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.

This case illustrates some of the concerns.

Sir Andrew McFarlane P:

'Some months ago, I determined applications for the adoption of two four-year-old children, Y and Z. This further judgment is now being handed down and made public in order to draw attention, in entirely anonymous terms, to the circumstances of the case which are likely to be a matter of public interest and concern, and to offer some advice for those who may, in future, unwisely seek to follow the path taken by the two applicants in this case by engaging in an unlawful, commercial, foreign surrogacy arrangement.

The two children who were the subject of the application were born on the same day and each is the full genetic sibling of the other, having been conceived in embryo form as a result of a donation by an anonymous donor of eggs and an anonymous donor of sperm. They are not, however, fully twins as the embryos that resulted in the birth of Y, and separately of Z, were carried by two different surrogate mothers. A surrogacy arrangement had been commissioned by the two applicants, Ms W and Ms X, who were in a long-established and enduring relationship and who were resident here in the United Kingdom. In addition, Ms X was domiciled here and had been a UK resident effectively all of her life. A significant feature of the case was that, by the time of the hearing before me, one of the applicants was over 70 years old and her partner was fast approaching that age.

The couple had decided to investigate the possibility of having children some years ago. Both of them, by then, were well into their middle age and beyond child-bearing years. They considered adoption and they considered other arrangements that could be made in this jurisdiction. However, none of these enquiries led to any firm plan and thus they found themselves investigating other options and, in some way, established a connection with a foreign surrogacy clinic, which they had understood, was based in Southern Cyprus.

It was only after the arrangements had been advanced to a significant degree that they came to understand that the clinic was in fact operating in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where surrogacy, on my understanding, is unlawful and where the placement of children with same-sex couples is also not permitted by law.

The clinic, on the information this court had, seemingly operated on some scale and used women from Ukraine as surrogate mothers. The court papers contained an article from an American magazine published in 2020, which described some dozen or more Ukrainian women at the clinic who were engaged in surrogacy. Assuming that article to be broadly accurate, it gave some idea of the scale of the operation.

The two individuals who donated gametes to create the embryos had been chosen by Ms W and Ms X to replicate their own racial characteristics. The two embryos were successfully implanted and pregnancies became established in the two surrogate mothers. The contracts signed by the two applicants and the clinic show that a significant sum of money was paid for the creation of these two children. The court was told by the solicitor now acting for the applicants that it was in the region of £120,000.'

Continues here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/339.html

God, what a dishonest rhetorical device. No one is shaming children ffs.

I hope you are consistent and are supportive of families created by forced adoption as well. I doubt it though.

No one here is shaming children. Jesus Christ 🤦‍♀️

Nobody is talking about babies who need special care. Don’t be disingenuous. We are talking about two entirely separate things here. The issue is babies being ordered and sold.

‘Surrogacy isn’t buying and selling people’

But that is exactly what it is.

I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with surrogacy but some of the arguments here are tenuous and not well thought out. It seems to be surrogacy = bad because of x y z, but x y z is OK to be overlooked or allowed in other cases.

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

Also, suggesting 'adoption' as a cover-all for an easy way to make a family is naive and tone deaf. The go-to answer for people unable to convince a child of their own should NOT be adoption, certainly not as a booby prize or as a second choice. Adoption is incredibly rewarding but it's not a consolation prize - these children have most likely endured trauma, physical or emotional and parents choosing it should be doing it for the right reasons with their eyes wide open, not a quick route to matching Christmas pajama group shots and happy-ever-afters.

If donor egg and one of the commissioning parent's sperm is used then the whole 'biological' argument crumbles a bit.

I'm not entirely sure celebs (presumably) do this as often as they are 'accused" of it. I think sometimes they want to keep their medical details private and thats why they have to use a surrogate. I'm not sure it isn't male media who also invented 'too posh to push' , as if its something you can do in your lunch break!

My post isn’t really about the wrongs or rights of surrogacy (and again ICYMI - I am against surrogacy for anyone) but about my opinion that gay men using surrogacy to have a family is increasingly being seen as more socially acceptable than ever before. That it is something “wonderful” and progressive and not exploiting women and babies.

And that potentially people’s fear of being seen as homophobic or a misguided sense of “being kind” means The Overton Window around surrogacy as a totally acceptable thing to do in the name of “equality” for men is being wedged open ever wider.

And again I come back to it - where do people think these babies come from? Because it isn’t from an altruistic female friend or relative…..

Personally, I think it is immoral, or at least very morally compromised, for any parent to simply cut off ties to the child. Even in cases where the mother has serious issues like addiction, most try to maintain contact of some kind, and there is a kind of responsibility toward their offspring.

It's not good for society as a whole to say, it's ok for one parent to just decide to be uninvolved. For money, or just generally. If you have a child, and that means your biological child, you have a significant responsibility that can only be removed for serious reasons.

The move away from recognising the reality of biology has been bad and is no small part of how we are now in a world where male and female are supposedly biologically meaningless.

Adoption is the solution to a problem. Surrogacy creates the problem.

In the UK women are generally no longer handing babies over at birth. The children available to adopt have mostly been removed by the courts because of serious safeguarding concerns.

But because we know how damaging it is not to know your birth mother, children adopted in the UK will have ongoing contact with her until adoption, which takes months. And afterwards, when the child is adopted, the new family is given life story information to share with the child and they are expected to have some kind of ongoing contact every year too, maybe in person or by letter.

And you are entitled to none of this if you are born from surrogacy. There will be no info on birth mother unless the purchasing parents decide to share this - why would they? Are they the kind of people who want to do this?

Because adoption is the last resort if a mother is unable to care for her baby or child. And as others have said, the safeguards and governance around why a child is adopted and who gets to adopt a child are appropriately high precisely because of the potential trauma for both mother and child of that happening.

it is not the same as literally paying a woman to have a baby like we are just incubators to be used like breeding cows. What sort of dystopian shit is that?!

Your post makes no sense. You’re making the arguments against surrogacy yourself.

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

Yes they both lead to trauma. But in adoption it comes about as a result of significant unforeseen circumstances.

If you acknowledge that this process causes trauma,

these children have most likely endured trauma

and you accept that surrogacy causes the same trauma, why is it ok to deliberately create such a situation where this trauma will occur - surrogacy - instead of having to deal with a situation where it’s an unfortunate consequence of unforeseen circumstances - adoption?

Yes, I agree. It's why I'm campaigning for a law for where one parent in a straight relationship dies, the other parent is made to give them up for adoption so they can be in a happy loving home with a mother and a father.

Similarly where parents want to separate or divorce, I'm asking my MP to make it law that either they aren't allowed to do so, or that the parent who has custody of the child is required to immediately remarry so the child can live with two parents.

You see how nonsensical that sounds? Now compare to your idiotic and homophobic post.

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

Adoption is only considered as an option when there are serious issues with the mothers ability to care for their child. It is very much a last resort.

Surely that's obvious. But you have the gall to call other people's arguments badly thought out? 🤦‍♀️

I don't see adoption as a coverall, it is a very complex area. However, it is an avenue for a gay couple that is a lot less morally compromised than surrogacy.

Thanks for the link. This story is absolutely insane. How on earth did Bi pass the psychological screening mentioned in the article??

I would agree with you if you hadn’t singled out gay men. Surrogacy is unacceptable whoever does it. Focusing on gay men is homophobic.

In the UK if the surrogate changes her mind and wants to keep the baby legally she can. In America she doesn't have those rights. I can name a few stars who have not carried their own children. I have done a quick Google search and found the gay couple to be British. It's not a simple process and at any point the surrogate could have decided to keep the baby.

I’m focusing on gay men as a subset of people who use surrogates because I think they are increasingly becoming the “acceptable” face of surrogacy. And that angers me because that represents male privilege in extremis.

Hetrosexual couples using surrogates is also becoming more socially acceptable also. And I am no more in support of that than I am gay men using surrogates.

But my post is about gay men and surrogacy being the new “be kind” issue that I am putting out there is something we as women with an interest in FWR issues might want to discuss. Gay men are still men and I refuse to allow them to exploit women just because they are gay!

@Vubui and others who are mulling this over. There is another recent thread on this board about surrogacy which is not about gay would-be parents but reveals some of the issues. The power is with the commissioning parents and the abuse of power and consequences for the surrogate can be extreme. That thread links to an article (the thread offers an archive link also)
https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy

There were two surrogate mothers involved. Commissioned in the US and seems that both were motivated to help a couple have children when the mother could use her own eggs (stored in her youth) and later fertilised with her husbands sperm. Incredible abuse is reported of the mother who lost the baby (stillbirth at 30+ weeks) and aggressive bullying and doxxing her for fraud etc. leading to severe problems for that surrogate. The 'successful' surrogate had problems as a result of carrying the child which led directly to hysterectomy. The baby was born and handed over (showing the stark contrast in the definitions of success by surrogate and the commissioning parent). Its a real eye-opener. Especial problems where there is a biological link and the health of the parents may impact on how safe the pregnancy is for the surrogate and also may make the commissioning parent seek a very high degree of control if the pregnancy does not progress straightforwardly.

I am feeling that surrogacy is not a great idea in any circumstances. One important contrast to adoption is that the risk or pregnancy is already there and is no greater for the mother carrying the child. NOT the case for surrogate mothers.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5405534-venture-capitalist-harasses-surrogate

Do you think adults have the right to have children?

Adoption.

or maybe, just maybe, they have to accept they can’t have a child.

It’s not a right to have a child.

I think the UK situation is much better than the US one. I guess in the US if the mother refuses to give up her child the authorities come in and remove the baby? I don’t know how that squares with the supposed traditional values of red states.

However I think it’s naive to think it’s as simple as that. In practice there’s often money pressure involved and also just the general pressure that would come from promising someone a child. The couple aren’t just going to accept your decision. You’ll need to deal with them contacting you. And then there could be complex issues. If one of the couple is the biological father.

In the UK, if you plan to give your baby up voluntarily (rare i know) I think there is a 'cooling off' period prior to the child being 'handed over' legally. With surrogates, it is the same if the mothers egg is used? If the man's sperm was used, he would have to accept 50 50 care if she changed her mind. No contact if not. He would have to sue for breach of contract, not sure how far this would go if there's no bio link.

This sums it up.
If the day ever comes when the bloody thing is banned then no doubt they'll be outside parliament screaming it's not fairrrrrrrr like modern day Verruca Salts.

It shouldn't need to be explained that adopting a child already here is completely different to setting out to deliberately create a child to give it away.