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?

Thanks for explaining that EndlessTea. I suppose as a hetersexual woman who had children without using fertility services (and appreciate how lucky I am), I don't feel it's my place to decide who should be able to use them and in what circumstances.

Saying that only right wing women have reservations about donor conception is remarkably disingenuous, but that's your MO.

Also having been to several FILIA conferences I'd be astounded if there were any women there who didn't believe in gay equality.

Endlesstea is your objection the use of NHS resources by lesbians or the belief that rights of the nonexistent/potential child outweigh those of existing women?

Neither of those options summarise my argument.

Saying that only right wing women have reservations about donor conception is remarkably disingenuous, but that's your MO

I wasn't saying that, I was giving an example of when values may clash.

Some women consider all forms of donor conception to be a bad thing including lesbians conceiving using donor sperm.

This is obviously going to clash with the values of other women (and I would say the majority of FiLia attendees) who support lesbian couples conceiving using donor sperm and who support lesbians receiving equal NHS fertility treatment to straight couples ie gay equality.

Personally I think using donor sperm is worlds away from exploitative donor conception using donor eggs and surrogacy but I know there is another person on the thread who fiercely disagrees.

Do you have the same lack of opinion about surrogacy?

I think surrogacy is completely different, tbh.

Do you think surrogacy is okay as long as the child knows who his or her biological parents are, that they have an ongoing friendship and don't draw on state resources or services anymore than any pregnancy would?

Athough I don’t like the phrase ‘donor’ because it obfuscates the reality of biological parenthood, there are different ways to be a ‘donor’ father - there was the stuff provided about ‘known donors’ upthread shared by @JoanOgden.

There is a symmetrical lie being floated about lesbian mothers to the one about men buying babies from surrogate mothers.

This is the argument:

1. (Fertile) lesbian women and gay men are only able to become parents in one way. By using their preferred fertility services to anonymise the opposite sex parent or purchasing the baby from the surrogate mother. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
2. If people disagree with this untruth, that the preferred way is the only way, for lesbians and gay men to become parents, then they disagree with lesbians and gay men being parents. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
3. Unless people agree that lesbians and gay men wanting a child should have everything they want, prefer and find most convenient, irrespective of the child’s rights, then they do not support lesbians and gay men becoming parents. [THIS IS NOT TRUE].
4. Agreeing that lesbians and gay men can only become parents by their wanted and preferred methods and that these preferences as prospective parents override any rights of the prospective child, is central to supporting lesbian and gay equality. [AN OPINION WHICH CAN EASILY BE CONTESTED].
5. THEREFORE people who do not agree that lesbians and gay men are only able to have a child by their preferred and most convenient means and that this preference and convenience overrides the rights of the child, they disagree with ‘lesbian and gay equality’ by definition. [THIS IS ONLY TRUE IF YOU CHANGE THE VERY DEFINITION OF LESBIAN AND GAY EQUALITY, FROM WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND IT TO BE].

Falsely claiming that lesbians are not able to become mothers without the use of fertility services (ie- claiming that they are unable to do it DIY with a ‘known donor), is a dangerous lie which paves the way for men to claim ‘equal fertility rights’ - to purchase babies from surrogate mothers.

Surrogacy has so many additional ethical issues- it is in a totally different league.

However obfuscating language eg- ‘equal fertility rights’ and smears eg- ‘all ethical concerns are homophobia’, etc, paves the way for surrogacy.

And you could say the problem with FiLia isn't left leaning women and lesbians hearing a range of different views which is good and healthy.

It is left leaning lesbians discovering their fellow attendees oppose the equal rights they have fought for. It is discovering their fellow attendees claim the way they conceived their children should not be legal. This is personal and more than healthy disagreement.

When gay marriage was being debated 10 years ago, some people claimed it would pave the way for incest and paedophilia to become legal.

10 years on now lesbians have finally secured fertility equality some people are claiming it will pave the way for surrogacy to become legal.

Gay rights are fragile and of course women are going to push back if these rights are being challenged, especially gay women attending a women's liberation conference.

Sappho has changed the meaning of ‘gay rights’.

And of "equal"

claim the way they conceived their children should not be legal

Anyone notice that Sappho just made this “claim” up?

Quite.

10 years on now lesbians have finally secured fertility equality some people are claiming it will pave the way for surrogacy to become legal.
That's because if you use the "equality" argument for lesbians having a right to children, logically that extends to gay men.

Like it or not, arguments against lesbians (and indeed trans men) conceiving using donor conception are traditionally conservative, right wing arguments which will dismay the predominantly liberal, left leaning, socialist attendees of FiLia.

Is there a phrase for the opposite of forced teaming, when you're teaming people falsely with somebody else? Maybe it's just "smearing"?

"Defy logic or you're being right wing and your friends at FILIA will shun you next year!"

Yet again, Sapphos, you are failing to see the bigger picture of what you are arguing for. You did it with 'trans rights' before, failed to see the potential consequences of what you were arguing for until, when it finally impacted you personally, you had your 'gender critical' epiphany.

Concerns about the potential implications of 'equal fertility rights' is not a right-wing thing, it's a children's rights thing. This isn't about you, it's a bigger picture thing, and your history shows you're not that great at bigger picture stuff.

Maybe Sappho will only see it when surrogates start being conscripted for gay men, and the baby police knock on her door.

If the left keeps pretending that the human rights of children are just an old fashioned, conservative policy they are going to hand the right wing an easy win (at a time when the right wing aren’t easily winning on anything else).

It was the left that fought and won children's rights. Do not try and rewrite history here.
It is the left and specifically left wing feminists who exposed the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, who fought against corporal punishment in schools, who fought for smacking to be banned and children's feelings and needs to be taken seriously.

So gay women should not have the same rights as heterosexual sexual women because of men? What type of feminism is that?

It's entirely feminist to think through what the consequences of "a right to children for all" might be for women- eg via a right to surrogacy for men.

So you oppose assisted conception, IVF for all women TinselAngel?

I'm not expressing an opinion either way, I'm saying if you use an argument about rights, you need to think through what the consequences of that argument might be.