” lol.

No there is no evidence that suggests that gay surrogate parents are an increased risk to their children compared heterosexual dads who share their kids’ DNA.

You are trying to generalise/ extrapolate from evidence in ways that are not valid because the sample of people included in that evidence cannot be shown to reflect the population to which you are trying to generalise.

HTH.

sorry couldn’t follow this incoherent response. “Scientifically confused” lol.

No there is no evidence that suggests that gay surrogate parents are an increased risk to their children compared heterosexual dads who share their kids’ DNA.

You are trying to generalise/ extrapolate from evidence in ways that are not valid because the sample of people included in that evidence cannot be shown to reflect the population to which you are trying to generalise.

HTH.

You seem a bit scientifically confused.

A step-parent, by definition, doesn’t share DNA with the child. That is another way of saying exactly the same thing as “biologically unrelated”.

In the research that was done, which is what we are talking about, “unrelated” meant biologically/genetically unrelated to the child. That means not sharing DNA if you want it expressed in those terms. It isn’t a complicated definition.

It did not differentiate between “labels” for the unrelated male, such as step-dad, live in boyfriend of mother, blended family member or anything else.

You don’t seem to understand that people noting the research observation that these men presented the highest risk to a child in the same home is not the same as saying each and every such man presents an enormously high risk to a child.

Who is saying sperm donors are unrelated, that doesn't make sense?

Adoptive fathers are certainly unrelated in the sense the research on the topic uses. Related, in that context, means biologically related.

It's true the research available hasn't really included adoptive or surrogate parents, so it's extrapolating to say they would follow the same pattern. But it's a reasonable hypothesis.

If you are going to claim that sperm donor fathers and adoptive fathers are "unrelated males" despite being their ACTUAL FATHERS you need to provide evidence for that.

I didn’t say that though. I was talking about the unrelated male partners of the sperm producer part of the surrogate arrangement as they are unrelated male partner and we have no way of knowing the partnership dynamic or his intentions.

This was as incoherent as the rest of what you post.

unrelated” means biologically unrelated. It carries a clear and specific meaning, and sometimes we need to be clear.

Nope. There is nothing clear or specific at all about the term “unrelated”, hence the controversy that your statements are inciting,

we do need to be clear and specific in our language- so please be clear and specific by saying that you mean a child and their parents who do not share DNA. There is no research which isolates this specific risk- you are talking evidence about children in blended or step families and assuming it applies to an entirely different context (a gay parent raising a child from birth). Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn’t, we don’t know.

I am sorry, but just because you think that is how it should happen does not mean it does.

Many many step-parents are very conscious that when they marry someone who already has children, they are taking on a serious responsibility and becoming parental figures, and that it is likely to be a lifelong responsibility.

There are plenty of step-parents who are there for and support their step-children as much or more than their actual parent does. Or where they do so equally to the biological parent. Many don't adopt their step kids because there is parent in the picture but that doesn't diminish the role they often play.

And there are also adoptive parents who do not live up to what they should, not even close. Some may intend to, and struggle, others may never have intended to.

people are complicated.

It’s so sad. A baby need a mum and a dad not two dads or two mums. It’s awful that we allow this

Since men are statistically a higher risk to children than women (as many trans activists use the argument, the majority of murders are perpetrated by men we know), I’m not sure there is much to be gained for the child by arguing that a group of men who claim a specific set of intentions are statistically different to another group of men who may or may not have the same claimed intentions but different timing in the start of the relationship.

Pre-birth, in fact, in the case of surrogacy. In these families the parents- while not sharing DNA actively arranged for the conception of the child and were invested / involved from then. So , yes, an entirely different context to studies looking at dynamics in blended/ step families.

The Chicago med study about this split the children's family set ups into the following groups

Two biologic parents (cases: 37 percent; controls: 64 percent)

One biologic parent and no other adult (cases: 28 percent; controls: 30 percent)

Two biologic parents and another related adult (cases: 10 percent; controls: 3 percent)

Step or foster parents (cases: 4 percent; controls: 2 percent)

One or two biologic parents and another unrelated adult (cases: 21 percent, controls: 1 percent)

They only "unrelated adults" studied were step parents and foster parents. Adoptive parents and donor gamete parents were not included. Therefore you cannot draw any conclusions on these families because they have not been studied and they are legal guardians with parental rights and responsibilities in a way that is not relevant to step and foster parents. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all to point out that you are misapplying stats about one thing, to another thing.

Interestingly the risk of harm coming to children increases massively if other family members who are related to them but are not their parents live in the home, so DNA/Blood doesn't protect children from all adults, only their parents.

The most likely person to harm the children was the mothers boyfriend, followed step fathers, followed by uncles, followed by the mother herself. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of adoptive or donor parents.

If you are going to claim that sperm donor fathers and adoptive fathers are "unrelated males" despite being their ACTUAL FATHERS you need to provide evidence for that. Just saying well this study says something about step dads and I've decided that these type of dads are also unrelated so I imagine it applies to them too isn't good enough. Like @Vubui says, there are lots of men who think they are their children's father but their wives cheated, they don't automatically become a risk because of some DNA they can't see and don't know exists, they believe they are their children's father, that's what matters.

Please show that these families were included in the research you are citing and that the findings actually are relevant to them.

I would love to see it.

You are misunderstanding and misapplying the 'stats'