Donor, dad, or…? Young adults with lesbian parents' experiences with known donors

Family members as gamete donors or gestational carriers: an Ethics Committee opinion

The use of adult intrafamilial gamete donors and gestational surrogates is generally ethically acceptable when all participants are fully informed and counseled, but consanguineous arrangements or ones that simulate incestuous unions should be prohibited. Adult child-to-parent arrangements require caution to avoid coercion, and parent-to-adult child arrangements are acceptable in limited situations. Programs that choose to participate in intrafamilial arrangements should be prepared to spend additional time counseling participants and ensuring that they have made free, informed decisions. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2017.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.

The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

The stability of psychological adjustment among donor-conceived offspring in the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study from childhood to adulthood: differences by donor type

OBJECTIVE

To study differences by sperm donor type in the psychological adjustment of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) offspring across three time periods from childhood to adulthood.

DESIGN

U.S.-based prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Paper-and-pencil questionnaires and protected online surveys.

PATIENT(S)

A cohort of 74 offspring conceived by lesbian parents using an anonymous (n = 26), a known (n = 26), or an open-identity (n = 22) sperm donor. Data were reported when offspring were ages 10 (wave 4), 17 (wave 5), and 25 (wave 6).

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist administered to lesbian parents when offspring were ages 10 and 17 and the Achenbach Adult Self-Report administered to offspring at age 25.

RESULT(S)

In both relative and absolute stability, no differences were found in internalizing, externalizing, and total problem behaviors by donor type over 15 years. However, both externalizing and total problem behaviors significantly declined from age 10 to 17 and then increased from age 17 to 25. Irrespective of donor type, among the 74 offspring, the large majority scored continuously within the normal range on internalizing (n = 62, 83.8%), externalizing (n = 62, 83.8%), and total problem behaviors (n = 60, 81.1%).

CONCLUSION(S)

The results reassure prospective lesbian parents and provide policy makers and reproductive medicine practitioners with empirical evidence that psychological adjustment in offspring raised by lesbian parents is unrelated to donor type in the long term.

A comparison of the characteristics, motivations, preferences and expectations of men donating sperm online or through a sperm bank

STUDY QUESTION

How do the demographic characteristics, motivations, experiences and expectations of unregulated sperm donors (men donating sperm online through a connection website) compare to sperm donors in the regulated sector (men donating through a registered UK sperm bank)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Online donors were more likely to be older, married and have children of their own than sperm bank donors, were more varied in their preferences and expectations of sperm donation, and had more concerns about being a sperm donor.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

While studies have examined motivations and experiences of both regulated sperm bank, and unregulated online sperm donors, no study has directly compared these two groups of donors.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An email was sent to the 576 men who were registered sperm donors at the London Sperm Bank, the UK’s largest sperm bank regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), who had commenced donation between January 2010 and December 2016, and had consented to be contacted for research. The online survey, which contained multiple choice and open-ended questions, was completed by 168 men over a 7-week period. The responses were compared to those of sperm donors registered on Pride Angel, a large UK-based connection website for donors and recipients of sperm: our research team had already collected these data. In total, 5299 sperm donors were on Pride Angel at time of data capture and 400 men had completed a similar survey. The responses of 70 actual online sperm donors (i.e. those whose sperm had been used to conceive at least one child) were used for comparison with the sperm bank donors.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey obtained data on the sperm donors’ demographic characteristics, motivations, experiences and expectations of sperm donation. Data from sperm bank donors were compared to online donors to examine differences between the two groups. The study compared online and clinic donors who had all been accepted as sperm donors: online donors who had been ‘vetted’ by recipients and sperm bank donors who had passed the rigorous screening criteria set by the clinic.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A response rate of 29% was obtained from the sperm bank donors. Online donors were significantly older than sperm bank donors (mean ± SD: 38.7 ± 8.4 versus 32.9 ± 6.8 years, respectively) and were more likely to have their own children (p < 0.001 for both characteristics). Both groups rated the motivation ‘I want to help others’ as very important. Online donors rated ‘I don’t want to have children myself’, ‘to have children/procreate’ and ‘to enable others to enjoy parenting as I have myself’ as more important than sperm bank donors, whereas sperm bank donors rated financial payment as more important than online donors, as well as confirmation of own fertility. Most (93.9%) online donors had donated their sperm elsewhere, through other connection sites, fertility clinics, sperm banks or friends and family, compared to only 2.4% of sperm bank donors (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in how donors viewed their relationship to the child, with online donors much less likely than sperm bank donors to see their relationship as a ‘genetic relationship only’. Online donors had more concerns about being a donor (p < 0.001), for example, being concerned about ‘legal uncertainty and child financial support’ and ‘future contact and uncertainty about relationship with donor-conceived child’.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings may not be representative of all sperm donors as only one online connection site and one HFEA registered sperm bank were used for recruitment.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Despite concern regarding shortages of sperm donors in licensed clinics and unease regarding the growing popularity of unregulated connection websites, this is the first study to directly compare online and sperm bank donors. It highlights the importance of considering ways to incorporate unregulated online sperm donors into the regulated sector. With many online donors well aware of the legal risks they undertake when donating in the unregulated online market, this would both increase the number of sperm donors available at clinics but also provide legal protection and support for donors.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust Grants 104 385/Z/14/Z and 097857/Z/11/Z. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Life Finds a Way: Young Adults With Lesbian Mothers Reflect on Their Childhood Prior to Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Parents in Sweden

The strapline "life finds a way," from the classic movie Jurassic Park, referred to how the all-female dinosaurs in a theme park had been able to reproduce, despite the laws of nature. Similarly, the participants in the present study described how their lesbian mothers had shown that "life finds a way," when having children and forming a family, prior to the legal recognition of same-sex parents in Sweden. The study draws on interviews with eight young Swedish adults, aged 17-30 (average age 25). They had been raised by lesbian couples but were born prior to the legal recognition of same-sex parenthood. Prior to a legal change in 2003, a same-sex couple could not share legal parenthood. Further, female couples were excluded from Swedish assisted reproduction programs until 2005. The interviews have been analyzed thematically, and the article presents the results in four themes. The first theme, circumvent, oppose, or adapt to legal obstacles, shows the participants' reflections on how their parents navigated legal obstacles in order to have children and to live together as a family. The second theme, legal obstacles do not affect everyday life, depicts a common experience of how a lack of legal recognition seldom mattered to the participants during their childhood. Rather, they explained how their parents had been able to form parenthood and close relations without legal recognition. In contrast, the third theme describes occasions when legal parenthood matters. This theme highlights occasions when the lack of legal parenthood was problematic or devastating for the participants, such as when parents divorced, or one parent died. The final theme, the meaning of legal parents in adulthood, explores the participants' reflections on the meaning and impact of legal ties (or lack of legal ties) between themselves as young adults and their parents. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research on children and young adults with same-sex parents.

Introduction to the special issue: Social science perspectives on contemporary lesbian family life, 2009-2019

It has been over ten years since the last special issue regarding lesbian family lives appeared in the Journal of Lesbian Studies (volume 12, issue 2-3). In my introduction to this special issue, I offer perspectives on contemporary lesbian family lives from 2009-2019, considering three key questions: (1) What important social and legal changes have occurred over the last decade? (2) What have we learned about lesbian family lives during this time period? (3) What do we still not yet know?

Self-esteem and problem behavior in Dutch adolescents conceived through sperm donation in planned lesbian parent families

Until 2004, Dutch women seeking donor insemination through medical facilities could opt for open-identity or anonymous donors. Since then, Dutch law only permits open-identity donation. The present study compared the well-being of adolescents conceived before 2004 through known, open-identity, and anonymous donors, and born into planned lesbian parent families (i.e., the mothers identified as lesbian before the children were conceived). The sixty-seven participating adolescents (M_age = 16.04 years) completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Youth Self-Report, and answered questions about their donor. Thirty-three were conceived through known, twenty-two through open-identity, and twelve through anonymous donors. No significant associations were found between donor type and self-esteem or problem behavior. Likewise, no significant differences were found on these two variables for adolescents with known donors who did or did not play important roles in their lives. For adolescents conceived with sperm from as-yet unknown donors (open-identity or anonymous), feeling uncomfortable about not knowing the donor was associated with lower self-esteem and more externalizing problem behavior. That donor type was found to have no bearing on adolescent self-esteem or problem behavior may be useful to prospective lesbian parents.

'Is blood thicker than water?' Donor conceived offspring's subjective experiences of the donor: a systematic narrative review

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic narrative review of the published research articles on donor conceived offspring's subjective experiences of their donor. A systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) provided 29 published quantitative and qualitative studies matching the inclusion criteria. The analysis of the studies outcomes led to the identification of four main themes: (i) views/representations of the donor; (ii) desire to contact the donor (in terms of desire to meet the donor, reasons for wanting to contact the donor, type and frequency of contact); (iii) reactions to discovering the donor's identity and contacting the donor; (iv) identity issues. The findings revealed that genetic ties do matter to donor conceived people, especially during adolescence or adulthood. Many donor conceived people were interested in contacting the donor and all of them needed to make meaning of the role of the donor, as well as to integrate it into their family life and self-concept. Besides curiosity and medical reasons, many people reported wanting to contact the donor to see what he/she looked like, and to have access to their own ancestry and genetic history.

"I want us to be a normal family": Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients

BACKGROUND

Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States.

RESULTS

Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future.

CONCLUSION

As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

Why search for a sperm donor online? The experiences of women searching for and contacting sperm donors on the internet

Whilst studies have examined the experiences of women who use clinic donors, to date there has been limited research investigating women’s motivations and experiences of searching for a sperm donor online. A total of 429 women looking for a sperm donor on Pride Angel (a website that facilitates contact between donors and recipients) completed an online survey. Fifty-eight percent (249) saw advantages of obtaining donated sperm online with the most common advantage reported as being able to connect with and meet the donor (n = 50 (24%)). A third (n = 157 (37%)) of the participants gave disadvantages, the most common reported was encountering ‘dishonest donors’ (n = 63 (40%)). Most recipients (n = 181 (61%)) wanted the donor to be ‘just a donor’ (i.e. to provide sperm and have no further contact). Whilst it was important for recipients to know the identity of the donor, some did not see this as important for the child and thus the level of information that parents have about the donor, and that which the child has, can differ. Finding a donor online blurs the distinction between categories of ‘anonymous’, ‘known’ and ‘identity release’ donations. Whilst the survey had a large sample size, the representativeness of the sample is not known.

The Meaning of the Sperm Donor for Heterosexual Couples: Confirming the Position of the Father

In the literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the meaning of donor involvement in the intimate couple dyad. The current study aimed to enrich our understanding of couples' meaning-making regarding the anonymous sperm donor and how they dealt with the donor involvement. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine couples, who had at least one child conceived through sperm donation. Our thematic analysis showed that the donor conception was seen as a different path to create a normal family. Once the family was formed, most couples avoided talking about the donor because it was perceived as disrupting men's growing confidence in their position as father. Participants tried to confirm the position of the father to protect the family relationships. Uncertainties about how they were perceived as parents showed the continuing dominance of genetic ties within our social discourse. Participants also dealt with reminders of the donor in their daily life. Overall, they tried to manage the space taken up by the donor and to protect the position of the father. We relate our findings to literature on topic avoidance and shared obliviousness in families. For counseling practice, it could be useful to explore couples' meaning-making about the donor as this seemed to serve family functioning.

How best to protect the vital interests of donor-conceived individuals: prohibiting or mandating anonymity in gamete donations?

Anonymous gamete donation continues to be practised in most jurisdictions around the world, but this practice has come under increased scrutiny. Thus, several countries now mandate that donors be identifiable to their genetic offspring. Critics contend that anonymous gamete donation harms the interests of donor-conceived individuals and that protection of these interests calls for legal prohibition of anonymous donations. Among the vital interests that critics claim are thwarted by anonymous donation are an interest in having a strong family relationship, health interests, and an interest in forming a healthy identity. This article discusses each of these interests and examines what they could involve. The legislation in two countries is considered: Spain, which mandates anonymous gamete donation, and the UK, which prohibits such practice, to assess how these different legislations might or might not protect these vital interests.

Family Communication About the Donor Conception: A Multi-Perspective Qualitative Study With Lesbian Parents and Their Children

In literature, disclosure of donor conception in lesbian families has been considered an obvious and straightforward event. However, little is known about the ways in which donor conception is discussed in planned lesbian co-mother families. This study focuses on the process of parent-child communication about the donor conception on a within-family level. Six families, including 7 children and 12 parents, were interviewed about their family communication with regard to donor conception. A dyadic interview analysis revealed that family members managed the space taken up by the topic of donor conception in their daily conversations. Within these conversations, they also took care of each other and of their family relationships. In addition, children had an active position in the co-construction of the donor conception narrative. Linking these findings to the concepts of relational management and functionality of donor conception narratives, this study informs practitioners in the field of medically assisted reproduction.

A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption

Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a detailed review of the social science literature in three parts: (1) stability of same-sex parental relationships, (2) child outcomes, and (3) child outcomes in same-sex adoption. Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children. With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor. While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families. Because of sampling limitations, we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adoptive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.

Female-partnered women conceiving kinship: Does sharing a sperm donor mean we are family?

This qualitative study explored how 36 initially female-partnered mothers defined their own, and their children's, relationships with families who share their unknown sperm donor (i.e., "linked" families). Shared genetics among children were sometimes sufficient to describe relationships among linked families as familial, especially from the children's perspectives. Most women described their own relationships with linked families as significant but not necessarily in traditional family terms. Family terms were sometimes seen as undermining ties to siblings and genetically unrelated mothers. As shared experiences have come to define "chosen family," definitions of significant relationships must expand to include those defined by shared genetics alone.

Identity Transformation During the Transition to Parenthood Among Same-Sex Couples: An Ecological, Stress-Strategy-Adaptation Perspective

This article reviews the current research on the potential stressors associated with identity transformation experienced by same-sex couples during the transition to parenthood and the coping strategies they employ. By integrating disparate findings into an ecological, stress-strategy-adaptation framework, we demonstrate that the identity transformation experiences among same-sex couples during the transition to parenthood (a) involve various adaptive processes of navigating different stressors via their human agency within multiple nested contexts; (b) are products of the intersections of individual characteristics, relational dynamics, LGBT community culture, and heterosexual sociostructural norms; and (c) are complicated by social contextual factors such as social class, race/ethnicity, family structure, and the sociocultural environment associated with geographic location. Last, several avenues for future inquiry are suggested.

Family Communication about Donor Conception: A Qualitative Study with Lesbian Parents

In this qualitative study of 10 lesbian couples who built their families through anonymous donor conception, we explore how lesbian parents experience communication about the donor conception within the family. While for these families "disclosure" of donor conception is often seen as evident, the way parents and children discuss this subject and how this is experienced by the parents themselves has not received much research attention. To meet this gap in the literature, in-depth interviews with lesbian couples were conducted. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis showed that this family communication process can be understood within the broader relational context of parent-child relationships. Even though parents handled this family communication in many different ways, these were all inspired by the same motives: acting in the child's best interest and-on a more implicit level-maintaining good relations within the family. Furthermore, parents left the initiative for talking about the DC mostly to the child. Overall, parents aimed at constructing a donor conception narrative that they considered acceptable for both the children and themselves. They used different strategies, such as gradual disclosure, limiting the meaning of the donor, and justifying the donor conception. Building an acceptable donor conception narrative was sometimes challenged by influences from the social environment. In the discussion, we relate this qualitative systemic study to the broader issues of selective disclosure and bidirectionality within families.

Female-partnered and single women's contact motivations and experiences with donor-linked families

STUDY QUESTION

What are female-partnered and single mothers' motivations and experiences at one donor insemination (DI) program with regard to contacting other families who share the same sperm donor?

SUMMARY ANSWER

By and large, women reported seeking contact to obtain (i) support for their children and/or themselves, and (ii) information about shared traits and medical problems, ultimately describing a range of contact experiences, both positive (e.g. special bond created) and negative (e.g. uncomfortable encounters).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There is a growing phenomenon of donor insemination families-parents and/or offspring-seeking others who share their donor (i.e. are 'donor-linked'). There is limited understanding about parental motivations and experiences-especially in the presence of a second parent-due to the methodological constraints of previous quantitative studies.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 50 donor insemination mothers (14 single, 36 female-partnered). Participants were recruited by email invitation to parent members of a family-matching service at one donor insemination program in the USA. The criterion for inclusion was having matched to at least one donor-linked family.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Among the 50 mothers interviewed, all had at least one child conceived via donor insemination, who was between ages 0 and 15 years at first contact. Families matched with a median of three donor-linked families (range 1-10). Interview data were analyzed through qualitative (i.e. thematic) analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overarching themes emerged of seeking contact to obtain (i) support and (ii) information about children's shared physical and psychological traits. Some wanted to increase their child's family network, through adding a sibling, but more often as extended family. Data, from partnered parents especially, revealed the challenges of balancing the boundaries of family formed without the genetic link with the perceived benefits of exploring the child's donor origins.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Interviews focused on openness and information-sharing were conducted with parents from one American donor insemination program. Findings are limited to individuals who were open enough to share their experiences and able to take the time to do so.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

As donor-linking services become established independently (e.g. donor insemination program registries) or by the government (e.g. Victoria, Australia's Voluntary Register), these findings provide evidence that linking services are valued by individuals affected by donor conception. Caution is warranted, however, in that some participants reported mismatched expectations, both across donor-linked families and within families (e.g. between partners), suggesting the need for information and guidance both during and after matching. Overall, the range and balance of reported positives and negatives indicate that donor-linking can provide individuals with support and donor origins information-which are particularly important when these are not available elsewhere.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Clark University provided support. No competing interests.

Sarantakos's Research on Same-Sex Parenting in Australia and New Zealand: Importance, Substance, and Corroboration with Research from the United States

Sarantakos (1996a) compared teacher ratings and other outcomes for the children of heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and homosexual parents and reported numerous significant, substantial differences. Few scholars have taken the effect sizes of his results into account or have considered his larger program of research. Sarantakos's research yielded many interesting findings with respect to children's academic performance, sexual orientation, use of alcohol and drugs, sexual deviance, and gender identity with respect to parents' parenting values, relationship stability, conflict, monogamy, and religiosity or moral values, many of which have been corroborated by U.S. or British research. In addition, the methodological quality of his research appears to be at least above average, especially for research done 20 or more years ago. He appears to have been unbiased with respect to same-sex families. His results disseminated via multiple publications should be taken into account in literature reviews concerning same-sex parenting.

LGB-parent families: the current state of the research and directions for the future

Over the past several decades, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) parenting has grown more visible. Alongside this enhanced visibility, research on the experiences of LGB parents and their children has proliferated. The current chapter addresses this research, focusing on several main content areas: family building by LGB people, the transition to parenthood for LGB parents, and functioning and experiences of LGB parents and their children. In the context of discussing what we know about LGB-parent families, we highlight gaps in our knowledge and point to key areas that future research should aim to answer, including how race, ethnicity, social class, and geographic factors shape the experiences of LGB-parent families.

Beyond sperm cells: a qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families

STUDY QUESTION

What meanings do lesbian couples construct regarding their sperm donor?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For some parents, the donor was increasingly presented as a person, whereas for other parents, the donor was seen as an instrument from the moment they received the sperm donation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Few studies specifically focus on how lesbian couples deal with the issue of third-party anonymous gamete donation. It is often assumed that they have fewer difficulties than heterosexual couples with the involvement of a male procreator, since their status as a donor conception family is 'socially visible' and there is no social father who fears exclusion.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 lesbian couples (20 participants), recruited via the Ghent University Hospital. All couples had at least one child, conceived through anonymous donor insemination, between 7 and 10 years old.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Within the data corpus, a particular data set was analyzed where couples referred to their donor and his position in their family. Step-by-step inductive thematic analysis was performed resulting in themes that are grounded in the data. All phases of the analysis were followed by team discussion.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This study reveals different donor constructs, indicating different ways of dealing with the third-party involvement in the family. Some parents diminish the role of the donor throughout family life and continue to present him as an instrument: something they needed in order to become parents. Others show an increasing interest in the donor as the children mature, which results in a more personalized account of the donor.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

In our qualitative cross-sectional study, we collected retrospectively constructed stories. Longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research is required to allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study shows how the concept of the donor is constructed within lesbian families and how it is challenged by the child's developing personality and features. When counseling prospective parents, it could therefore be useful to discuss the concept of the anonymous donor beyond the conception phase.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium. There are no competing interests.