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

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.

How? As I mentioned to pp, please show me where there is research that differentiates, especially between stepfathers and an unrelated male partner of the sperm provider/father in a surrogacy arrangement. I’d be happy to see it.

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.

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.

Speaking of which, this was published yesterday. On top of all the IVF mix ups that have been reported. It amazes me how people can look at how unethical and poorly regulated the fertility industry is, how awful the surrogacy industry is currently, and think it’s possible to have an ethical model for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/12/jessica-has-77-half-brothers-and-sisters-through-the-same-sperm-donor-she-wonders-how-many-more-there-could-be-ntwnfb#:~:text=Support%20the%20Guardian&text=Jessica%20Hamilton%20is%20one%20of,nine%20samples%20from%20him%20today.

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 very much attached to being biologically related. It's fairly consistent that in societies where it covers some non-biological relationships (you can't marry your aunt's husband, for example), those are much more likely to be transgressed.

That's probably because at it's most fundamental level, there is an instinctive element and it is meant to reduce inbreeding. It also functions in human communities to help prevent problems in social relations, but that's perhaps a less fundamental element. It's certainly more variable which non-blood relationships it covers across differernt societies.

You are misunderstanding and misapplying the 'stats'

No, I agree there must be risk. There has been very little research on this afaik. The sperm bank lobby is very powerful...

If the baby was conceived by sperm do or then the mothers partner (or possibly adoptive father if he decides to take that step) is an unrelated male caregiver. I’m not sure how else I can say it.

I am just reporting what the research said. It’s not my research. If you can find some research that has found a difference in risk between adoptive fathers, the male partner of a sperm provider for a surrogate pregnancy and stepfathers please feel free to share it.

You are making a lot of assumptions about the motivations and internal thought processes of individuals.

Anyway, the research I saw didn’t differentiate between men that purchase a child from a surrogate, adoptive fathers, or stepfathers/boyfriends. Maybe you have some that has looked at this in more detail to break it down further?

You mean the incest taboo is weaker for stepparents?

Does that include couples who use a sperm donor, so the father is not biologically related?

I know two people who have stepfathers who've been w the mother since birth almost and have adopted. They filled the same role a biological father would. I think you shouldn't dismiss all stepparents.

Of course step parents aren't real parents, they aren't their step children's legal guardians, have no parental rights or responsibility and in the event of divorce often never see the children again. The step children also already have parents. They are children acquired through marriage, not through the desire to be a parent.

When someone adopts they are choosing to be a parent to that child, like people who have a baby are choosing to be a parent to that child.

Step fathers who harm their step children don't see them as their own. The whole point of adoption is that the child becomes your own.

You can't possibly conflate step parents and adoptive parents.

But you are assuming that step parents don't intend to be real parents, and that adoptive parents do. What makes you think adoptive fathers are likely to be better people than step fathers?

I suspect that it's the incest taboo that's key, myself.

It's research that is being misrepresented in my opinion.

The research is about step parents. Not parents who believe they are their child's actual parents but don't share DNA.

What @Vubui is saying makes perfect sense. You know it does.

It doesn't make any logical sense. Relation through DNA is not the key - it's the psychological perception of being the father.

That’s your assumption. Have you seen any research that backs your theory? I’m not saying that it doesn’t make sense but you don’t know that it’s a fact.

DNA isn't magic, you can't feel it. If a man believes he is a father but actually secretly isn't (secret ONS for example) your argument is that he is automatically a higher risk to the children in his home

It’s not my argument, I (and other pps) are merely pointing out the stats established by the research. It seems to be quite a well established fact.

Just because you don’t like a fact doesn’t make it ‘ridiculous’. Take it up with the researchers if you don’t like it.

Unrelated male caregivers are more likely to cause physical harm to children.

It doesn't make any logical sense. Relation through DNA is not the key - it's the psychological perception of being the father.

Stepfathers know they're not the real father and so you do see higher risk - but adoptive and surrogate fathers perceive themselves to be the primary father and so it's different.

DNA isn't magic, you can't feel it. If a man believes he is a father but actually secretly isn't (secret ONS for example) your argument is that he is automatically a higher risk to the children in his home because he is, in fact, 'unrelated'. It doesn't work like that. It's psychological distance that matters.

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

Ridiculous.

As far as I can see the research says that it is caregivers in the home who are not a biological parent*

Have you found any research that differentiates between the different titles used by unrelated men and whether that has an impact on their risk factor?

I can’t see a future where the regulation and laws around surrogacy and unrelated gametes is not changed. Look at the changes in adoption law and practice over the last 50 years. Not just in the uk, globally. In the last few years countries which allowed commercial surrogacy have banned it. None of these things have been changed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy, they have been changed because time and research has identified harm.

Also, for context, selling organs was not
criminalised in the US and UK until 1984 and 1989 respectively.

It doesn't matter why they don't know - my question is what if they don't know? Then the whole unrelated by DNA thing becomes nonsense.

Surely it's not DNA in and of itself - that can be mistaken or unknown - it's the intent to be a father, and the absence of an existing father (ie in the case of stepparents).

The 'unrelated male' stat is about stepfathers isn't it? And that's a different position than being an adoptive or surrogate father.