Should IVF be available to lesbians?

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And single women? Or should assisted conception only be for infertile women in heterosexual relationships?

[SquidwardBound]

@EndlessTea

Yes. I agree. There’s definitely a purpose to giving everyone a fair hearing and consideration, but I think we should stop at accepting absurdities.

There’s value in properly airing then to expose the absurdity though.

[EndlessTea]

@SquidwardBound

In the trans case, I think refusing to evaluate the positions and being fearful of following the arguments logically and considering all involved is what got us there.

A key bit of the puzzle that you’ve raised repeatedly is the child and their need/right to know and have a relationship with the man who is their biological father.

That bit gets edited out because we are so busy following through just what matters to/for the adults. It’s often deeply inconvenient to all the ‘fertility/reproductive rights’ arguments.

Just like women and girls are conveniently edited out of the tran stuff.

Yes and I can see how the ‘inconvenient missing other’ is edited out.

It is because of emotive arguments. I am such a sucker, you would not believe it from my posts, for emotive arguments. I really feel for people who desperately want something, who feel marginalised, stigmatised, unfairly discriminated against. I can feel empathy for even complete arseholes sometimes and need to quite literally give my head a wobble.

Its like with the trans stuff, everyone, politicians, activists and so on get so swept up in the stories, our blood gets stirred and we become divorced from reality. It’s so easy to forget about how anyone else is impacted and even to feel hostility towards any messengers who try to remind us of what is real or fair.

[EndlessTea]

@SquidwardBound

There’s value in properly airing then to expose the absurdity though.

Absolutely. So important.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

Thank you yo everyone who posted. I am glad that most of you agree that women's rights are lesbian rights.[smle]

[SapphosRock]

@TooBigForMyBoots

Thank you yo everyone who posted. I am glad that most of you agree that women's rights are lesbian rights.[smle]

Me too. It has been a relief to read this thread. The number of homophobic comments on the other threads

[EndlessTea]

@SapphosRock

Me too. It has been a relief to read this thread. The number of homophobic comments on the other threads

I am not sure most people would agree with your definition of homophobia Sappho.

[SapphosRock]

@SquidwardBound

So it makes an absurdity like ‘a woman who can’t produce sperm is the same as a man who can’t produce sperm’ seem feasible.

I agree that it is quite absurd. In many ways.

But I think from the point of view of a woman who is receiving fertility treatment to conceive a child, then the problem is a partner who cannot produce sperm. It is really an individual woman being treated in these situations, rather than a couple. Even if we pretend otherwise.

Logically, choosing to not treat the lesbian but to treat the straight woman is a decision based solely on her sexuality.

Now, whether that is reasonable or not is a different question and people will have different views. Some people will take the view that any woman who wants to become pregnant but whose chosen partner can’t facilitate that should receive fertility treatment. Others will want to consider the differences between a male partner who should be able to produce the required gamete but cannot due to dysfunction of his reproductive system and a partner who simply would never be able to produce the required gamete at all.

And, as you say, there is an argument potentially that lesbians know they need to find a man if either of them want to conceive a child. But, equally, it’s conceivable that women whose partner is infertile could be told to find themselves a different man who can produce the required gamete.

Gay men are an entirely different thing because neither of them can be treated to produce a pregnancy. One of them can donate sperm to the process, which is a pretty limited ‘treatment’. They require another woman to be treated so she can conceive and then gestate a pregnancy. It’s just not comparable.

No clear answers there, but it’s not simple and does really require a proper discussion that doesn’t start from the idea that all adults are entitled by right to have a child (produced to order) regardless of any biological factors.

This is a really good post @SquidwardBound

[EndlessTea]

@SapphosRock

This is a really good post @SquidwardBound

Are you sure you agree with this conclusion Sappho?:

it’s not simple and does really require a proper discussion that doesn’t start from the idea that all adults are entitled by right to have a child (produced to order) regardless of any biological factors.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

@SapphosRock

Me too. It has been a relief to read this thread. The number of homophobic comments on the other threads

I saw them. TBH I'm shocked at the downright misogyny as well as lesphobia. The idea that if women use 1 cell from a man, men need to be provided with a whole woman for 9 months to make it equal is absurd.

[SapphosRock]

Absolutely EndlessTea.

That is a solid starting point which provides no wiggle room for surrogacy.

Now let's look at what the NHS provides for heterosexual couples and provide the same for lesbian couples.

[EndlessTea]

@TooBigForMyBoots

I saw them. TBH I'm shocked at the downright misogyny as well as lesphobia. The idea that if women use 1 cell from a man, men need to be provided with a whole woman for 9 months to make it equal is absurd.

It isn’t just one cell from a man though, is it?

It is a sperm cell. From this he can become a father if it unites with a woman’s egg. This has a lot more meaning and implications than if it were a cheek cell or something.

Why are you not willing/able to see the actual magnitude of that?

[SapphosRock]

Indeed @TooBigForMyBoots

Comparing sperm donation with surrogacy is so disingenuous.

[EndlessTea]

@SapphosRock

Indeed @TooBigForMyBoots

Comparing sperm donation with surrogacy is so disingenuous.

Receipts please.

[EndlessTea]

Tbh this is pointless. You two, @SapphosRock and @TooBigForMyBoots both believe in the absolute right to a child, to be parents, to another person’s gametes - with the caveat ‘for women only’ - so you can’t be bundled in with the men who share your beliefs.

And you think that anyone who disagrees is homophobic.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I don't believe in the absolute right to a child. I did say so upthread but sure don't let pesky facts get in the way of your lesphobic jiggery fuckery Endless.

[EndlessTea]

@TooBigForMyBoots

I don't believe in the absolute right to a child. I did say so upthread but sure don't let pesky facts get in the way of your lesphobic jiggery fuckery Endless.

Okay maybe you and sappho differ in that regard

[EndlessTea]

@EndlessTea

Okay maybe you and sappho differ in that regard

But do you believe in the absolute right to another person’s gametes?

[Myaiminlife]

IVF is being seen here as some sort of magic wand that will produce a child where a child is wanted. It is nowhere near that simple and straightforward. IVF isn't the only fertility treatment and it is not suitable for all causes of infertility. Even when it is the best possible treatment it isn't given out willy nilly to any one who fancies it. There are also sort of restrictions and criteria that have to be met before the CCG will consider funding between 1&3 cycles. This does not guarantee that there will be a baby.
No-one ever suggests that everyone wanting a baby should have their fallopian tubes unblocked but some people seem to think everyone should be able to access IVF. Fertility treatment is about finding the appropriate treatment and IVF isn't a golden ticket that is always the answer. It would have been a total waste of time and resources to 'unblock' my tubes as they weren't blocked. If a lesbian has no fertility problems there is no need to jump straight to IVF there are other more appropriate paths to be explored first.
No one has the 'right' to have a baby not least because there isn't a magic wand that will produce babies out of thin air. Sometimes whatever is done, however many times you try there isn't ever a baby.

[EndlessTea]

For the benefit of lurkers who are thinking WTF has just happened with this thread when it had all been going so thoughtfully and sensibly.

Basically, Sappho and boots have a very different take from me, on what is meant by ‘rights’. I believe this thread was probably created to take the discussion out of other threads, which I think was sensible- they were getting derailed, and was given a slightly different slant to encourage a certain perspective and response imo. I believe the ‘IVF’ thing is a bit of a red herring in the OP and title and the disagreement is really about the right/entitlement to another person’s gametes.

I imagine the sensible discussion worried them, so they are recreating the original spat here.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

@EndlessTea

But do you believe in the absolute right to another person’s gametes?

No.

[EndlessTea]

@TooBigForMyBoots

No.

Do you believe a fertile woman is entitled to be viewed and treated as though she were an infertile man, when she is accessing NHS fertility services?

[EndlessTea]

@TooBigForMyBoots

No.

Do you believe in genuine parity between lesbian and heterosexual couples accessing fertility services on the NHS?

This would include the same length of time having artificial insemination as heterosexual couples are expected to have unprotected sex, to have the ‘donor’ tested for any possible fertility issues, etc. Having to fulfil every stipulation required for heterosexual couples?

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I imagine the sensible discussion worried them, so they are recreating the original spat here.

Perhaps it would be sensible to read my actual posts on this thread rather than imagining bullshit. If you did, you would see I have answered these questions upthread Endless..

[TooBigForMyBoots]

@SapphosRock

Indeed @TooBigForMyBoots

Comparing sperm donation with surrogacy is so disingenuous.

And straight out of the MRA handbook. "If women can get a man's cell, men should get access to a whole woman for the best part of a year. That's equality."

[BlueHeelers]

I don’t think the discourse of rights is at all appropriate for framing adult fertility issues at all.

I tend to agree - and for anyone, straight or gay, male or female.

But it's nuance, isn't it? Because such a view could be seen as leading to the idea that lesbians or gay men shouldn't be allowed to be parents. Many of us can still remember when lesbians, who'd been in straight marriages, were denied care or custody of their children in divorce because they were lesbians. And so on.

A dear friend of mine is a father to 2 DC with two lesbian friends. It's a very seriously thought through family arrangement, and he loves being an active father. But when I expressed my strongly held view that surrogacy was beyond the ethical pale and should be illegal in any circumstance, he was equally convinced of the way this excluded many gay men from having their "own" DC. He saw it as a matter of rights as well.

And I can see his point of view. Except his point of view requires either being sure a man can find a 'charitable' surrogate, or overlooking the humanity of a woman who acts as a commercial surrogate. Or regarding the willingness of a woman 'renting' her body as a purely economic transaction.

Which it isn't. None of this is instrumentalist or economic. We are human beings, social beings with emotions and bodily integrity.