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.

Yep go on Twitter and ask her

we can’t speak for her and if you want the answer go and ask her

Ask her? Bit weird to ask Mumsnetters to speculate rather than just tweet her directly.

I’m gonna make a guess that her aim is to prevent women being used as wombs for hire or as a spare parts supplies resource.

Ah yes, of course stating facts make's her responsible for other people's homophobia. Go take it up with KJK, I'm sure she is more than able to give you an answer but that isn't really the point of this thread is it.

The thread title is, arguably, libellous.

All the best to KJK for the 24th. Jic she reads this.

Oh yes, KJK is being interviewed by the police on Friday, isn't she? [Bites nails]

Agree. Where do you get that statement from @SapphosRock because it’s certainly not from that, factual, tweet.

Perhaps Sapphos could ask Mumsnet to edit the title to something less libellous?

You said you are against anonymous donors, and that the NHS shouldn’t be allowed to create babies who don’t know who their biological parents are. That strongly implies to anybody who doesn’t know the law in this area that the NHS can use anonymous donors. Perhaps this was accidental. Glad to have cleared it up 👍

I won’t get dragged into an argument on the impact of donor identities being known in full at 18. Suffice to say that there are paths to using donor sperm where the details known on the donor from the date of conception far, far outweigh the information that many children born by sexual intercourse will ever know about a parent. There are many choices to be made through the whole journey of conceiving and raising any child that can have all sorts of positive and negative impacts on them, and the blunt implication in your messages that donor children will be fucked up purely because they are donor children is both offensive and inaccurate.

You realise that she is not directly responsible for the tweets of others, yes?

I've always thought it was obvious what KJK is trying to achieve. Safety for women and girls.

The important question for me when it comes to the new argument that people, even single people with no partners, should have a right to procreate is how many additional people are required to do certain things for this argued right to be achievable. (I don't believe any of us have a right to procreate, though I do believe that we should have the right not to procreate).

That's because those additional people (egg and sperm donors, the woman who gives nine months of her time and her uterus and who takes on serious health risks) also have rights and should not be forced either directly or indirectly (the world's poor women forced to become a breeder class for the wealthy due to absence of alternatives).

The risks to those other people differ. Sperm donors are unlikely to get sick or to die from donating sperm, though they may carry psychological costs, but egg donors may be taking on medical risks given the strong hormones they are given to get the multiple eggs to be matured and released. The greatest risks are to the surrogates.

Those are the groups we should centre in our debates. I see them rapidly becoming marginalised in actual public conversations.

🤨

Well it isn't a fertility issue. Has she said outright she opposes same sex couples having children?

I do with men, because it involves a surrogate. A child needs its mother (usual caveats). Lesbian couples don't need to use another woman to have a child.

As I've said to you many times before, ask her. Now she's back on Twitter it's easier than ever.

Absolutely. All of this.

From 12.25

'I am totally opposed to donor conception. I don't even like IVF'

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2CGbMHzBDw8&feature=youtu.be

I might be foolish because I don't use Twitter. But I assumed the homophobic text was the original tweet and KJK's comment was a direct reply. PPs seem to be saying that isn't the case. Which does rather make the OP look like she's trying to make KJK look homophobic when that tweet isn't.

Just for clarity. I don't think it's a fertility issue. I do support lesbians parenting and help with that, medical if needed. Never surrogacy. But I don't support that for anyone else either.

Do you agree with egg donation where women have been exploited and may even be emotionally coerced into donating Sappho?

The screen shot in the OP is showing how KJK's Tweet is attracting homophobic comments. KJK isn't replying to the homophobic comment.

KJKs tweet was a standalone tweet. The screenshot is someone else quote tweeting it, I think. I am not a Twitter expert and find it a confusing interface at the best of times.

I saw KJKs tweet because I follow her. I didn't see that particular quote tweet, presumably because I don't follow that person or anyone they have links with (IANATE again).

Of course not but KJK isn't talking about egg donation.

She is saying two women trying to conceive isn't a fertility issue. A very easy (and tone deaf) thing for a heterosexual woman with children to say.

She says nothing about same sex couples in relation to fertility treatment. She does state her support for same sex couples adopting.

You are making yourself look very stupid and your thread title completely misrepresents her position.

Why are you still hanging around posting Sappho? Have you asked her on twitter?

Why is it tone deaf? Are you really suggesting that a lesbian couple might be surprised and upset to learn that they are not infertile but simply same-sex, which is what's causing the lack of spontaneous pregnancy.

Which changes the whole tone of it. It's not wrong to say it's not a fertility issue. It's part of the trend of changing what words mean to forced-team people. Saying it's a fertility issue doesn't suddenly make it something people who are homophobic will agree with.

Being same sex attached isn't a fertility issue. Being infertile is a fertility issue. Being same sex attached doesn't by virtue of your sexual orientation make you infertile in the same way that being single doesn't make you infertile. Many gay men, single or not, father children through various means including sperm donation and co-parenting and many women, lesbian or not, will become pregnant without a male partner.

There is a move towards recognising 'social' or 'situational' infertility and 'fertility privilege' and whilst I see how that is useful for some driving a particular narrative, including single men mainly, I disagree with the idea completely.

Infertility should remain a medical status, caused by a number of different physical conditions or problems and have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. There should be no insinuation that a sexual orientation is a medical condition of any kind.