‘Dealing with sperm’: comparing lesbians’ clinical and non‐clinical donor conception processes

Abstract

A growing body of literature investigates heterosexual donor conception and there is now also a small body of work which investigates the experiences of single women and lesbian couples. Both of these focus on a clinical setting. Women, notably single and lesbians, also undertake non-clinical donor conception, and insufficient consideration has been paid to these self-arranged reproductive practices, and how they may compare with the clinical ones. Seeking to fill this gap, this paper explores women's experiences of accessing donor sperm inside and outside reproductive health clinics by drawing on a qualitative interview study with 25 lesbian couples in England and Wales with experiences of jointly pursuing donor conception. The paper explores the differences embedded in the two conception routes with regard to donor recruitment, access to donor sperm over time, space and the management of sperm as a bodily fluid. Utilising the framework of 'ontological choreography' developed by Thompson (2005), as well as Douglas's (1966) work around bodies, dirt and disgust, the paper argues that the clinic functions as a containment for legal as well as practical and bodily dimensions of donor conception, and this in turn shapes practices and perceptions of self-arranged conception.

Du père au géniteur en passant par le tiers intéressé : représentations du rôle joué par le donneur de sperme connu dans les familles lesboparentales québécoises

“…Cette façon qu'ont les femmes rencontrées d'insister sur la nucléarisation de leur famille est plutôt cohérente avec les données de plusieurs recherches menées sur les familles lesboparentales dont les enfants sont nés d'un donneur connu. En effet, le repli de la famille autour du noyau conjugal semble être davantage la norme que l'exception (Herrmann-Green et Gehring, 2007;Kelly, 2009;Nordqvist, 2011b;Power et al, 2010;Ripper, 2009;Ryan et Berkowitz, 2009;Surtees, 2011;Tasker et Granville, 2011). Cette façon de coller au modèle nucléaire au lieu de s'en dissocier serait, selon Ryan et Berkowitz (2009, p. 154), un moyen d'autoprotection fréquemment utilisé par les familles ne rencontrant pas « the idealized notion of the standard nuclear family ».…”

Co-parenting arrangements in lesbian and gay families: when the ‘mum and dad’ ideal generates innovative family forms

“…Knowing the child"s origins was not only seen as important for contributing to a child"s identity and wellbeing, it was also seen as crucial for providing information about his or her medical history, especially with regards genetic information; a concern which appears in other lesbian parents" accounts (Mamo, 2007;Nordqvist, 2011). This motivation also had other origins.…”

“…While a number of empirical studies have explored the aspirations and experiences of lesbian women using donor conception and their reasons for choosing an anonymous or a known donor (Almack, 2006;Donovan, 2000;Donovan and Wilson, 2008;Dunne, 2000;Haimes and Weiner, 2000;Luce, 2010;Mamo, 2007;Nordqvist, 2011), little is known about parental arrangements where the intention is to actively involve more than two adults in raising the 4 child from the outset (Cadoret, 2002;Ryan-Flood, 2009). In addition, the biological father"s or donor"s motivations and views in these configurations are rarely investigated (Dempsey, 2012;Lewin, 2009).…”

L’homoparentalité et la transparentalité au prisme des sciences sociales : révolution ou pluralisation des formes de parenté ?

“…En revanche, la procréation avec un donneur connu apparaît comme plus « dangereuse » et est vécue comme moins légitime. L'auteure démontre ainsi l'existence d'une dichotomie morale sale/propre et juste/ faux liée à la distinction entre donneur anonyme et donneur connu (Nordqvist, 2011).…”