KJK opposing fertility treatment for gay couples

[SapphosRock]

KJK seems to have an ongoing beef with same sex couples having fertility treatment. Why? How is this benefiting women's rights?

Is is definitely not benefiting lesbian rights.

It also appears to be attracting all the homophobes on Twitter.

*Donor conceived children do not have the biological connections of children conceived by straight couples.

Of course KJK is entitled to her opinion but this is anti lesbian.*

No. This is not anti lesbian.

It is anti donor conception!

Of course children can suffer if 50% of their biological genes are unknown!

It’s not anti lesbian because plenty of lesbians have children in parenting arrangements with gay or single men who also want to become parents.

I think it’s absolutely fair enough to request/remind feminists and women’s rights campaigners of all sorts to be vigilant about not allowing open and realistic discussion about fertility tech to be used as a respectable-looking cloak for actual homophobia.

What I meant was that it is fair to flag up that these things (things= talking about difficult ethical issues) can be taken out of context and used in a manner that they were not intended to be used, and I was referring to my own quite strident opinions on fertility tech rather than putting anything on KJK and my own commitment to challenging it when I spot it.

I think these are quite different things. In the first case, you're saying we should remind feminists not to allow discussion to be used by others. In the second case, you're saying that it's fair to remind ourselves that words can be taken out of context.

I agree with that second point. I'm banging on about it because I think it's very important not to cede any ground to the censors and authoritarians. We can say whatever we want (and are free to take into consideration that others may take our words out of context). Guilt by association is a totalitarian tactic.

How Sappho managed to make my critique of Sappho seem like I agree with her is truly a thing to behold.

Probably the best response to this whole thread would have been a solitary 'U OK hun?' But it's been interesting to see views on fertility treatments. I'm strongly opposed to surrogacy, but haven't given much thought to some of the other issues raised in the thread, so it's been interesting to read.

I absolutely agree with her comments here and I agree that in disguising about things like donor/surrogacy the needs of the child are sometimes over looked or completely forgotten, with the intended parents needs being prioritised.

Thing is when we talk about people have any kind of “right” to be a parent or have a baby, it’s very difficult if the only way they can do so is by use of someone else’s body or body parts.

This is such bullshit in this tweet, come on.

It's the opposite - the person is claiming they mean it's (not) a "fertility issue" is hiding the blatant homophobia and just naive stupid weirdness.

Gay men can adopt. Lesbian women can get pregnant. Yet they feel the need to say children should only be raised in heteronormative homes like that has any bearing on the surrogate conversation. Foul. And the naivete of the "loving heterosexual couple" made me sick in my mouth a bit.

What I meant was that it is fair to flag up that these things (things= talking about difficult ethical issues) can be taken out of context and used in a manner that they were not intended to be used,
**
I'd like to echo the above point made by CryptoFascistMadameCholet
I think taking what someone has said and presenting it out of context is one thing. Taking what someone has said and presenting it in another, new context is a whole new level.
I still haven't seen Sappho explain why she didn't just use KJK's original, stand alone tweet instead of using a quote tweet.

That's not her tweet though is it?

I mean to be fair the first tweet is still full of the same implications. I've had conversations around surrogacy and it's perfectly possible to focus on just that, without needing to pass judgement on the reasons why people use it.

I have a problem with the process and so discuss that. Have no idea what the benefit of telling gay men and women that their inability to naturally have a family doesn't matter. There was nothing in that tweet about surrogacy, it sounds like an assumption made on your part in order to justify it, but it's not necessarily what this KJK person is saying.

As in, the argument against surrogacy is that anybody's fertility issues, regardless of cause, while very sad, is not a justification to use surrogacy because surrogacy is the commodification of women's bodies and of babies.

What is the reasoning behind focusing on same sex couples? Why the need to label their fertility issues as irrelevant?

‘Have no idea what the benefit of telling gay men and women that their inability to naturally have a family doesn't matter’ But the tweet related to fertility treatment. Unless one or both of the gay couple have fertility issues then their inability to have a child together doesn’t matter to treatment for infertility?

She didn't did she? She said that it wasn't a fertility issue. Which it isn't because fertile women or men don't need investigating for the causes of non ability to conceive. The issue is lack of the opposite gamete.

Which is not a fertility issue.

It’s not a fertility problem for gay couples, it’s a biology problem. It would be incorrect to label it as a fertility problem. Two people of the same sex cannot conceive. No one has a right to have a baby.

Thing is when we talk about people have any kind of “right” to be a parent or have a baby, it’s very difficult if the only way they can do so is by use of someone else’s body or body parts.

When you consider it that way it does seem dubious...

Where does this recent 'right' to have a baby come from?

A baby used to be considered a happy byproduct of a lifelong partnership between two parents.

Tbf a good deal of people even in the past didn’t come in to the world as a result of a lifelong partnership between loving parents. The difference is the advances in fertility technology and the £££ that can be made from it.

So how is the tweet to be taken in isolation a commentary about surrogacy?

If you're going to write stuff that can easily be construed as homophobic, it's not surprising that it's going to appeal to homophobes. I imagine most non homophobic people who were genuinely interested in conversations about women's rights and surrogacy would be actually speaking on that. But I don't know who this person is so maybe there is a different context.

Again though, this is semantics. Same sex couples are part of the group of people which would also include people with fertility issues, who cannot conceive naturally.

So as I said, if discussing surrogacy I'm not focusing on the reasons why someone can't have a baby, I don't really care to differentiate as that's not the focus of the conversation. So to me it's telling that someone would feel the need to do so.

I think you are determined to see homophobia where there is none. People are allowed to speak on any subject they want. They don’t have to do it in a way you think you be proper and it’s really odd that you would think that it would be appropriate.

No it’s not semantics. Words have meaning. Two fertile people of the same sex do not need infertility treatment. They are fertile. They need assisted reproduction to have a baby. That’s a totally different thing. Trying to call it a fertility issue is dishonest.

Oh boo hoo no one is impeding anyone's free speech ffs, I'm simply saying if you choose to make ambiguous statements that sound kind of homophobic, it's not surprising that homophobic people will be drawn to it.

I thought it was in relation to Paris Hilton?

She's not a gay man is she?

People are so quick to shout 'phobia' at every fucking conversation these days people's patience with the thought police is wearing so, so thin.

If your patience is wearing thin, turn twitter off for a while! People don't have to stop having takes because it annoys other people

Evidently you want KJK to stop having takes though. Weird.

Her statement wasn’t ambiguous though. Her meaning was really clear

Did I say that? Did I say anyone shouldn't post or have access to their social media accounts? Where please? Quote it.

Or did I say I thought it was BS? Am I not allowed to disagree? Do I need to call the free speech police?