Women's bodies are reduced to objects that are rented for nine months to bring a child into the world, who is then ripped away to be delivered to the clients

[IwantToRetire]

... surrogacy compared to using a cash dispenser: "An ATM-woman… that produces babies... is an aberration"

I accidently heard part of this radio news report on the World Service and thought for a moment some radical feminists had infiltrated and had made a programme about surragcy from the perspective that women's bodies shouldn't be for rent.

So I used the catch up service and found that it was actually about the right wing government in Italy and that most of the programme was about how the new law was aimed at stop gay men having a family through surrogacy.

Italian authorities are bringing in new measures targeting LGBT families and making it harder for them to have children. Many same-sex parents feel that a new law, which would make it illegal to have surrogacy abroad, is a personal attack against them.

(No mention that a lesbian couple could have a family of their own biological children, but the BBC chooses to make it that it is about "same sex parents" rather than men.)

So not to say I am supporting a right wing christian fundamentalist government, but shows how arguements made against surrogacy by some feminists uses some of the same arguements used by conservatives - but obviously from a different analysis.

Just seemed like a parallel situation that CG feminists arguing against gender identity / changing sex and conservatives arguing against self identity, but again from a different analysis.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66860266

My understanding is the BBC are pushing propaganda here as Italy have banned surrogacy for some time, an amnesty has been mentioned for existing families who have formed by surrogacy and the universal crime is more to do with children and women than gay men (obviously heterosexual couples 'use surrogates' as well.)

So it's just more bias from the BBC.

If you don't traffic children you won't end up in prison 🤷🏼‍♀️

Well, yes.

It is certainly possible to be anti-surrogacy from a homophobic position, but in those cases presumably they are less bothered about the vast majority of surrogacy, which produces babies for heterosexual couples.

But it is perfectly possible to be against surrogacforrom a feminist perspective. And also from practical politics, as however benign the intention, the outcome is horror stories like the women financially coerced into this dangerous work by wealthy Westerners, and the babies being trafficked across borders, or stuck in war zones.

Those who have got dollar signs flashing up in their eyes at the prospect of the commercial reproductive exploitation of women being legalised in the UK are campaigning via the media to:

• divert attention away from the harms to women and infants of the surrogacy industry;
• avoid any class analysis about privileged and well-heeled couples paying for access to economically disadvantaged women’s bodies;
• promote lots of “aww babies!” articles focused on how happy the baby buyers are with their purchase and how inconvenient it was for them that they had to travel overseas to procure a human infant;
• paint any concerns about the reproductive exploitation of women and the international trade in human infants as homophobic and right wing.

This BBC article is an example of that.

If the article were really about equality for same-sex couples in Italy, it would be focused on laws which treat same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples. The new law being discussed here - which is used as the headline grabber - applies to all couples. It will be illegal for heterosexual couples too.

This ^^

And not only the feminist position that women's bodies should not be commodified, or the practical politics such as financial coercion, first world exploitation and human trafficking, also the humanitarian aspects such as the rights of the child.

It’s interesting how there are rarely threads musing about the overlaps between the international commercial exploitation of humans industry and the men’s sexual entitlement movement.

Innit

I am constantly pointing out that traditional conservative gender (eg Italy) is the same gender as trans ideology gender. The two positions believe strongly in the same gender stereotypes, but diverge in deciding how to deal with humans in relation to them.

There are deeply sexually entitled men in both camps. Curiously, both camps prioritise men as a sex class despite one camp pretending that sex classes are irrelevant.

No idea about this one, but so many threads seem to assume readers here are a bit thick and will immediately sign up to trans ideology gender stereotypes lest anyone think they are right wing!

Here's a really handy diagram
https://deadwildroses.com/2019/10/07/handy-venn-diagrams-the-radical-feminist-position-on-gender/

@IwantToRetire you are missing the most important fact in that article. 90% of those who have children by surrogacy in Italy are heterosexual.
This is a biased BBC article that ignores the fact that we are talking about renting a womb (you can only rent property so are women property?) with no regard to the life changing/ending risks to the women, usually a 2nd woman for her eggs again no regard to her safety and then in effect buying a baby! (We outlawed buying and selling people centuries ago when we outlawed slavery). Then these new owners traffic their new property (the baby, which was ripped from its mother's arms at birth, causing life-long consequences for said child) from 1 county to another.
Imo surrogacy is wrong on every level, and as sad as it is for anyone who wants to be a parent who can't, the answer is not slavery and international people trafficking

Raving Stone
“The two positions believe strongly in the same gender stereotypes, but diverge in deciding how to deal with humans in relation to them.
^^
There are deeply sexually entitled men in both camps. Curiously, both camps prioritise men as a sex class despite one camp pretending that sex classes are irrelevant.”

Innit.

(I enjoyed your “innit”. 😉)

This!

you are missing the most important fact in that article. 90% of those who have children by surrogacy in Italy are heterosexual

Oh dear, clearly sarcasm doesn't come over in written text.

I made it quite clear (I thought) that the article was biased.

So just to put it simply, the BBC has made a report about another country through the single lens focus of gay men! Stonewall must be thrilled that their training has been so sucessful

It’s interesting how there are rarely threads musing about the overlaps between the international commercial exploitation of humans industry and the men’s sexual entitlement movement.

I think virtually 99.9% of threads are on FWR are about men's entitlement whether sexual and everything else!

The TRA agenda is in fact largely support because MRAs can use it as a vehicle for their agenda.

Maybe because it is a given, some who haven't made that connection, dont get the inferrence.

But you could always start a thread if you think not everyone is aware of this - or maybe doesn't agree!

Getting back to BBC bias by only doing a partial report you can complain

Please use the following email address - [email protected] - to let us know if there is something you do not think is right with our content, such as a spelling or grammatical error. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55077304 (on the intro page this refers to content rather than just spelling or grammar.

These pages have information about how to complain to the BBC, with links to the BBC’s Complaints Framework, the BBC’s regulator Ofcom and regular reports about complaints. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55077304

There doesn't seem to be a specific form for biased reporting.