What's the problem with FiLiA?

[RhymesWithOrange]

On another thread a few posters referred to "the FiLiA debacle". Without wanting to poke at the wounds in the current feminist movement, can someone tell me what's gone on?

Pleas show your reasoning. How did what I say lead to your response there?

Btw hi @Shinyredbicycle - we had quite the ding-dong before on the Joyce/Bindel thread I recall. Hope you are well.

In a married straight couple the husband is assumed to be the father of any child unless a DNA test proves otherwise. If it proves otherwise of course the mother can seek maintenance from the father.

And when she shacks up with someone else, he doesn’t need to pay any more.

That is not true. You do not get out of maintenance just because your ex partner had remarried. That only applies to spousal maintenance which is very rare, not child maintenance.

There was a research project in the UK some years ago that indicated that the children of lesbian relationships did better in terms of educational attainment and psychological health. Can't find it now but I know it was included in a lesbian magazine I used to subscribe to.

Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times about a longitudinal study that also concludes that children of same-sex couples are at no disadvantage when compared to children from straight families.
www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-lesbian-couples-children-20180718-story.html

I'm wondering whether Endless Tea is Ann Widdecombe.

"Child Maintenance
Child maintenance remains payable whether or not your ex is living with a new partner.
The obligation to pay child maintenance continues regardless of your ex’s circumstances.
If, however, your circumstances change e.g. you lose your job or you have another child, then it may be possible for the level of child maintenance to be re-assessed by the Child Maintenance Service."

www.familylawpartners.co.uk/blog/can-i-stop-paying-maintenance-if-my-ex-is-living-with-their-new-partner

I have never doubted this.

rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/family-law/lesbian-parenting-and-the-law/

"If you are married or are in a civil partnership and you or your partner/wife conceive a child outside of a licensed fertility clinic using a known donor, the donor will not have any legal rights to the child and both you and your civil partner/wife will have PR."

Thanks for the link. How beautifully sane it all seems.

Endlesstea

This is what you said: Btw. I am opposed to anonymous fathers/genetic mothers, but there is a difference between a couple resorting to (and the State providing) this because either one is infertile, and a couple choosing (and the State providing) this as a first resort because they want the biological parent out of the way because they can’t be arsed with finding a suitable person, or dealing with a co-parenting situation.

You saying this led to my response.

Hi, EndlessTea so we did. I am well thanks and hope the same to you.

I was heartened to hear Helen Joyce say how grateful she, and many public feminists, are to WPUK at the UCL conference for providing platforms and amplifying their voices btw.

Yes, but that's really the issue isn't it?

There are lots of people who think that people should not deliberatly have a child if both of the biological parents won't be in the child's life. Not a name on a paper when the child is 18, but actually a real relationship with the person who they are irreparably connected to by flesh and blood.

It's basically a child-centered view that comes out of children's rights thinking that says that children should not be given away.

That viewpoint is going to apply to anyone who uses donor gametes in the usual scenarios where there is no relationship.

The fact that someone who wants to have a child might just prefer to cut out one or both of the biological parents so as to not need to navigate that relationship themselves is not going to be a very convincing argument to someone who sees that material reality of biological connection as really important, and why would it be? Any more than what people prefer would be convincing with any other case where there is a question of a clash of rights.

It's not an argument that really refers to sexuality at all, and most people who use donor gametes are heterosexual.

It has been the case for about fifteen years, so it's interesting you have such strong views on something where you also have so little basic knowledge.

Fwiw, I do think it's important that children have an age-appropriate understanding of where they came from and who they're biologically related to, and are able to be in contact with relatives throughout their childhood. But I also see that real life is really complicated and often unpredictable, and a huge proportion of families I know fall short of that ideal. I won't hold lesbian families to a higher standard than straight couples just because it's harder for us to shove this stuff under the carpet. As pattihews has pointed out, the data on outcomes for children born to lesbian parents is repeatedly very positive.

It's not surprising the outcome for children of lesbian parents is positive. By default these children were very much wanted and planned.

People seem to be misunderstanding why I said this.

In the development of ‘fertility services’ the rights of the child have historically come far, far behind the wishes of prospective parents and the curiosity of fertility scientists.

I remember seeing an interview with one of the first ‘test tube babies’ - he said he felt a profound sense of violation that his conception took place in a petri dish at the hands of scientists and how he was broadcast all over the place.

I remember the arguments against allowing children to trace their biological parents because then prospective bio parents might not ‘donate’ otherwise. People felt very strongly that the biological parents should have an absolute right to privacy and really waved off any consideration of the child’s rights.

I am absolutely delighted that this has changed and the child’s rights have started to be considered, but this still ruffles feathers. Prospective parents and biological donor parents tend to ‘not want to think about that’ and focus on all the good, happy feeling they get about potential happy parents.

On the AMA thread by the ‘egg donor’ ie- potential biological mother who had relinquished all parental rights, etc, said she had written a letter to her potential biological offspring, saying she would be happy to meet them and to introduce them to their biological relatives. Another woman who was considering using a donor egg said she felt very uncomfortable at the thought of that. Someone else asked the AMA woman how she felt about having children out there. She said “I try not to think about that”.

Even with children being able to contact the bio parents who ‘try not to think about them’ when they reach 18, read a letter, meet their relatives, etc, although it is a huge step in the right direction, it is still not really putting the child first. It’s all about the parents and what the parents want.

You saying this led to my response.

Yes, you didn’t explain how your response related to what I said. It doesn’t logically follow.

Please start a new thread. I'm interested in the issues with Filia not ; infertility, in vitro, whether children need a male + female parent.

This is very true. I wouldn’t even go as far as to call it competing ‘rights’.

Children have ‘rights’ and prospective parents have ‘wants’ and ‘preferences’.

Fertile people have many options if they want to become parents, but none are guarantees.

There are lots of ethical issues around using anonymous parents, aside from the child’s rights side of things, what about natural selection? In the case I talked about before about the gay man who would make a great dad, he would also have great genes to pass on - healthy, handsome, intelligent, happy disposition, artistically talented. With anonymous donors, mothers are completely side-stepping this important part of choosing a good genetic father for their child. Maybe there is a reason the men opt to donate their sperm anonymously - it means they can bypass women’s aversion. It is a big step to leave this to the fertility services to make this choice for you.

The way things are currently spun, is that unless you support people doing, what I believe, at the most, should be the last resort, after all other options have been exhausted, as a first resort, then you somehow ‘don’t think lesbians and gay men should be parents’ and are therefore ‘homophobic’.

I can understand why everyone is so prickly and defensive about what I am saying on this thread, so they are mischaracterising what I am saying, however, I believe that people who want kids should have every intention of having a lasting relationship/friendship with the opposite sex parent, even if that doesn’t work out. I believe it is unethical to intentionally bypass it.

Ask Sappho

You proffered that some women might choose to parent a child without the child's father being in the picture because they couldn't be arsed with finding a suitable person.

Which is why I said that single or same-sex parenthood is generally a bit more complex than not being arsed.

Perfectly logical.

I do understand your point about the importance of a child knowing its biological parents in most circumstances (or about them if they have died or are abusive etc). This is from my own personal experience.

I don't agree that other people should have to adhere to my beliefs and values though, which I think is different to what you're saying.

Thanks for responding.

The reason why I am on this thread is because Sappho referenced something I said, on a different thread, but implying I am a group and represent a more than one person in such a way she could rally together lesbians to join her in a siege mentality in this thread. It means you caught the tail end of a bigger conversation.

My beef is this.

Fertile people have different options for starting a family. Clearly this is pretty straightforward for fertile heterosexual couples. Finding a mate is still not straightforward though. Loads of heterosexual people can’t find someone to start a family with and many end up not having a family at all. I don’t know any straight fertile people who chose an anonymous donor/surrogate opposite-sex parent to start a family. I do know of single women who have adopted children though.

Fertile lesbian and gay couples also have options. They don’t have the most straightforward one that heterosexuals have, but there are choices and, of course, none of them are ideal, they all involve bringing an extra adult into the equation.

Coming to an agreement with, for example, a gay couple of the opposite sex, will bring a lot of complexity - potentially eight grand parents wanting contact, needing to consider three other adults if you want to move away, etc, possibly, tug-of-love custody battles, etc, etc. Its complicated. Definitely.

Heterosexuals are not immune to all this though are they? Hence the common themes on relationships board on this site.

What I take issue with, is false idea currently being floated - that lesbians and gay men ‘only have one option or they cannot be parents at all’ - to use fertility services to provide them with a random unknown person as the opposite sex parent, and for the fertility service to remove all the standard risks and difficulties of finding a suitable person, for taking away the need to negotiate with that person, or to come to a legal agreement they are happy with.

I can understand why prospective parents don’t ’want’ or would prefer not to have those standards risks and difficulties.

However, wants and preferences are not rights.

Thats not why fertility services were created either. They are intended for people who are unable to conceive. Using these services to avoid standard risks and difficulties for people who simply prefer not to have them, because they don’t ‘want’ them, is a misuse of these services.

If anyone frames their wants and preferences as ‘rights’ is being entitled.

That’s the context.

I think the problem with FiLia is there are many left-leaning, liberal, socialist, feminist, lesbian, gender critical women who attend.

There are also many right leaning, conservative, individualist, femalist, heterosexual, gender critical women who attend.

These women mainly get along fine, but sometimes there is a clash of values. For example if a woman from the second group does not believe in gay equality or that lesbian couples should conceive using donor conception. That kind of thing.

I don't see that as a problem tbh. Clashes and disagreements are necessary and can/should be productive.

If you don't like hearing a range of opinions and views, then I get that a conference isn't really your thing.