to think this wasn't the midwife's business?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

DP is pregnant and she had the first midwife appointment last week. The midwife was basically very nice, so I do know this is a really small niggle in the scheme of things, but I wondered what people here would think. We were answering all the medical questions, and suddenly the midwife looked at me, looked at DP, smiled, and said 'so, why was it you [her] and not you [me] who got pregnant, then?'

Now, she had our medical records in front of her - I know, because she had asked both of us medical questions and then consulted her screen. My medical records clearly show my history, and I've miscarried multiple times.

I figured from her smile that she was just making small talk, but I let DP answer and she deflected the question.

The thing is, at the moment, everyone constantly asks us why DP is pregnant, not me. And every single person seems to think it's a perfectly acceptable question to ask, including people who I know perfectly well are clued up about miscarriage.

I hate talking about it. I have never wanted to discuss it with anyone, and I am a person who is generally quite ok with the idea of talking through issues.

Is it me, or should she not have asked this?

I am sure she asked purely as small talk, but I was wondering if it'd be OTT for me to find some way of offering feedback and explaining that this question might be hurtful to some women and may not be the unoffensive small talk she thinks it is?

I do understand that!

I never for a minute suggested people had nefarious motives. As another poster said upthread, it is something you have curiosity about, and she does herself despite being a lesbian mum.

As you are discovering, the blue line on the test entitles every human and their dog to ask nosey questions and dispense advice (apparently). It doesn't entitle them to be listened to.

I would consider asking the midwife is this a question on the 'standard list' or was she asking out of interest. If out of interest tell her how you felt - same sex parenting is still not everyday, maybe she has not supported same sex couples through pregnancy before and isn't sure what might be different/similar. If she had your medical records (and like other posters, I don't see why she has them) she may be thinking of the effect on you of living with anything going wrong with your partner or even if all is well it may arouse sad memories of your own miscarriages.

She may be nosey or tactless but if her intent was to understand how best to support same sex couples it might be a chance to point her at info so she is better with the next couple. It isn't your job though to do this so don't go down that path unless you are comfortable with it.

I think it is a subject which genuinely interests many women - I know it does me simply in terms of human interest and wondering what I would have done. If my partner had been able to do the 'pregnancy' bit we would have been much better off economically and avoided significant medical problems - I don't really know what we would have done. If a same sex couple raised the subject themselves I would certainly listen and find it interesting to understand how they planned (or didn't!). However I'd never in a million years ask that question of them, however close, because its none of my damned business unless they choose to talk about it first.

And as other have said - congratulations!

That is interesting. I don't remember being asked to have appointments without them there, but it tended to be a natural thing as you end up having lots of routine, not-very-exciting appointments and the partner doesn't usually get guaranteed time off work like the mother does.

FDR - firstly; congratulations to you both!

Secondly; (with sincere apologies if I'm treading on toes/coming across as insensitive in any way) I mention this to anyone I hear of having multiple miscarriages because it's a 'thing' that med. profs rarely mention/know about; have you been tested for Coeliac Disease, as it can cause this horrible thing to happen if undiagnosed/untreated?

Congratulations, LRD.

Adding to the have you been tested, have you looked at Hughes Syndrome? Every miscarriage is 1/8 chance and goes up the more you have.

If you get a better relationship with the MW or your partner does it might be worth saying you know, we get you're just being curious but someone else might be offended by that. Even if you're not feeling as understanding as that it's less confrontational.

I think for a lot of the questions asked of people here you have to remember that they ask everyone and not all circumstances are the same. They can't assume everyone is a happy little family unit. Strange family dynamics happen. A change of partner increases your risk of preeclampsia but the same one decreases the risk. A change of partner can change a lot of things.

My horror story, I had a little girl born at 19+6 and died at three hours (not a typo). I have constant arguments with staff trying to tell me she doesn't count towards my birth history, she was a miscarriage not a neonatal loss, one doctor played how many times can we say miscarriage in one sentence (PALS were furious and she was pulled straight out of clinic for training) and my favourite was the doctor who was so excited by a baby being born at 19+6 that she gave me the third degree about what happens at that stage!

No experience but the IVF clinic doing STD blood screening on you is standard. If you were a Hetero couple with a sperm donor, they would still screen the male in the couple so as to rule out/treat any infections that could be passed and cause miscarriages/problems on pregnancy. They want to give the pregnancy the best shot.

Also about the NCT talking about induced breast feeding, she shouldn't have discussed it quite so much in class, but if you look at surrogacy pregnancies, lots of the mums induce lactation and some feed successfully exclusively

I know the clinic (not IVF, FWIW) screening is standard - both I and someone else explained that it is the HFEA rules and therefore has to be done.

And thanks everyone for tips/congratulations.

Mind you, I'm glad it 'all makes sense' to you, because I'll tell you it didn't make the slightest bit of sense to me when the NHS told me I was too young to bother investigating my miscarriages, every single time, and just insisted I should keep on trying. At least the private clinic weren't so bloody cold-hearted about it.

You've completely misinterpreted my post and I'm sorry you thought it was a jab at you. I realised you were in the UK, and I was not criticising your use of private medicine, but rather I was criticising the tendency to overtest in private medicine - that is not limited to the US. Why else would they test you for anything at all? Without clarifying some very good reasons for doing so!

I'm sorry! I was being a twat. Really sorry.

It does seem odd, doesn't it? We asked, and apparently it is the law. Someone upthread said there is a small chance of passing some STDs between women, so there's a worry that if I have HIV, I could give it to DP. What was daft in our case was that they did our bloods the wrong way around, so tested me for the maternal stuff like blood type, not DP. So we had to go in again. But, they didn't charge us for that - it was just one more example in the endless assumption I must be the one who'll have the baby.

Anyway, I'm so sorry I snapped, and got that so badly wrong.

It maybe that she was concerned that your miscarriages had made you feel unable to carry a child. It's also an important question as there is a special bond between a baby and who carried them, even surrogates usually feel something towards a baby. It might have sounded offensive but I think it was a genuine question which you need to be able to answer in your hearts at least.

I think if adoptive parents, dads, and step-parents all manage to cope without that 'special bond,' I'll probably muddle through somehow.

Forgive me if this is a little personal, obviously no pressure to answer, but am I right in thinking that you tend to dress in a more "stereotypically feminine" way whereas your DP does not? Do you think that's why they are making the assumptions this way around all the time? It seems entirely baffling if that would be the case, since clothing preference has nothing to do with biology, and you'd assume that a midwife must have come across pregnant women who dress in all kinds of styles before, but it's just jumping out at me and I wonder if that is what's going on?

(And if it is that, I'd say: Socialisation is a weird and powerful thing.)

Blimey, MrsDeV. Yes, inappropriate. Reminds me of those terrible Edwardian childhoods where someone would 'adopt' some poor relation to care for their brood and refer to her consistently as 'our adopted daughter'. I think we may have got past that!

bertie - and me with my leg hair plaited in the MN-approved style!

I think with a lot of people it is explicitly that. It might be with her, though I suspect I'm letting anecdotes build into data really. But it's niggling me if it is that, because the implication is 'oh, you're so feminine, how come you're not a Proper Woman with a functioning womb'. Or indeed, for DP, 'how come the check shirts haven't withered your ovaries yet?'

Cheeky, none of her business I would say. What a stupid thing to ask actually.
Congratulations to you both x

Reminds me of those terrible Edwardian childhoods where someone would 'adopt' some poor relation to care for their brood and refer to her consistently as 'our adopted daughter'

TBF to the Edwardians, adoption didn't exist then, so it would have been 'Guardians' and 'Wards' because those were the only available concepts.

True, in the strict legal sense, though that was sort of my point - we no longer have the idea that you just take someone else's child into your home to do whatever you want with them.

(And, FWIW, you could have made someone your legal heir without them being your child, which is perhaps another concept alongside of wardship, but it's beside the point here.)

MrsMac - thanks!

Yes ISWYM.

I hope the centenary of UK adoption will be marked. It was a stepchange.

It should be, shouldn't it?

I'm really interested in thinking about how all of these chances have shaped the way we think about family. It is amazing, when you think about how most of us will have grown up thinking that the 'norm' is a nuclear, two-parent family with only biological children, when that is really such an aberration through history - even if we didn't always have the legal language for it all.

Yy, LRD - most of us only have to go back a couple of generations to find what are now called "blended families", with children from previous marriages (and sometimes outside marriage) living together as a family. Premature death - often from childbirth - was the main driver rather than divorce, but a standard 2.4 nuclear family is a relatively modern concept, isn't it?

I find that people are interested in why we adopted and often ask why we didn't have a biological child. Sometimes the devil in me wants to say something outrageous but other times I tell the truth. People often think they can ask questions to a female couple that they wouldn't dream of asking to a male female couple. I got asked 'Who's the man then?' Shrug it off most of the time but occasionally scare them. People often assume that adoption is a last option but it isn't for everyone but you can't educate everyone and most people have a story to tell.

Interesting because I wasn't thinking along the lines of it being that a "less feminine" woman can't get pregnant but more that a "less feminine" woman couldn't possibly want to compared to the "more feminine" one who of course would.

Probably not even realising that they've made such an assumption and so not recognising that it would be a bit jarring to the perfectly normal real women in front of them who just happen to have their preferences the other way around.

It's like when you do a long maths calculation and when you get to the end, it looks a bit wrong but you can't work out why because you did every stage right, but actually you made a rounding error or missed a negative early on and so everything built on that stage was false. Whether the falsehood is their assumption that femininity (or lack of) can denote childbearing choices, whether it's the assumption that femininity or not can be accurately determined by appearance, or, indeed, that femininity is some kind of measurable amount on some imaginary scale - who really knows. But there's been some kind of assumption which is being taken as fact which is why they've come up against a conclusion which is false but for some reason they haven't noticed that until they've already got to the conclusion.

I work for the NHS and have to make small talk many many times a day, I'm sure that the midwife didnt mean to offend you or to be insensitive I know that I, on many occasions have asked questions to people as I've been genuinely interested and in a non judgemental way Iam interested in how people tick and make important decisions, iam truly sorry that you have had such a difficult time with your miscarriages and hope that your new baby can bring you both so much love and joy,
a phrase I use is...,"it says more about them than you"b Perhaps this lady had no intend to upset you, yes it was non of her business but over the coming months your response may help her treat you with more compassion and be mindful of how you are feeling over your own loss...,, just a thought, both times I was pregnant I had terrible leg cramps, my partner felt awful to see me suffering but while I was jumping round I never once considered his feelings, it was all about ME, ME, ME, I can imagine that as the months pass you will have times where you feel your own loss deeper and this knowledge will help your midwife be considerate to all 3 of your needs..... the partner has a very important and difficult role which is often overlooked