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.

Does that include couples who use a sperm donor, so the father is not biologically related?

You mean the incest taboo is weaker for stepparents?

You are making a lot of assumptions about the motivations and internal thought processes of individuals.

Anyway, the research I saw didn’t differentiate between men that purchase a child from a surrogate, adoptive fathers, or stepfathers/boyfriends. Maybe you have some that has looked at this in more detail to break it down further?

If the baby was conceived by sperm do or then the mothers partner (or possibly adoptive father if he decides to take that step) is an unrelated male caregiver. I’m not sure how else I can say it.

I am just reporting what the research said. It’s not my research. If you can find some research that has found a difference in risk between adoptive fathers, the male partner of a sperm provider for a surrogate pregnancy and stepfathers please feel free to share it.

No, I agree there must be risk. There has been very little research on this afaik. The sperm bank lobby is very powerful...

You are misunderstanding and misapplying the 'stats'

It's very much attached to being biologically related. It's fairly consistent that in societies where it covers some non-biological relationships (you can't marry your aunt's husband, for example), those are much more likely to be transgressed.

That's probably because at it's most fundamental level, there is an instinctive element and it is meant to reduce inbreeding. It also functions in human communities to help prevent problems in social relations, but that's perhaps a less fundamental element. It's certainly more variable which non-blood relationships it covers across differernt societies.

I am sorry, but just because you think that is how it should happen does not mean it does.

Many many step-parents are very conscious that when they marry someone who already has children, they are taking on a serious responsibility and becoming parental figures, and that it is likely to be a lifelong responsibility.

There are plenty of step-parents who are there for and support their step-children as much or more than their actual parent does. Or where they do so equally to the biological parent. Many don't adopt their step kids because there is parent in the picture but that doesn't diminish the role they often play.

And there are also adoptive parents who do not live up to what they should, not even close. Some may intend to, and struggle, others may never have intended to.

people are complicated.

Speaking of which, this was published yesterday. On top of all the IVF mix ups that have been reported. It amazes me how people can look at how unethical and poorly regulated the fertility industry is, how awful the surrogacy industry is currently, and think it’s possible to have an ethical model for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/12/jessica-has-77-half-brothers-and-sisters-through-the-same-sperm-donor-she-wonders-how-many-more-there-could-be-ntwnfb#:~:text=Support%20the%20Guardian&text=Jessica%20Hamilton%20is%20one%20of,nine%20samples%20from%20him%20today.

unrelated” means biologically unrelated. It carries a clear and specific meaning, and sometimes we need to be clear.

Nope. There is nothing clear or specific at all about the term “unrelated”, hence the controversy that your statements are inciting,

we do need to be clear and specific in our language- so please be clear and specific by saying that you mean a child and their parents who do not share DNA. There is no research which isolates this specific risk- you are talking evidence about children in blended or step families and assuming it applies to an entirely different context (a gay parent raising a child from birth). Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn’t, we don’t know.

The Chicago med study about this split the children's family set ups into the following groups

Two biologic parents (cases: 37 percent; controls: 64 percent)

One biologic parent and no other adult (cases: 28 percent; controls: 30 percent)

Two biologic parents and another related adult (cases: 10 percent; controls: 3 percent)

Step or foster parents (cases: 4 percent; controls: 2 percent)

One or two biologic parents and another unrelated adult (cases: 21 percent, controls: 1 percent)

They only "unrelated adults" studied were step parents and foster parents. Adoptive parents and donor gamete parents were not included. Therefore you cannot draw any conclusions on these families because they have not been studied and they are legal guardians with parental rights and responsibilities in a way that is not relevant to step and foster parents. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all to point out that you are misapplying stats about one thing, to another thing.

Interestingly the risk of harm coming to children increases massively if other family members who are related to them but are not their parents live in the home, so DNA/Blood doesn't protect children from all adults, only their parents.

The most likely person to harm the children was the mothers boyfriend, followed step fathers, followed by uncles, followed by the mother herself. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of adoptive or donor parents.

If you are going to claim that sperm donor fathers and adoptive fathers are "unrelated males" despite being their ACTUAL FATHERS you need to provide evidence for that. Just saying well this study says something about step dads and I've decided that these type of dads are also unrelated so I imagine it applies to them too isn't good enough. Like @Vubui says, there are lots of men who think they are their children's father but their wives cheated, they don't automatically become a risk because of some DNA they can't see and don't know exists, they believe they are their children's father, that's what matters.

Pre-birth, in fact, in the case of surrogacy. In these families the parents- while not sharing DNA actively arranged for the conception of the child and were invested / involved from then. So , yes, an entirely different context to studies looking at dynamics in blended/ step families.

How? As I mentioned to pp, please show me where there is research that differentiates, especially between stepfathers and an unrelated male partner of the sperm provider/father in a surrogacy arrangement. I’d be happy to see it.

Please show that these families were included in the research you are citing and that the findings actually are relevant to them.

I would love to see it.

It’s a common theme isn’t it. Start a relatively radical medical practice, let it become established without good research outlining the pros and cons, monetise it, then fight tooth and nail to protect your own interests despite a growing concern about the ethics and harm that come from more and more negatives being revealed.

And despite plenty of countries banning it due to those concerns, people who oppose it are somehow unreasonable.

Where have we seen that before?

I think it should be banned not just because women's bodies should not be seen as vessels to use but also it's not ethical to purchase people. Even if you present yourselves as a 'perfect' single person or couple of any sex/sexuality, you don't have a right to have a baby created for you.
People mix up rights and responsibilities all the time and also forget babies are still people, albeit small and needing care.
No one has the right to have a baby but parents do have responsibility for babies that have already been born (unless social services need to step in).
Babies are not simply pets to be purchased.
Adoption is an option to take on responsibility for a young person, but only if the adoption would benefit a baby or child that already needs care (if the person applying is suitable).

So you claim but you haven’t provided any evidence of that.

You’re the one claiming there’s a difference, I’m satisfied that there are no grounds for there being a difference that is statistically significant.

If you are deeply concerned about this, maybe you could do a deeper dive and report back to us?

If you are going to claim that sperm donor fathers and adoptive fathers are "unrelated males" despite being their ACTUAL FATHERS you need to provide evidence for that.

I didn’t say that though. I was talking about the unrelated male partners of the sperm producer part of the surrogate arrangement as they are unrelated male partner and we have no way of knowing the partnership dynamic or his intentions.

Since men are statistically a higher risk to children than women (as many trans activists use the argument, the majority of murders are perpetrated by men we know), I’m not sure there is much to be gained for the child by arguing that a group of men who claim a specific set of intentions are statistically different to another group of men who may or may not have the same claimed intentions but different timing in the start of the relationship.

This was as incoherent as the rest of what you post.

Oh do fuck off @Gymmumma

Exactly, that post seemed very unfairly dismissive of stepparents.

You seem a bit scientifically confused.

A step-parent, by definition, doesn’t share DNA with the child. That is another way of saying exactly the same thing as “biologically unrelated”.

In the research that was done, which is what we are talking about, “unrelated” meant biologically/genetically unrelated to the child. That means not sharing DNA if you want it expressed in those terms. It isn’t a complicated definition.

It did not differentiate between “labels” for the unrelated male, such as step-dad, live in boyfriend of mother, blended family member or anything else.

You don’t seem to understand that people noting the research observation that these men presented the highest risk to a child in the same home is not the same as saying each and every such man presents an enormously high risk to a child.

I’m sorry you are unable to understand what I said.

Hilarious how you resort to insults rather asking a question for be to explain. It rather suggests that you did understand but have nothing sensible to say about it. Oh well.