IVF treatment
15 Aug 2005 03:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeikohttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1735285,00.html
'Lesbians' is now the catch-all term for all non-married women: you heard it here first.
There is not a single newspaper that I have seen that reported this story with any other headline than 'lesbians blah blah blah IVF'. Because, obviously, if you are not married, you are a lesbian.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
queenspanky, please direct your boy to this article. I know that I occasionally foam at the mouth and rant about patriarchy, but as the above is timely and topical re: our recent discussion regarding heteropatriarchy and new reproductive technologies, I want to take this opportunity to rant some more.
queenspanky's boy is bright, modern, and took a feminism class with athena25 and myself in Ye Olde Burgh. During a recent discussion, he expressed disbelief that I could use the words 'IVF' and 'patriarchy' in the same sentence, to complain about the lack of choice that women have vis-a-vis their bodies and birth in Brtiain. I took it as a positive sign that he could not comprehend the fact that the status quo denies single women the chance to have children - indeed, he said that my facts must have been confused along the way, because that makes no sense whatso-fucking-ever.
Would that it were so, darling.
"Lesbians and single women are poised to win the right to seek in-vitro fertilisation treatment in the first overhaul of Britain’s fertility laws for 15 years." reads the first sentence of this Times article. Yes, prior to this overhaul, our IVF laws were those written in the late eighties. They were written by the same people that sought to eliminate homosexuality as a concept. Thatcherite laws have governed who could and could not seek IVF treatment. Invariably, these were women in stable long-term relationships, prefereably married.
Those that did not conform to this image of motherhood - and who could not provide evidence of a 'male role model' for the child - would not, ordinarily, be granted the right to such treatment, unless they could show proof that an uncle or similar would provide a male role model.
Under this legislation, as I pointed out to my friend, I would not be able to have IVF treatment. I am not in a long-term relationship, and do not see myself in one any time soon. Therefore, I would not be able to seek such treatment until I 'settled down' - presumably with a man, which is an interesting way of crowbarring bisexuals into the heteronormative mould - which could be far, far too late for me to conceive.
So, yes, perhaps I was scarily militant last Friday. But it is important - not least because "there are no plans to offer single women or lesbians fertility treatment on the NHS, though private clinics could be banned from rejecting them."
So much for equality.
'Lesbians' is now the catch-all term for all non-married women: you heard it here first.
There is not a single newspaper that I have seen that reported this story with any other headline than 'lesbians blah blah blah IVF'. Because, obviously, if you are not married, you are a lesbian.
queenspanky, please direct your boy to this article. I know that I occasionally foam at the mouth and rant about patriarchy, but as the above is timely and topical re: our recent discussion regarding heteropatriarchy and new reproductive technologies, I want to take this opportunity to rant some more.queenspanky's boy is bright, modern, and took a feminism class with athena25 and myself in Ye Olde Burgh. During a recent discussion, he expressed disbelief that I could use the words 'IVF' and 'patriarchy' in the same sentence, to complain about the lack of choice that women have vis-a-vis their bodies and birth in Brtiain. I took it as a positive sign that he could not comprehend the fact that the status quo denies single women the chance to have children - indeed, he said that my facts must have been confused along the way, because that makes no sense whatso-fucking-ever.Would that it were so, darling.
"Lesbians and single women are poised to win the right to seek in-vitro fertilisation treatment in the first overhaul of Britain’s fertility laws for 15 years." reads the first sentence of this Times article. Yes, prior to this overhaul, our IVF laws were those written in the late eighties. They were written by the same people that sought to eliminate homosexuality as a concept. Thatcherite laws have governed who could and could not seek IVF treatment. Invariably, these were women in stable long-term relationships, prefereably married.
Those that did not conform to this image of motherhood - and who could not provide evidence of a 'male role model' for the child - would not, ordinarily, be granted the right to such treatment, unless they could show proof that an uncle or similar would provide a male role model.
Under this legislation, as I pointed out to my friend, I would not be able to have IVF treatment. I am not in a long-term relationship, and do not see myself in one any time soon. Therefore, I would not be able to seek such treatment until I 'settled down' - presumably with a man, which is an interesting way of crowbarring bisexuals into the heteronormative mould - which could be far, far too late for me to conceive.
So, yes, perhaps I was scarily militant last Friday. But it is important - not least because "there are no plans to offer single women or lesbians fertility treatment on the NHS, though private clinics could be banned from rejecting them."
So much for equality.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 02:51 pm (UTC)on the other hand, it is a times article. you could just stick it in front of him.
/tenacity
no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 04:04 pm (UTC)So yeah, basically, about bloody time. Homosexuals and single people should get equal consideration for fertility treatment.
But am I an awful person for thinking that NHS money could be better spent on things other than IVF? It's costly, it's not always effective, and the most important thing of all, NO ONE NEEDS A CHILD. No one will die if they can't be a parent. IVF's a luxury. Not a right. The gay lobby'd be better off campaigning for equal adoption rights, IMO. There's plenty of kids out there need good homes.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 04:17 pm (UTC)But am I an awful person for thinking that NHS money could be better spent on things other than IVF? It's costly, it's not always effective, and the most important thing of all, NO ONE NEEDS A CHILD.
I could also argue that no one needs gender reassignment surgery, or a disfiguring scar corrected, or anything other than fixing broken legs etc. (becuase, from my perspective, not needing those things myself, I cannot perceive how someone could need to be a different biological sex.)
I, for one, would argue that I need a child. I not need it physically, but I do need it emotionally. Not necessarily a child that I have given birth to, mind you, but a child to raise would definitely be one of the things that my life requires for me to feel fulfilled. However- and it's a big however - although I need a child, I don't feel the need for a husband, or even a long term partner. I feel plenty complete without 'an other half'. Therefore, the adoption and IVF laws that dictate my home life in order to have a child feel incredibly draconian. (And adoption law is another thing that gets me in a snit.)
Having said the above re: ccess to IVF, let me take this opportunity to rant about it in general, with a focus on the procedure itself, which basically refocuses a patriarchal obsession with paternity on the body of the mother. There is no such thing as 'infertility treatment'. Either you have eggs and your womb can carry a child, or you cannot. What you can have is cross-fertility treatments, which help you carry the child of a specific man.
This drives me nuts.
Sperm donation is safer, far less intrusive, much cheaper and much more effective than IVF, yet IVF is favoured tenfold. The woman's body is cut up in order to ensure paternity. Fuck that for a game of marbles.
I'm going to speculate and say that changing the law will not result in an increase in IVF use, because the people that were excluded from it to begin with do not require a specific man's child - they need a child, period.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 04:36 pm (UTC)...
The hell?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-15 05:23 pm (UTC)Nowadays there are loads of people arguing about the homosexuality... Most of them wants to stop it, but they're trying to stop the unstoppable.