Oh look at that now, it turns out women are needed for some things.
(This guy is the CEO of Pink News, scourge of ‘TERFs.”)
How casual is his “for gay male couples starting a family through surrogacy” – that is, for gay male couples renting a woman’s body to gestate a baby for them. It doesn’t sound quite so tidy and clinical and impersonal now, does it. “Through surrogacy” is such a brisk way of dismissing a woman’s nine months of increasing discomfort and fatigue ending in X hours of extreme pain.
And he says “if we were straight” but that’s not the issue. The issue is that they are both men, and two men can’t produce a baby no matter what they do. Neither can two women, but what women require from a man is a lot shall we say simpler than what men require from a woman.
It’s interesting that the CEO of Pink News carefully doesn’t utter the word “woman” in this complaint about how difficult it is for two men to make a baby.
Comments
14 responses to “Through surrogacy”
Hmm… “entitled.” Where have I heard that word before?
Isn’t how medical coverage usually works that covered individuals are guaranteed or reimbursed for for work done on their bodies, and not on other people’s bodies? I don’t think that my medical insurance covers medical procedures done on someone else, either.
Wouldn’t the question of whether the woman involved in this scheme is going to get medical tests or procedures be a question for her insurance?
Also, this reply is too precious:
https://twitter.com/raychilled/status/1308398304527605762
It’s a measure of just how deluded these people are that they believed a promise made by Matt Hancock.
Papito, in the UK the cost of IVF treatment is usually covered by the NHS for three attempts at fertilisation, so medical insurance only applies if the prospective parents opt for private (ie. non-NHS) treatment.
If they truly believe the Pink News gender identity nonsense, one of them could declare that they are a woman and have a baby. No surrogate required.
Papito, that reply is perfect.
JScarry, what a great idea!
The mind-bogglingly annoying thing to me is how he’s pretending IVF is like surrogacy. As far as the NHS goes, it does not fund surrogacy for anyone, regardless of sexuality or gender identity. Gay men aren’t being singled out.
“If we were straight”: most straight couples require neither surrogacy nor IVF to make a baby.
“gay male couples”: If a woman can be declared “male” just by stating so, then perhaps some of these “gay male couples” can produce babies the old fashioned way, too. And why aren’t they talking about lesbian male couples? Why oh why are they excluding trans people?
Sackbut – he’s also excluding “straight couples” consisting of a man and a trans woman!
(Also straight couples consisting of a woman and a trans man but we know that doesn’t really matter because, weeeeell…)
Just get a trans woman, I hear them say they’re biologically female.
I do like the bit where he says that Matt Hancock (the Secretary of State for Health) promised last year there would be a review, and then says that “Nothing has happened”. It’s a fair point: it is very hard to think of any recent events that might have distracted the Secretary of State for Health.
Oh, gosh! Read all the replies to him on Twitter (if you can) because they make up a BURN-FEST bigger than all the wildfires currently going on in the Western USA combined!
I think I wrote about half of them.
If we were straight, then we would be entitled to three cycles of IVF and all of the associated test costs would be covered by the NHS
And if you were in a heterosexual relationship, it wouldn’t be “we” getting IVF.
Do lesbians qualify for IVF?