In Denmark and Sweden sperm donation is the most debated and contested of the reproductive technologies that are currently in use. Although the two countries are neighbouring welfare states with public healthcare in common, policies and practices of sperm banking and sperm donation differ strongly. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, this article explores how the sperm used for donor insemination is narrated, chosen, produced and consumed at sperm banks in Denmark and Sweden.The analysis illustrates that marginalization and stigmatization of infertile men, donors, single women, lesbians and donor children not only takes place in the media and during debates in the Danish and Swedish parliaments where the technology has historically been contested, but also at the sperm banks and fertility clinics. This article therefore calls for more inclusive stories on sperm donation to be narrated.
Adrian S. ( 2006) Nye skabelsesberetninger om æg, sæd og embryoner.Et etnografisk studie af skabelser på sædbanker og fertilitetsklinikker, Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences No. 370. Linköping: LiU-Tryck.
2.
Becker G. ( 2000) The Elusive Embryo: How Women and Men Approach New Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Bryld M. ( 2001) The infertility clinic and the birth of the lesbian: The political debate on assisted reproduction in Denmark. European Journal of Women’s Studies8(3): 299-312.
4.
Bryld M. and Lykke N. ( 2000) Cosmodolphins: Feminist Cultural Studies of Technology, Animals and the Sacred. London: Zed Books.
5.
Carlsen EM ( 2003) Giftig sæd I banken. BT, 24 October, p. 2.
6.
Daniels C. ( 2006) Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
7.
Daniels C. and Golden J. ( 2004) Procreative compounds popular eugenics, artificial insemination, and the rise of the American sperm banking industry. Journal of Social History38(1): 5-27.
8.
Franklin S. ( 1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction . London: Routledge.
9.
Franklin S., Lury C. and Stacey J. ( 2000) Global Nature, Global Culture. London : Sage.
10.
Goggin ML and Orth D. ( 2004) The United States: National talk and state action in governing ART. In: Bleiklie I et al. (eds) Comparative Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies . London: Routledge, 82-101.
11.
Haimes E. ( 1993) Issues of gender in gamete donation. Social Science and Medicine36(1): 85-93. Haraway D. ( 1989) Primate Visions: Gender Race and the Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge .
12.
Haraway D. ( 1992) Ecce homo, ain’t (ar’n’t) I a woman, and inappropriate/d others: The human in a post-humanist landscape. In: Butler J and Scott J (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge, 86-100.
13.
Inhorn M. ( 2003) Local Babies, Global Science: Gender Religion, and in Vitro Fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge.
14.
Kroløkke C.(2009) Click a donor: Viking masculinity on the line. Journal of Consumer Culture9(7): 7-30.
15.
Lalos A., Gottlieb C. and Lalos O. ( 2007) Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction22(6): 1759-1768.
16.
Liljestrand P. ( 1990) Rhetoric and reason: Donor insemination politics in Sweden. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Francisco.
17.
Liljestrand P. ( 1995) Legitimate state and illegitimate parents: Donor insemination politics in Sweden. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society2(3): 270-304.
18.
Lund H. and Christensen B. ( 2003a) Hans gener spredt over hele verden. BT, 24 October, p. 4.
19.
Lund H. and Christensen B. ( 2003b) Sædbank kan ikke undgå psykopater. BT, 24 October, pp. 6-7.
20.
Lund H. and Christensen B. ( 2003c) Overlæge: Jeg ville overveje en abort. BT, 24 October, p. 7.
21.
Lützen K. ( 2000) Nogle ideologiske-moralske rødder til velfærdsstatens familiepolitik. Arbejder Historie, Tidsskrift for Historie, Kultur og Politik4: 4-16.
22.
Nyboe Andersen A., Gianaroli L., Felberbaum R., De Mouzon J. and Nygren KG ( 2006) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction21(7):1680-1697. Available at: www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=496.
23.
Polkinghorne D. ( 1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Polkinghorne D. ( 1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education8(1): 5-23.
25.
Schmidt M. and Moore LJ ( 1998) Constructing a ‘good catch’, picking a winner: The development of technosemen and the deconstruction of the monolithic male . In: Davis-Floyd R and Dumit J (eds) Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots. New York: Routledge , 21-39.
26.
Socialstyrelsen (2009) Bilaga 3: Assisted Reproduction Results of Treatment 2006. Available at: www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/8316/2009-125-5_bilaga3.pdf .
27.
Stormhøj C. ( 2002) Queering the family: Critical reflections on state-regulated heteronormativity in the Scandinavian countries. In: Söderström G and Magnusson J (eds) Farväl heteronormativitet. Stockholm: Lambda Nordica Förlag, 38-56.
28.
Strathern M. ( 1987) Out of context: The persuasive fictions of anthropology . Current Anthropology28(3): 251-281.
29.
Strathern M. ( 1992) Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
30.
Thompson C. ( 2001) Strategic naturalization: Kinship in an infertility clinic . In: Franklin S and McKinnon S (eds) Relative Values, Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 175-202.
31.
Thomson C. ( 2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32.
Waldby C. and Mitchell R. ( 2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press
33.
Williams L. ( 1989) Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the ‘Frenzy of the Visible’. Berkeley: University of California Press
