When did being a parent become a right? Especially when the only way to do it is to hire a woman's body (ie: surrogacy) to do what you will never be able to do yourself to become a parent. Gay male couples, male-female couples that can't conceive have no right to a woman's body.

Everything someone wants and can’t have is now a “right” they’re being wrongly denied these days.

Unless it's women wanting boundaries and sex-based protections.

Exactly, because you can’t have both. For everyone to have whatever whim they desire it usually requires a woman to provide it in some way. Women seem to be the root of all labor and production.

Men used to have this "right" for a long time; when women were property, or marital rape legal and abortion illegal.

I wouldn't be surprised if a "right to fatherhood" movement had pedos involved either.

I wouldn't be surprised if a "right to fatherhood" movement had pedos involved either.

I wouldn't either. They would love to be able to farm babies without needing to go to the trouble of convincing a woman to breed with them

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 29 points

When did being a parent become a right? Especially when the only way to do it is to hire a woman's body

Aka marriage and the family.

Right. The closest actual right to this I can think of is the right to not be forcibly sterilized, which could (and they probably will, in their case) frame it as a right to reproduce. But there is a difference between saying that a person has the right to not have anyone interfere with their reproductive capacity and sterilize them vs. saying that they have a right (for one of them at least) to become a genetic parent to an offspring, be it through surrogacy or heterosexual sex.

"I DEMAND a Woman for my personal use", gay man edition🙄

Gay men think its not exploitation because they didn't personally rape us

Besides, even rape wouldn't be the criminal type of exploitation, according to the SexWorkIsWork automaton they quote. It's just unpaid labor.

Besides, even rape wouldn't be the criminal type of exploitation, according to the SexWorkIsWork automaton they quote. It's just unpaid labor.

According to them, its not rape if a man throws some money at a woman after he's done raping her.

Came to see if this had been posted. Fuming with these goons. Poor us, we're 2 men together on amazing salaries and it's too expensive to rent a woman's body to go through difficult and damaging egg retrieval and then to pay another woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth in the western country with the worst rates of maternal death to effectively buy a third human person who we can sue the agency over if they don't meet our standards! Boo hoo, cry me a river.

Which one of us is responsible for this gem (surely I read it here before seeing it on the Graun)?

A much-liked response to one piece about their story read: “Not having a uterus because you are male, does not make you ‘infertile’ – it makes you MALE. No one – and I do mean no one – has the right to rent another human’s body and womb to use as an incubator. That is not a human right.”

Parenthood isn't a right, it's a massive privilege. A really hard privilege that sucks a lot of the time because guess what, children are people too with their own needs and wants and the insane desire to play football with ripe avocados (don't ask, parents of toddlers will know). Entitlement and parenthood don't mix well, is what I'm saying.

Could the quote be from the article on 4W?


I can’t see comments but maybe it’s from that? (And was screenshot and posted in Radfemmery perhaps?)

The article links directly to that article on 4W. Which is progress, considering this is the guardian.

In New York, a gay couple fighting to make their insurers pay for fertility treatment have found themselves in the middle of a culture war. What happens when the right to parenthood involves someone else’s body?

In a sane world, people would recognize that there's no "right to parenthood" and that using another person's body that way is unethical. Millions of Americans can't get their insurance to pay for NECESSARY health care. So I don't feel sorry for gay men who had to spend their own money to rent another human being

That’s when they first became aware of the eye-watering cost of biological parenthood for gay men. Maggipinto reels off the price list in a way that only someone who has pored over every item could. There’s compensation for the egg donor: no less than $8,000 (£6,600).

$8k is a bargain when you consider the risks of egg donation

Maggipinto and Briskin were told agency fees alone could stretch to $25,000, and the surrogates themselves should be paid a minimum of $60,000 (it is illegal for surrogates to be paid in the UK, but their expenses are covered by the intended parents). “That payment doesn’t include reimbursement for things like maternity clothing; lost wages if she misses work for doctors’ appointments or is put on bed rest; transportation; childcare for her own children; [or] lodging.”

Again, its a bargain when you consider the risk they're asking a woman to subject herself to

It takes 15 minutes for Maggipinto to run me through all the expenses they could incur if they tried to have a child genetically related to one of them. The bottom line? “Two hundred thousand dollars, minimum,” he says, tapping his index finger on the table with each word in disbelief.

Boo fucking hoo. You want to create an entirely new human life (and use another person's body to do it). You think that shit is supposed to be cheap!?

But when they read the policy, they discovered they were the only class of people to be excluded from IVF coverage. Infertility was defined as an inability to have a child through heterosexual sex or intrauterine insemination. That meant straight people and lesbians working for the City of New York would have the costs of IVF covered, but gay male couples could never be eligible.

Because you're not barred from having children due to a MEDICAL problem!!! Health insurance is there to help with MEDICAL issues! Not a healthy man's desire to have designer babies who are related to him. Does he think heterosexual incels who can't get laid deserves surrogates, too!?

This isn’t an oversight, it’s discrimination, Briskin says.

Its not discrimination to be barred from buying a woman's body to gestate your children

“I was OK with not being a parent at 30, I felt that was very normal for our generation and the current work-life balance ethos. But seven years later, I’m really not happy.”

There are people working minimum wage at McDonald's who want kids, can't have them, and don't have the luxury of even considering these expensive interventions. You're not special. Get over yourselves

suing Briskin’s former employers for unlawful workplace discrimination. If they win, employers and health insurers across the US will be under pressure to change their policies to give gay men the same access to fertility benefits as anyone else. But their case has become much bigger than one couple’s drive to start a family: they have become figureheads in the battle for fertility rights for all gay men.

Which will jack up premium costs for everyone else. Also, these dickheads don't care that they're trying to establish a "civil right" to use a woman's body to make babies for rich gay men.

"There was one article in a German outlet that was about how surrogacy is a form of slavery. We were being portrayed as people who were enslaving gestational carriers,” Briskin tells me, wide-eyed.

That's EXACTLY what you're trying to do, you selfish piece of shit!! What happens if this becomes a civil right but no woman wants to give you her uterus? Do you force a American woman to do it? Go to a third world country and rent a woman who cannot say "no"?

Most critics were wilfully missing the point of their case: it’s about access to IVF, and equal rights to employment benefits, not their right to surrogacy.

But it was totally about surrogacy, you liars!!

In 2020, hundreds of surrogate babies were left stranded in Kyiv because of Covid travel restrictions. Surrogacy is legal to some degree in almost every US state. American women have died in recent years during surrogate pregnancies and deliveries, while egg donors have been left infertile and seriously ill after their eggs were harvested.

But fuck all those innocent women and children! Who cares if surrogates are dying? Larry & Steve want to have babies who look like them (and they want YOUR taxes and health insurance premiums to pay for it)!!

"I am pro-autonomy,” Briskin says. “I believe that people should be able to make decisions about their lives, their bodies. This is so relevant now, with the decision from the supreme court [overturning Roe v Wade].

Speaking of Roe, that decision makes surrogacy an even bigger risk because, depending on where she lives, the surrogate might not have abortion access if the pregnancy goes horribly wrong

For me, it goes into the same category as sex work: there’s this puritanical belief that sex workers are being forced to sell themselves. There are many, many sex workers who do not view their line of work that way.”

Of course these assholes are pro sex work. This guy should sell his butthole on the dirty street corner and then come back with "sex work is a job just like my lawyer job".

Of course, there are many women who are forced to sell themselves, I say – those who are trafficked and exploited. Briskin knows this well: he was a sex crimes prosecutor. “Those who are being trafficked are not being compensated for their sex work"

Not being compensated? THAT'S your problem!? Would those rapes have been more acceptable to you if their pimps gave them a bigger cut of the johns' payments!? Jesus Christ, this guy is a lawyer! Is this how he argues during rape/trafficking cases!?

When it comes to the fear that gay surrogacy erases mothers, Maggipinto is defiant. “Our family will be a motherless family,” he says, tapping his finger on the table again, “I won’t tiptoe around that.” But the creation of that family doesn’t depend on the exploitation of women. “We’re not using a woman’s body. We are accepting a woman’s generosity to use her own body in a way that she agrees with.”

Fuck off. A child of surrogacy does have a mother. And you will be intentionally creating a child for the purpose of ripping it away from that mother the moment its born. Its illegal to do that to puppies. And you want to do it to a human baby

I am pleasantly surprised by this article. The journalist makes some really pointed comments.

What about adoption? “We consider adoption [to be] a form of volunteering. It is not a way to become parents,” he [Ron Poole-Dayan, executive director of Men Having Babies] says. “As a society, we should use whatever power we have to ensure there are no children that require adoption. Telling us that we should depend on the failing of society, and that’s a solution for us – it’s unacceptable. Why should we step up to volunteer before any other group?” Because your path to biological parenthood involves asking for great sacrifices and a physical toll from women, I say.

The journalist also interviews Phyllis Chesler, quotes her surprisingly extensively, and includes a link to her article in 4W!

I was absolutely flabbergasted to see that.

The journalist even brings up the fact that gender critical feminism has led to more women questioning the ethics of surrogacy. (For me personally, I know I’d never really questioned “sex work” and surrogacy until I discovered gender critical feminism, and through it, the basics of radical feminism).

It’s a shame that the two surrogate women the journalist interviews are both pro-surrogacy (though obviously I’m glad they don’t regret their experiences). The second one though endured some pretty awful (and life-threatening) complications, and the journalist is concerned by her blitheness.

On the whole, I am really pleasantly surprised by this article. It’s not sensationalist, it seems balanced, but brings up enough anti-surrogacy arguments to make the average person think twice. The gay men come off as incredibly entitled. I had to laugh at the last photo, of them holding hands and doing a sadface.

Jeez, I'm adopted, as is half of my generation in my family. That is so incredibly, INCREDIBLY insulting. So my parents aren't parents, they're 'volunteers'? My aunt and uncle aren't parents, either?

Me, my sibling, my cousins, we're all just charity projects, is that what these men are saying? Not their REAL children?

No. My parents are parents, and damn good ones, at that. I've never considered myself anything other than their child. That statement from those men is a massive red flag that their 'right' (sense of entitlement) to parenthood (in a form which exactly fits what they believe parenthood should be, since anything else is 'inferior' parenthood that isn't even real!!!) oughtn't be honoured.

Well, now I'm furious.

[–] elleelle 45 points Edited

I'm an adoptive and biological parent. I don't think I can speak about adoption because that's my (older) children's story to tell. But here I am, talking about it anyway.

I hate adoption being sold as a cure for infertility, tho. Adoption is not about making a family for adults, it's about providing a family for children.

My kids came to me when they were 4 and 11. They are both now young adults on their own. The one who came to me at 11 is honestly a mess- I can understand not feeling equipped to take that on, but it doesn't change my feeling, as someone who has walked the walk and had my heart broken many times: the attitude of entitlement not just to a genetic relationship with a child, but to a healthy, perfect, trauma free newborn is fucking gross. You don't want a child or a family, you want your wish fulfillment fantasy.

A family is a thousand joys and a thousand sorrows, and now that my children are big- even the youngest is a teenager- I can tell you that my love for all of my kids is equal. Some of them I have had the privilege to have with me longer, but strangely it does not impact how we deal with one another as adult humans.

I deplore surrogacy. I am skeptical of assisted reproductive technology, I think private adoption agencies should be regulated out of existence, and I believe those things because of my experience as a parent, not because I am some naive idealist.

Thank you for this lovely comment, which brought me to tears for some reason i can't quite put a finger on

Their understanding of parenthood is so traditional and restrictive and yet they are so willing to dispose of the traditional idea that children need mothers. It is such mental gymnastics. Medical science really needs to incorporate ethical considerations especially from the perspective of the children who without consent are brought into these motherless families.

Not only that, but they can never have a child to whom they are both equally related. Even if they get a sister to kick in an egg, one is a father and one is an uncle. Even if they buy a baby created from each partners sperm, they are raising children who aren't full siblings.

There is no way for a same sex couple to have a true nuclear family- partnered biological parents of full siblings.

Hell, I'm a very fertile woman who had biological children with a man, and I don't have that. The difference is, that wasn't important to me, and I didn't feel entitled to it.

My cousin is adopted; so are one of my nieces and one of my nephews. As you say, they're FAMILY. My sister and my aunt and uncle were not "volunteers." They were childless and infertile and wanted to become PARENTS.

Anyone who sees adoption in the way of that entitled man should NEVER be a parent!

This pissed me off too for similar reasons. I have some members of my family who were adopted and they are every bit as related to me as biological relatives. My culture considers kinship to be less about biology and more who you claim and in turn who claims you, these men's attitude shows they aren't ready to be parents, I agree.

What culture is that? if you don't mind...

My sisters and i were all international orphans (three of us foundling infants) who are so genetically distant that if you were to choose two of the eight billion earth humans completely at random, those two would probably be more closely related, in the DNA sense, than any two of us... and yet all of us feel we're as close to an ideal family as it gets.

Same, I was adopted at birth and my three first cousins were adopted from the system at ages 1, 3, and 4. Those men will never be parents, all they’ll ever be is disgusting human beings who rented a woman’s womb to grow another human that they can parade around and pretend like they actually accomplished something worthwhile. People who are so obsessed with having a genetic mini me to the point of renting a woman’s womb are scary because their love is almost always conditional. I’ve never agreed with the sentiment that genetic relation to a child is the be-all and end-all of parenthood. If that were true there wouldn’t be millions, if not billions of children with horrific home lives.

In the real world, how the child is raised and loved by their parents throughout their lives carries a lot more weight than genetic relation. Being able to unconditionally love an adopted child as your own really says a lot about someone’s character.

I will say though that I appreciate the people who can at least recognize that they’re unfit to adopt an older child that most likely has a lot of trauma and requires a specific type of person (like my aunt) who is able to handle that and won’t back out when things get really challenging. Not everybody is cut out for that and that’s okay.

Adoptive parents are just as much of parents, if not more in some cases than biologically related parents. My parents are my parents and my aunt and uncle are my cousin’s parents. You’d have to be fucking insane to claim that the man who raped and molested my cousin when they were fucking babies, or the woman who pimped out my cousins for drug money and left them alone in a house laying in their own filth while starving to death are anything even remotely close to parents.

People who are so obsessed with having a genetic mini me to the point of renting a woman’s womb are scary because their love is almost always conditional.

You put this so eloquently. I hadn't been able to put the exact source of my discomfort with it into words, thank you!

I feel so sorry for any children in the custody of people like that. Parenthood is a wonderful privilege regardless of how you come by it and every child is a blessing to their parents. If that's not how you feel about it, you have no business becoming a parent.

Load more (1 comment)

Unbelievable to call adoption 'volunteering'. ffs

I think the gay men quoted aren’t doing themselves any favours. I think most readers would find their hackles being raised at that comment. Let alone adoptive parents reading this..!

I think the journalist might be anti-surrogacy and included that quote to make the male entitlement shine through. Because the next argument (“we don’t want to have to rely on society being screwed up enough that people are having babies they can’t take care of”) - is a much stronger argument

Society will likely always be screwed up enough so that there are children up for adoption. Even without forced birthers and the like, there's always a war going on someplace in the world. Being against adoption on the basis of that is like being against foodsaving on the basis that you don't want to rely on economy being so messed up that there's always produce that is unsellable despite being perfectly edible. (And it reminds me of the idiocy of the "all bathrooms should be unisex and fully enclosed with washbasin in the cubicle" libfem idiots who use this as their excuse while actually making propaganda for teenage girls having to wash their menstrual cups next to big hulking males in fishnet stockings because, no matter how much they deny it, the world is not the way they would ideally want it to be, it is the way it IS.)

Besides, gay men who rely on surrogacy rely on it that there will always be enough poor women to exploit as incubators. So ... they very much rely on the world being always messed up to a) let women face abject poverty that they cannot escape by means other than selling their bodies and b) have surrogacy be legal.

That's a lot more messedupness to rely on than just the suboptimal state of a world that produces orphans.

(Besides, even a world as close to perfect as humanly possible would still have the occasional accident, so would likely still have orphans ... just very few orphaned babies. So what? Newborns aren't exactly fun. Adopting a well-adjusted child whose loving parents had a car accident would actually be what those entitled gay men really want - an opportunity to play perfect dad on their social media accounts without all the sleepless nights that parenting a newborn involves. But an orphaned preteen remembers her or his parents. There wouldn't be the illusion of having a baby without a mother. And I guess that's actually the point - womb envy. It's not about wanting to raise a child, it is about wanting the mother out of the picture, out of everyone's minds. Heck, not even the Dursleys, basically the worst adoptive family known to modern children's literature, denied Harry the knowledge that he was adopted.)

[–] Lipsy 3 points Edited

I think the gay men quoted aren’t doing themselves any favours. I think most readers would find their hackles being raised at that comment. Let alone adoptive parents reading this..!

Or adopted children ((waves raised hand around)):.. yeah, JHFCA.

On the other hand, i say we platform the shit out of this dude. We WANT derps like him representing his side of this issue, on which many thoughtful people will be surprisingly impressionable for the simple reason that they've never thought about it before.

I agree it's not volunteering but I also agree that as a society we should work to make it so that there are very few children up for adoption - better birth control, abortion access, support for single mothers, support for poor families, support for struggling parents, etc.

What an insult to adoptive families. Those men are really showing the world how shitty they are, aren't they?

My god that's an incredibly disgusting attitude towards adoption they have. "Depending on the failing society" as if these kids are lesser to them?! Gross.

The gay men come off as incredibly entitled. I had to laugh at the last photo, of them holding hands and doing a sadface.

I busted up at that picture, too. Its like the photographer said, "Look as pathetic as possible, you guys!" 🤣

yes, getting to the Phyllis Chesler section was a breath of fresh air - what an eloquent and clear-spoken woman.

Load more (3 comments)
[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 52 points

Men (all of them!) see everything around them as tools to get what they want, to shape their lives or society as they see fit. There’s no painful feeling or moral intuition that can’t be overcome with technology, money, or coercion, or if necessary physical violence. All the talk of pain and suffering for women and children washes over them, talk is cheap, they do not care.

There was one article in a German outlet that was about how surrogacy is a form of slavery. We were being portrayed as people who were enslaving gestational carriers,” Briskin tells me, wide-eyed.

Again, with the erasure. Reduced to body parts and functions

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 36 points

He sounds like he’s wondering how those breeding-things could be elevated to slavery, like they were human or something.

This is yet another issue with swapping "equality" for "equity."

No, it's not an "equal outcome" that gay couples can't have natural children, but it's a logical outcome. Short people will have a disadvantage in basketball, near-sighted people cant become pilots, and same-sex couples can't have biological children together. We need to accept our limitations instead of crying to society to fix them.

Gay marriage is equality. Gay surrogacy is not.

[–] assignedpooratbirth trans-wealthy 29 points

Gay, conservative, incel, doesn’t matter who a man is, they always feel entitled to women’s bodies.

Yes, men who do not wish to naturally mate with women ARE expected to be okay with not having children…..AND?

So many things wrong with their attitude, but this also:

Of course, there are many women who are forced to sell themselves, I say – those who are trafficked and exploited. Briskin knows this well: he was a sex crimes prosecutor. “Those who are being trafficked are not being compensated for their sex work; any compensation is going into the hands of their pimp,” he replies. “That is not the case for a willing surrogate.”

So it’s OK as long as victims receive payment for rape? And this is someone responsible for prosecution of these crimes? Fuck off. Fuck all the way off to outer space.

Load more (36 comments)