Under current legal regulations, when undertaking donor insemination at British
clinics, women are able to ‘choose’ particular characteristics
of donors. It is also permissible to reserve sperm from a particular donor for
future use. These provisions have traditionally been associated with facilitating
heterosexual couples to ‘pass’ as ‘the
family’. In contrast, this article discusses the significance of these
practices for some lesbian couples. I explore the construction of implied (racial
and cultural) bio-genetic links between donor-conceived children and co-mothers, and
to co-mothers’ extended families. I also examine the use of the same donor
for ‘full’ siblings. In conclusion I discuss some of the
implications for our understanding of lesbian family construction.
Bock, J. D.
(2000)
‘Doing the Right Thing? Single Mothers by Choice and the Struggle
for Legitimacy’
, Gender and Society14(1):
62-86
.
2.
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
.
3.
Comeau, D.
(1999)
‘Lesbian Nonbiological Mothering: Negotiating an (Un)familiar Existence’
, Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering1(2):
44-57
.
4.
Cooper, D.
and
Herman, D.
(1995) ‘Getting “the Family
Right”: Legislating Heterosexuality in Britain,
1986-1991’ in
D. Herman
and
C. Stychin
(eds) Legal Inversions: Lesbians, Gay Men and the Politics of Law,
pp. 162-179.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
.
5.
Cussins, C.
(1998) ‘Quit Snivelling, Cryo-baby.
We’ll Work Out Which One’s Your Mama!’,
in
Davis-Floyd, R.
and
Dumit, J.
(eds) Cyborg Babies From Techno-Sex to Techno Tots, pp.
40-66.
London: Routledge
.
6.
Donovan, C.
(2000)
‘Who Needs a Father? Negotiating Biological Fatherhood in British
Lesbian Families Using Self-Insemination’
, Sexualities3(2):
149-164
.
7.
Dunne, G. A.
(2000)
‘Opting into Motherhood. Lesbians Blurring the Boundaries and
Transforming the Meaning of Parenthood and Kinship’
, Gender and Society14(1):
11-35
.
8.
Finch, J.
(1996) ‘Women, “the Family”
and Families’, in
T. Cosslet
,
A. Easton
and
P. Summerfield
(eds) Women, Power and Resistance: An Introduction to Women’s
Studies, pp. 13-22.
Buckingham: Open University Press
.
9.
Foucault, M.
(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 1972-1977 (trans. C. Gordon).
Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf
.
10.
Foucault, M.
(1983) ‘The Subject and
Power’, afterword in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, pp.
229-264.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
.
11.
Franklin, S.
(1997) Embodied Progress A Cultural Account of Assisted
Conception, pp. 127-165.
London: Routledge
.
12.
Franklin, S.
(1999) ‘Making Representations: The
Parliamentary Debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act’, in J. Edwards, S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Price and M.
Strathern Technologies of Procreation Kinship in the Age of Assisted
Conception (2nd edition).
London: Routledge
.
13.
Franklin, S.
and
McKinnon, S.
(eds) (2001) Relative Values. Reconfiguring Kinship
Studies.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press
.
14.
Gabb, J.
(1999)
‘Imag(in)ing the Queer Lesbian Family’
, Journal of the Association on Research in Mothering1(2):
9-20
.
15.
Haimes, E.
(1990) ‘Recreating the Family? Policy
Considerations Relating to the “New” Reproductive
Technologies’, in
M. McNeil
,
I. Varcoe
and
S. Yearley
(eds) The New Reproductive Technologies, pp.
154-172.
London: Macmillan
.
16.
Haimes, E.
and
Weiner, K.
(2000)
‘ “Everybody’s got a dad...” Issues
for Lesbian Families in the Management of Donor Insemination’
, Sociology of Health and Illness22(4):
477-499
.
17.
Hayden, C. P.
(1995)
‘Gender Genetics and Generation: Reformulating Biology in Lesbian Kinship’
, Cultural Anthropology10(1):
41-63
.
18.
HFEA
(1990) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
London: HMSO
.
19.
HFE Authority (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)
(2001) Code of Practice (5th edition).
London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
.
20.
HFE Authority (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)
(2004) Code of Practice (6th edition).
London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
.
21.
Johnson, M.
(1999) ‘A Biomedical Perspective on
Parenthood’, in
A. Bainham
,
S. DaySclater andM. Richards
(eds) What is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis, pp.
47-71.
Cambridge: Hart Publishing
.
22.
Millns, S.
(1995) ‘Making “Social Judgements that
go Beyond the Purely Medical”: The Reproductive Revolution and Access
to Fertility Treatment Services’, in
J. Bridgeman
and
S. Millns
(eds) Law and Body Politics Regulating the Female Body, pp.
79-104.
Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing
.
23.
Mays, A.
(1994)
‘Personal View of Donor Insemination: Living With DI’
, ISSUE NewsletterWinter:
7
.
24.
Morgan, D.
and
Lee, R. G.
(1991) Blackstone’s Guide to the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Abortion and Embryo Research The New
Law.
London: Blackstone Press
.
25.
Richards, M.
(2002) ‘Future Bodies: Some History and Future
Prospects for Human Genetic Selection’, in A. Bainham, S. Day
Sclater and M. Richards Body Lore and Laws, pp.
289-308.
Oxford: Hart Publishing
.
26.
Saffron, L.
(1994) Challenging Conceptions - Planning a Family by
Self-Insemination.
London: Cassell
.
27.
Saffron, L.
(1996) What About the Children? Sons and Daughters of Lesbian
and Gay Parents Speak About Their Lives.
London: Cassell
.
28.
Saffron, L.
(1998) Challenging Conceptions. Planning a Family by
Self-Insemination.
Bristol: Lisa Saffron
.
29.
Sawicki, J.
(1991) Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power and the
Body.
London: Routledge
.
30.
Silva, E.
and
Smart, C.
(1999) ‘The “New” Practices
and Politics of Family Life’, in
E. Silva
and
C. Smart
(eds) The New Family?, pp. 1-12London: Sage
.
31.
Snowden, R.
and
Mitchell, G. D.
(1981) The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial
Insemination by Donor.
London: Allen and Unwin
.
32.
Snowden, E.
and
Snowden, R.
(1998) ‘Families Created Through Donor
Insemination’, in
K. Daniels
and
E. Haimes
(eds) Donor Insemination International Social Science
Perspectives, pp. 33-52.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
33.
Strathern, M.
(1992a) Reproducing the Future: Essays on Anthropology,
Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies.
Manchester: Manchester University Press
.
34.
Strathern, M.
(1992b) After Nature English Kinship in the Late Twentieth
Century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
35.
Thompson, C.
(2001) ‘Strategic Naturalizing: Kinship in an
Infertility Clinic’, in
S. Franklin
and
S. McKinnon
(eds) Relative Values Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, pp.
175-202.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press
.
36.
Weston, K.
(1991) Families We Choose.
New York: Columbia University Press
.
37.
Wilson, S.
(1997)
‘Identity, Genealogy and the Social Family: The Case of Donor Insemination’
, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family11(2):
270-297
.
