This article examines queer intimacies produced by and within a growing industry in assisting human reproduction. Queer users of fertility biomedicine such as gay men, gender queer, and transgender people are constituted within expanded biomedical fertility services in ways similar to their heterosexual counterparts, reproduce more than humans: they reproduce consumer marketplaces, normativities, notions of belonging, and intensifying inequalities. Yet as they negotiate and, at times, reinforce these contours, they also participate in new kinship forms as they demand inclusion in one of the most durable and supported social practices: having children.
AgigianA. (2004). Baby steps: How lesbian alternative insemination is changing the world. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
2.
AlmelingR. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72, 319-340.
3.
Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice. (2005). New vision for advancing our movement for reproductive health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice. Oakland, CA: Author.
4.
BeckerG. (2000). The elusive embryo: How men and women approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
BhatiaR. (2012). Lifestyle sex selection: Reproduction, transnational flows, and inequality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/12717
6.
BoodmanS. (2005, January18). Fatherhood by a new formula: Using an egg donor and a gestational surrogate, some gay men are becoming dads—and charting new legal and ethical territory. The Washington Post, p. HE01.
7.
CahnN. (2013). The new kinship constructing donor-conceived families. New York: New York University Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Assisted reproductive technology: Fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta, GA: Author.
10.
ClarkeA.ShimJ.MamoL.FosketJ.FishmanJ. (2003). Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68, 161-194.
11.
ClarkeA.ShimJ.MamoL.FosketJ.FishmanJ. (2010). Biomedicalization: A theoretical and substantive introduction. In ClarkeA. E.ShimJ.MamoL.FosketJ.FishmanJ. (Eds.), Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the U.S. (pp. 1-46). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
ColenS. (1995). Like a mother to them: Stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and employers in New York. In GinsburgF. D.RappR. (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp. 78-102). Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
CooperM.WaldbyC. (2014). Clinical labor: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
14.
DarneyP. D. (2008). Hormonal contraception. In KronenbergH. M.MelmerS.PolonskyK. S.LarsenP. R. (Eds.), Williams textbook of endocrinology (11th ed., pp. 615-644). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
15.
DodgeD. (2014, June17). At the cutting edge of gay family law. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/UIgjUh
DresserR. (2000). Regulating assisted reproduction. Hastings Center Report, 30, 26-27.
18.
DugganL. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In CastronovoR.NelsonD. (Eds.), Materializing democracy (pp. 173-194). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
EpsteinR. (2002). Butches with babies: Reconfiguring gender and motherhood. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 41-57.
20.
FrankZ. B. (Producer). (2009). Google baby [Video recording]. New York, NY: Filmakers Library.
21.
FranklinS. (2013). IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
GamsonJ. (2014). The belly mommy and the fetus sitter: The reproductive marketplace and family intimacies. In FrankA.CloughP. T.SeidmanS. (Eds.), Intimacies: A new world of relational life (pp. 146-162). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
GinsburgF.D.RappR. (1995). Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
GoodwinM. (2010). Baby markets: Money and the new politics of creating families. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HertzR.MattesJ. (2011). Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers: New families, clans, and the internet. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1129-1155.
26.
IkemotoL. (2009). Eggs as capital: Human egg procurement in the fertility industry and the stem cell research enterprise. Signs, 34, 763-781.
27.
KolataG. (2002, January1). Fertility Inc.: Clinics race to lure clients. The New York Times, pp. 1-2.
28.
KrolokkeC.FossK. A.PantS. (2012). Fertility travel: The commodification of human reproduction. Cultural Politics, 8, 273-282.
29.
KawwassJ. F.MonsourM.CrawfordS.KissinD. M.SessionD. R.KulkarniA. D.JamiesonD. J. (2013). Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310, 2426-2434.
30.
MackenzieS. (2013). Structural intimacies: Sexual stories in the Black AIDS epidemic. Livingston, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
31.
MamoL. (2007). Queering reproduction: Achieving pregnancy in the age of technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
MamoL. (2010). Fertility Inc.: Consumption and subjectification in U.S. lesbian reproductive practices. In ClarkeA. E.MamoL.FosketJ. R.FishmanJ. R.ShimJ. K. (Eds.), Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the U.S. (pp. 173-196). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
MamoL. (2013). Queering the fertility clinic. Journal of Medical Humanities, 34, 227-239.
34.
MamoL.FishmanJ. (2013). Why justice? Introduction to the special issue on entanglements of science, ethics, and justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38, 159-175.
35.
MarkensS. (2007). Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Berkley: University of California Press.
36.
MooreL. (1997). “It’s like you use pots and pans to cook. It’s the tool”: The technologies of safer sex. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 22, 343-471.
37.
MooreL.GradyM. (2014). Putting daddy in the cart: Ordering sperm online. In NashM. (Ed.). Reframing reproduction: Sociological perspective on the intersection between gender, sexuality and reproduction in late modernity (pp. 185-201). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
38.
NixonL. (2013). The right to (trans) parent: A reproductive justice approach to reproductive rights, fertility, and family-building issues facing transgender people. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 20, 73.
39.
OngA.CollierS. J. (2005). Global assemblages, anthropological problems. In CollierS. J.OngA. (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems (pp. 3-21). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
40.
PandeA. (2014). Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
41.
PfefferC. (2012). Normative resistance and inventive pragmatism: Negotiating structure and agency in transgender families. Gender & Society, 26, 574-602.
42.
PfefferC. (in press). Postmodern partnerships: Women, transgender men, and twenty-first century queer families. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
43.
RichardsS. (2014, January12). The next frontier in fertility treatment. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/1af0Wqh
ShimJ. (2010). Cultural health capital: A theoretical approach to understanding health care interactions and the dynamics of unequal treatment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 1-15.
46.
SparD. (2006). The baby business: How money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
47.
ThompsonC. (2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
48.
TwineF. W. (2011). Outsourcing the womb: Race, class and gestational surrogacy in a global market. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
U.N. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (1994, September15-13). Programme of action of the international conference on population and development (Report of the international conference on population and development, Cairo, Egypt; U.N. Doc. A/CONF.171/13). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html
50.
VogelL. (2012). Age, sex, location . . . sperm count?Canadian Medical Association Journal/Journal De L’Association Medicale Canadienne, 184, E347-E348.
51.
World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2011). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people (Version 7). Retrieved from http://www.wpath.org
52.
ZhangG.GuY.WangX.CuiY.BremnerW. J. (1999). A clinical trial of injectable testosterone undecanoate as a potential male contraceptive in normal Chinese men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 84, 3642-3647.
