Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

[Tootingbec]

Just seen a LinkedIn post from a gay man who is writing a book about the surrogacy “journey” he and his husband went through. Cue gushing comments about how amazing this is…..

It has really upset me. The sheer fucking privilege of gay men to buy babies and then be lauded and praised for it like they were super heroes. And untouchable to criticism due to blinkered “be kind” beliefs about the poor gay men who just want a family like heterosexual men.

Where do people think these babies come from? Do you think people delude themselves that all these gay men just have kind, altruistic female friends who happily have a baby for them? As opposed to exploiting vulnerable and desperate women in India, Mexico and the like.

I feel so angry - women are just fucked over and abused time and time again by men and it is all dressed up as progressive when it is the exact opposite.

When I was a younger women I loved having gay men in my social circle. They seemed like “nicer” more lovely men than most straight men. Now I realise that underneath it all they just the same sexist, privileged tossers as many straight men are. They want a baby? No problem - buy one! They want to invade women’s spaces? No problem - just reinvent yourself as “the most vulnerable in society”!

It’s like the scales have fallen from my eyes.

Or raising the kids together w an opposite-sex friend as the other bio parent.

That's definitely true, some people never find the right person to start a family with...

Ikwym w people in the past, including gay people, focusing more on pragmatic reasons for marriage..
Still, I don't think our customs today are necessarily worse. I know some men who were only romantically into men (or vice .versa) did sometimes marry someone who was happy w an 'arrangement', but a lot of the time lies and deception were involved, and I doubt many women would really have been happy to marry someone w no desire for women. Straight people in a more pragmatic arrangement might ofc find it easier to grow a real bond over the years, but there is a lot of evidence throughout history that people have preferred to marry someone they were in love with.

Otoh the pragmatic arrangement does have the benefit of placing children at the centre. It would be good for modern relationships in general to have more of that mindset, focusing solely on adult desires is partly the root of divorce issues that harm children. And obvs this surrogacy issue...

Oh my God....do you have a link?

This issue of men and abuse makes me think about other things. I thunk the key thing is that unlike a male couple or single man adopting, there is no checking in surrogacy process before baby is given. Otoh these men may be biologically related, which does lessen risk of abuse. But it's obvs still there, as in this case. And no mother around to protect.

Exactly. Get back to us @Vubui when rich people are giving birth to poor people. It reminds me of the Baby M case where MaryBeth Whitehead (the surrogate) was the stay at home wife of a garbage man and the intending/paying parents (Bill and Betsy Stern) were a Biochemist and a Paediatrician. As Whitehead's lawyer said in his summation comments; it will always be the wife of the garbage man who will bare the children for the paediatrician.

You'll only have a valid argument when rich women agree to gestate for a stay at home wife of a garbage man. Until that day, you have no argument, Vubui. It's only poor women needing money that do this. Not the other way around. It's basically prostitution, Vubui. That's what surrogacy is. A form of prostitution. And no, girls don't grow up dreaming of being a sex worker either.

hysteria

Charming. But that misogynistic slur matches the tenor of disdain for women you have.

I was a bit shocked recently to read a substack by the hairdresser George Northwood, where he talks about choosing a surrogate by the country in which the egg donor has less rights for when to back out - as he wants to eventually have full siblings.

It was interesting because he also talks about checking the sex of the embryos and for things like Down Syndrome, there are presumably so many things that could go wrong legally as well as physically. It did stick with me that it’s never really rich women signing up to be surrogates, unless within their own families.

So what else is it called when a human being is bought and sold?

Men get angry when women won’t do what they are told, even handing over their baby. It’s easy to see who these posters are, even if they try to hold back.

I believe it's this case, though there may be others:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/5037086-surrogacy-man-plans-to-abuse-the-baby-he-is-buying

Parents of children born by surrogacy are going to have the same effect that parents of “trans kids” have had on that debate.

Helen Joyce spoke so well about how entire organisations have been effectively silenced because one member of staff has transitioned their child. It’s all well and good to debate anonymously online but as mentioned by another poster upthread, she wouldn’t have been able mention the health of the surrogate mother in a workplace environment.

Although this has became a general discussion about surrogacy, the OP was pointing out, in particular, the excessive fawning and fussing when a gay, male couple buys a baby. I really do think this is an issue in light of the above.

The feeling that an objection to surrogacy is somehow homophobic, will be an enormous barrier to sensible discussion in real life.

@BruisedNeckMeat - you have articulated my thoughts exactly!

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68371108/united-states-v-king/

Found these court documents, he's still in jail awaiting trial, based on the prosecution's evidence of him being a vile predator the judge refused to release him under bail conditions.

Parking the obvious homophobia in a thread targetted just at surrogacy by gay men, a lot of references to adoption here really anger me.

A couple of things to point out:

-Adoption is not a consolation prize for those who cannot have a child biologically. Positing as a 'if you want a child, just adopt' is glib and ignorant.

-More fundamentally, the claims about the inherent trauma of separating a newborn from their gestational mother are fundamentally based on Primal Wound Theory, which is a theory that can be deeply stigmatising to a lot of adopted people and, crucially, is lacking in any real scientific basis. The research about children conceived through surrogacy suggests mental and emotional outcomes comparable to other children.

This is important, because if we ground policy on the primal wound theory, then when weighing the interests of children being considered for being placed in care at birth, we risk adopting a threshold of harm that is not justified by the science. If we start from the position that removal from a birth mother is inherently traumatic in a way that causes lasting harm to a child, then the threshold of harm to justify that removal must logically be higher (than it already is). That may be right if it was scientifically grounded, but it is not.

Wow that's a lot of force teaming.

Well done.

Where do you think the 'homophobia' lies with people who are applying exactly the same principles to straight couples as gay couples? 🤔

The homophobia lies in the fact that there isn 't a thread criticising only straight people for their surrogacy.

I'm sure you'll find threads like that across the site.

No, it's criticising surrogacy. No matter who is involved. Should gay people be exempt from criticism?

You're demonstrating exactly the insidious tactic the OP pointed out - that by championing surrogacy in the context of gay couples, pro-surrogacy campaigners believe they can quash opposition by (wrongly) accusing critics of "homophobia".

I suggest you read the thread title.

But of course the 'protect children' brigade are studiously avoiding the actual substance of my post about actually protecting children.

Yes, I do find the bit about the rights of the child disturbing. As if the child is a parcel to be delivered. There is something a bit off about that.

No, there's a thread about it for homosexuals because accusations of homophobia are being used to force team to legitimise surrogacy and silence criticism of surrogacy by saying it's homophobic...

Congratulations you win the fred.

The entire thread is predicated on the particular issue of gay men using surrogacy.

Here's the thing, if you direct your opposition to surrogacy primarily at gay men, even if you are in theory also opposed to it by straight couples, then that of course is homophobic.

Opposing surrogacy in itself is not homophobia. Opposing it for gay couples only, or directing your attention to gay couples only, is what is homophobia.

And nobody in this thread is doing that, but that won't stop you again cynically misusing the term "homophobia" in precisely the insidious way the OP described, and laughably expecting that we won't notice. 😆