Family resemblances and connectedness constitute a recent interest in sociological debate. This article seeks to build on and expand this debate by empirically exploring the meaning of physical family resemblances in the context of lesbian donor conception. This constitutes a neglected area as previous studies primarily explore gamete donation and physical resemblances in the context of heterosexual assisted conception. Considerably less attention has been paid to the specific dynamics inherent to lesbian donor conception. The article draws on a qualitative study comprising 25 lesbian couples in England and Wales with experiences of pursuing both self-arranged and clinical donor conception in the context of a lesbian couple relationship. Building on work in the area of kin, connectedness and family resemblance, this article argues that seeking resemblances can be as much about creating distance as connectedness in the context of lesbian couple donor conception.
Almack, K. ( 2008) ‘Display Work: Lesbian Parent Couples and their Families of Origin Negotiating New Kin Relationships’, Sociology42(6): 1183-99.
2.
BBC News (2009) ‘Lesbians Given Equal Birth Rights’, 31 August, URL (consulted September 2009): http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8225158.stm
3.
Becker, G., A. Butler and R.D. Nachtigall ( 2005) ‘Resemblance Talk: A Challenge for Parents whose Children Were Conceived with Donor Gametes in the US’, Social Science and Medicine61: 1300-9.
4.
Carsten, J. ( 2001) ‘Substantivism, Antisubstantivism and Anti-antisubstantivism’ , in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds) Relative Values. Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, pp. 29-53. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
Donovan, C. ( 2008) ‘It’s not Really Seen as an Issue, You Know, Lesbian Infertility it’s Kind of "What’s That?"’: Lesbians’ Unsuccessful Experiences of Medicalised Donor Insemination’, Medical Sociology Online3(1): 15-24, URL (consulted January 2009): http://www.medicalsociologyonline.org/
6.
Dunne, G. ( 1997) Lesbian Lifestyle: Women’s Work and the Politics of Sexuality. Basingstoke: Macmillan .
7.
Finch, J. ( 2007) ‘Displaying Families’, Sociology41(1): 65-81.
8.
Finch, J. and J. Mason ( 1993) Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London: Tavistock/Routledge.
9.
Finch, J. and J. Mason ( 2000) Passing on: Kinship and Inheritance in England. London: Routledge.
10.
Franklin, S. and S. McKinnon ( 2001) ‘Introduction. Relative values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies’, in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds) Relative Values. Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, pp. 1-25. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
Franklin, S. et al. (2000) ‘Introduction’, in S. Franklin, C. Lury and J. StaceyGlobal Nature, Global Culture, pp. 1-16. London: Sage.
12.
Graham, H. ( 2007) Unequal Lives: Health and Socio-economic Inequalities . Maidenhead: Open University Press .
13.
Haimes, E. ( 1992) ‘Gamete Donation and the Social Management of Genetic Origins’, in M. Stacey (ed.) Changing Human Reproduction. Social Science Perspectives, pp. 119-47. London : Sage.
14.
Haimes, E. and K. Weiner ( 2000) ‘"Everybody’s Got a Dad …". Issues for Lesbian Families in the Management of Donor Insemination’, Sociology of Health and Illness22(4): 477-99.
15.
Hfea (2004) Code of Practice , 6th edn. URL (consulted September 2009): http://hfea.gov.uk
16.
Hfea (2006) ‘Figures for Treatment of Single Women and Lesbian Couples, 2000- 2005’, URL (consulted October 2006): http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/hfea
17.
Jones, C. ( 2005) ‘Looking Like a Family: Negotiating Bio-genetic Continuity in British Lesbian Families Using Licensed Donor Insemination’ , Sexualities8(2): 221-37.
18.
Marre, D. and J. Bestard ( 2009) ‘The Family Body: Persons, Bodies and Resemblance’ , in J. Edwards and C. Salazar (eds) European Kinship in the Age of Biotechnology , pp. 64-78. Fertility, Reproduction and Sexuality Series. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
19.
Mason, J. ( 1996) Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
20.
Mason, J. ( 2008) ‘Tangible Affinities and the Real Life Fascination of Kinship’, Sociology42(1): 29-45.
21.
Morgan, D. ( 1996) Family Connections. An Introduction to Family Studies . Cambridge: Polity.
22.
Nelkin, D. ( 2006) ‘Gene as a Cultural Icon’, in A. Clarke and F. Ticehurst (ed.) Living with the Genome, pp. 171-6. Houndmills : Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
Nordqvist, P. ( 2009) ‘Conceiving Together. Lesbian Couples’ Pursuit of Donor Conception’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of York.
24.
Nordqvist, P. (forthcoming 2011) ‘Dealing with sperm: comparing lesbians’ clinical and non-clinical donor conception processes’, Sociology of Health and Illness.
25.
Quiroga, S. ( 2007) ‘Blood is Thicker than Water: Policing Donor Insemination and the Reproduction of Whiteness’, Hypatia22(2): 143-61.
26.
Rabinow, P. ( 1996) Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Richards, M. ( 2006) ‘Heredity: Lay Understanding’, in A. Clarke and F. Ticehurst (eds) Living with the Genome, pp. 177-82. Houndmills : Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
Smart, C. ( 2007) Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking . Cambridge: Polity.
29.
Stonewall (2008) ‘A Guide to Conception through Donor Insemination’, URL (consulted August 2008): http://www.stonewall.org.uk
30.
Strathern, M. ( 1992) Reproducing the Future. Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
31.
Strathern, M. ( 1995) ‘Displacing Knowledge. Technology and the Consequences for Kinship’, in F. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (eds) Conceiving the New World Order. The Global Politics of Reproduction, pp. 346-63. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.
32.
Wallbank, J. ( 2004) ‘Reconstructing the HFEA 1990: Is Blood Really Thicker than Water?’, Child and Family Law Quarterly16(4): 387-4.
33.
X v Y (2002) S.L.T (Sh Ct) 161, accessed via Westlaw UK.
