Abstract
This article explores the experience of lesbians seeking gestation by means of reproductive technologies involving donor insemination and two biological mothers: one who provides the eggs and the other who carries the embryo in her womb. This model is called Reception of Oocytes from Partner (ROPA). This article considers the processes that are required for this procedure in Brazil. It is a study carried out from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with five lesbian couples in Sao Paulo, in 2011. Cultural changes in the paths to the construction of a family by means of biomedicine can be characterized by the formulation of a reflective style of project that repeatedly reconsiders the data in search of its ultimate feasibility. The study reveals the desire to involve both partners, the importance of donor health history and the connection to the families of origin.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Reproductive technologies (RT) refers to a number of medical techniques including, for example, ovulation stimulation, in vitro fertilization (IVF), donor insemination (DI), intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) and so on used as a means to obtaining gestation in contexts in which it cannot become effected by traditional means. Similarly, the term assisted reproduction technology (ART) is used.
I use the term lesbian in this text considering its sense of identity, as well as a linguistic construction that also produces power, to characterize women and their experiences as to sexuality, gender and reproduction. I recognize that this term encompasses different concepts and subjectivities that are built in historical processes and systems of knowledge (Mamo, 2007).
In fact, the regulating norm published by the Federal Council for Medicine (CFM n.1.358/1992), enforced until December 2010, was ambiguous in its definition of who would have access to treatment. It explained that every woman could use the techniques if she was married or in a common-law relationship, as long as she had the consent of her (male) partner. In this sense, some professionals understood that lesbians could also be treated the same way and they provided them with this service. However, others used the norm to stop the service to them. In 2013, another resolution (#2013/2013) was issued and it allows lesbians, gays and single women to use the techniques. I stress that the field work was made under the first resolution (1992).
The majority of ART services are performed through the private sector. However, there are public services, most of which are linked to universities, that serve those unable to afford a private clinic. The public services are financed by national state funds. Private clinics are concentrated in the southeast of the country. According to the Brazilian Society for Assisted Reproduction (SBRA), in 2013 there are 123 associated clinics across the country.
This group is relatively homogeneous in terms of social class and ethnicity and this was not intentional. It is a reflection of the high costs of the medical procedures not available to many interested. Because this is an emerging field of studies in Brazil, I found it difficult to arrange interviews for the research despite the fact that I took several paths to identify potential interviewees, such as, for example: informal social networks, the Internet and support groups of alternative lesbians and families.
In order to maintain the anonymity of the accounts, everyone has been assigned pseudonyms.
Some clinics mention that nowadays, lesbians represent up to 5 per cent of those making requests for treatment.
I highlight, however, that since 1990, Brazilian law allows for adoption by single people.
Accordingly, it is not to say that there is an implosion of nature and culture within the new biology. Instead, consider that new technologies cause changes in the way kinship is understood (Franklin and McKinnon, 2001).
According to Tarnovski (2004), in Brazil, what works as support for the social identity of homosexual couples with children is the kinship system to guarantee access to family recognition; it is not a matter of recognition of the state of lesbian/gay.
I use “semen provider” to describe those involved in semen sales and donation contexts, as per Daniels (1998, pp. 76–104), considering this expression appropriate to the situation.
It is not legally possible for lesbians to purchase semen directly. Only clinics can ask about the genetic material through semen banks in Brazil and abroad. The semen cannot be commercialized and the semen providers cannot receive any compensation for the donation (not even in the form of an allowance).
Haimes and Weiner (2000) and Daniels (1998) pointed out some difficulties with the solution of domestically known semen providers. In general: the long process to build the project, the problem of finding an appropriate semen provider, the risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS and the precarious legal situation with respect to their unborn children. These issues appear to be important to understand how, increasingly, lesbians are demanding RT.
Interviews with health professionals in private clinics are part of this project, but were not analyzed for this article.
The development of RT in Brazil has been marked by a context of low regulation (Machin, 2000; Diniz, 2003). There is no specific law or monitoring of these practices by the State.
Semen providers need to attend the bank at least five times before providing their first donation. Processes through which the material to be donated is evaluated are in conformity with practices recommended by institutions such as the American Fertility Society and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority – HFEA, UK. According to the members of the semen banks, the semen’s profile is usually that of a man identified as a born donor, that is, someone who is used to donating (blood, for example) to help people. An imported sample cost around US$560.00 while a national sample was around US$790.00. These values correspond to costs for testing and preparation of material before procedures.
The Medical Resolution expresses the need for similarities between donors and gamete receivers (CFM, 2013).
Costa (2004) observes that while some data are noted by the medical team at the semen bank, other features are also inquired of the provider, which often result in confusion about the definitions of some classifications such as those of race, color and ethnicity. One should note that, in Brazil, race and color definitions depend on the individual’s social position, being referenced by features such as class distinction, gender, proximity and prestige. Color is an element that may be negotiated in certain contexts and social relations.
In correspondence exchanged with this bank, the professional noted that: “We would like to expand our market into Brazil because we understand that there is a large population of people with European ancestry that need donor semen but find it difficult to find donors of European descent in the Brazilian sperm banks. This is why we have been contacted and sent samples from donors of European ancestry to Brazil. From what I understand, there are currently restrictions on the import of donor sperm unless the phenotypical characteristics of the donor are different than what can be found from a Brazilian sperm bank”.
Interviewed people in charge of a Sperm Bank in Brazil suggested that the lesbian demands as to the physical features of semen provider are not usually in tune with the profile of the couple. In other words, they would seek a profile that often does not correspond to their own physical characteristics. Interviewees mentioned that they request sperm from blond, white males, with green or blue eyes, which are not common in the banks. Collected testimonies do not allow us to confirm this statement.
According to Schmidt and Moore (1998), being accepted as a donor would be equivalent to being accepted in Harvard.
References
Abreu Filho, O. de. (1982) Parentesco e identidade social. Anuário Antropológico/80. Rio de Janeiro, Fortaleza: Tempo Brasileiro. Universidade Federal do Ceará.
Carsten, J. (ed.) (2000) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carsten, J. (2004) After Kinship. Cambridge, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
CFM (2013) Resolução CFM no. 2013/2013. Brasília/DF. Available at: http://www.portalmedico.org.br/resolucoes/CFM/2013/2013_2013.pdf, accessed 07 July 2013.
Corrêa, M.E.C. (2012) Duas mães? Mulheres lésbicas e maternidade. São Paulo. Tese de Doutorado. Faculdade de Saúde Pública. Universidade de São Paulo.
Collier, J.F. and Yanagisako, S.J. (1987) Gender and Kinship: Essays towards a Unified Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Costa, R.G. (2004) O que a seleção de doadores de gametas pode nos dizer sobre noções de raça. Physis. Rev. Saúde Coletiva 14 (2): 235–255, (ver texto em inglês para citar!).
Daniels, C.R. (2006) Exposing Men. The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, K. (1998) The semen providers. In: K. Daniels and E. Haimes (eds.) Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diniz, D. (2003) Tecnologias reprodutivas conceptivas: o estado da arte do debate legislativo brasileiro. Jornal Brasileiro de Reprodução Assistida 7 (3): 10–19.
Dunne, G.A. (2000) Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gender & Society 14 (1): 11–35.
Fonseca, C. (2008) Homoparentalidade: Novas luzes sobre o parentesco. Estudos Feministas 16 (3): 1–8.
Fonseca, C. (2005) Concepções de familia e práticas de intervenção: Uma contribuição antropológica. Saúde e Sociedade 14 (2): 50–59.
Franklin, S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.
Franklin, S. and Mckinnon, S. (2001) (ed.) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
Grossi, M.P. (2003) Gênero e parentesco: Famílias gays e lésbicas no Brasil. Cadernos Pagu (21): 261–280.
Haimes, E. and Weiner, K. (2000) ‘Everybody’s got a dad …’. Issues for lesbian families in the management of donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness 22 (4): 477–499.
Hayden, C. (1995) Gender, genetics and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship. Cultural Anthropologie 10 (1): 41–63.
Heilborn, M.L. (2004) Dois é Par: Gênero e Identidade Sexual em Contexto Igualitário. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Garamond.
Jones, C. (2005) Looking like a family: Negotiating bio-genetic continuity in British lesbian families using licensed donor insemination. Sexualities 8 (2): 221–237.
Lewin, Ellen. (1993) Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture. New York: Cornell University Press.
Luce, J. (2010) Beyond Expectation: Lesbian/Bi/queer Women and Assisted Conception. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Machado, L.Z. (2001) Familias e individualismo: Tendencias contemporâneas no Brasil. Interface, Comunic, Saúde, Educ 4 (8): 11–26.
Machin, R. (2000) Relações de gênero, infertilidade e novas tecnologias reprodutivas. Estudos Feministas 8 (1): 212–228.
Mamo, L. (2007) Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
Mamo, L. (2010) Consumption and subjectification in U.S. lesbian reproductive practices. In: A. Clarke, L. Mamo, J.R. Fosket, J.R. Fishman and J.K. Shim (eds.) Biomedicalization. Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Marina, S., Marina, D., Marina, F., Fosas, N., Galiana, N. and Jové, I. (2010) Sharing motherhood: Biological lesbian co-mothers, a new IVF indication. Human Reproduction. 25 (4): 938–941.
Pelka, S. (2009) Sharing motherhood: Maternal jealousy among lesbian co-mothers. Journal of Homosexuality 56: 195–217.
Perelson, S. (2006) A parentalidade homossexual: Uma exposição do debate psicanalítico no cenário francês atual. Estudos Feministas 14 (3): 709–730.
Ryan-Flood, R. (2009) Lesbian Motherhood: Gender, Families and Sexual Citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmidt, M. and Moore, L.J. (1998) Constructing a ‘good catch’, picking a winner. In: R. Davis-Floyd and J. Dumit (eds.) Cyborg Babies: From Techno-sex to Techno-tots. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 21–39.
STF (2011) Supremo reconhece união homoafetiva. Disponível em http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=178931, Acesso em 01 de abril de 2013.
Strathern, M. (1992) Reproducting the Future: Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Strathern, M. (1995) Necessidade de país, necessidade de mães. Estudos Feministas 2 (95): 303–329.
Tarnovski, F. L. (2004) ‘Pai é tudo igual?’: Significados da paternidade para homens que se autodefinem como homossexuais. In: A. Piscitelli, M.F. Gregori and e S. Carrara (eds.) Sexualidade e saberes: Convenções e Fronteiras. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Garamond.
Thompson, C. (2005) Strategic naturalizing: Kinship, race and ethnicity. In: Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thompson, C. (2001) Strategic naturalization: Kinship in an infertility clinic. In: S. Franklin and S. Mckinnon (eds.) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Weston, K. (1991) Families we Choose: Lesbian, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) in Brazil, whose funds and scholarship helped make this research possible through a Postdoctoral Fellowship. The author also thanks the BIOS Centre of The London School of Economics and Political Science for their generous support of her work during the period in which she was a visiting fellow.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Machin, R. Sharing motherhood in lesbian reproductive practices. BioSocieties 9, 42–59 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.40
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.40