Reproductive technologies, such as self-arranged donor conception, clinical donor insemination and in vitro fertilization, now have an established place in lesbian reproductive practices, providing a route to conception which separates reproduction from heterosexual intercourse. This article explores how lesbian reproduction figures within feminist studies of reproductive technologies. It critically engages with representations of reproduction and structures of sexuality in early and more recent feminist studies of reproductive technologies. Specifically, the article investigates constructions of reproduction, technology and sexuality in key ethnographic studies by Sarah Franklin, Charis Thompson and Rayna Rapp. The findings suggest that heterosexuality is foundational to, and yet invisible within, this feminist research into reproductive technologies. Endorsing Chrys Ingraham's concept of a `heterosexual imaginary', I argue that this research reproduces a heterosexual imaginary of procreation, continuously representing conception as heterosexual despite the separation of conception and heterosexual sex realizable through reproductive technology. It effectively renders lesbian reproduction inconceivable.
Adam, B. (2002) `From Liberation to Transgression and Beyond: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Studies at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century', pp. 15-26 in D. Richardson and S. Seidman (eds) Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: SAGE.
2.
Agigian, A. (2004) Baby Steps: How Lesbian Alternative Insemination is Changing the World. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
3.
Barney, S. (2005) `Accessing Medicalised Donor Sperm in the US and Britain: An Historical Narrative', Sexualities8(2): 205-20.
4.
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.
5.
Burfoot, A. (1990) `The Normalisation of a New Reproductive Technology' , pp. 58-73 in M. McNeil, I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
6.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
7.
Chabot, J. and B. Ames (2004) `It Wasn't "Let's Get Pregnant and Go Do It": Decision Making in Lesbian Couples Planning Motherhood via Donor Insemination', Family Relations53(4): 348-56.
8.
Crowe, C. (1990) `Whose Mind over Whose Matter? Women, in vitro Fertilisation and the Development of Scientific Knowledge', pp. 27-57 in M. McNeil, I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies . New York: St. Martin's Press .
9.
Cussins, C. (1998) `Producing Reproduction: Techniques of Normalization and Naturalization in Infertility Clinics', pp. 66-101 in S. Franklin and H. Ragoné (eds) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.
Department of Health (2006) Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Proposal for Revised Legislation (Including Establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos). URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/14/13/15/04141315.pdf (accessed 23 January 2007).
11.
Edemariam, A. (2008) `Do Families Need Fathers?', The Guardian 20 May.
12.
Edwards, J., S. Franklin, E. Hirsh, F. Price and M. Strathern (1999) Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception. New York: Routledge.
13.
Firestone, S. ([1970] 1997) `The Dialectic of Sex', pp. 19-26 in L. Nicholson (ed.) The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. London: Routledge.
14.
Franklin, S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.
15.
Fuss, D. (1991) `Inside/Out', pp. 1-10 in D. Fuss (ed.) Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. London: Routledge.
16.
Haimes, E. (1992) `Gamete Donation and the Social Management of Genetic Origins', pp. 119-47 in M. Stacey (ed.) Changing Human Reproduction: Social Science Perspectives. London: SAGE.
17.
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.
18.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
19.
Helén, I. (2004) `Technics Over Life: Risk, Ethics and the Existential Condition in High-Tech Antenatal Care', Economy and Society33(1): 28-51.
20.
Henwood, F. (2001) `In/different Screening: Contesting Medical Knowledge in an Antenatal Setting', pp. 37-50 in F. Henwood, H. Kennedy and N. Miller (eds) Cyborg Lives? Women's Technobiographies. York: Raw Nerve Books.
21.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ( 2006) `Figures for Treatment of Single Women and Lesbian Couples 2000-2005'. URL: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/hfea (accessed 31 October 2006).
22.
Ingraham, C. (1996) `The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology and Theories of Gender', pp. 168-93 in S. Seidman (ed.) Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
23.
Jackson, S. (2001) `Why a Materialist Feminism is (Still) Possible - and Necessary', Women's Studies International Forum24(3/4): 283-93.
24.
Jackson, S. (2006) `Gender, Sexuality and Heterosexuality: The Complexity (and Limits) of Heteronormativity', Feminist Theory7(1): 105-21.
25.
Kornelsen, J. (2005) `Essences and Imperatives: An Investigation of Technology in Childbirth', Social Science and Medicine61: 1495-1504.
26.
Lasker, J. (1998) `The Users of Donor Insemination', pp. 7-32 in K. Daniels and E. Haimes (eds) Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Lewin, E. (1993) Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture. London: Cornell University Press.
28.
McManus, A.J., L.P. Hunter and H. Renn (2006) `Lesbian Experiences and Needs During Childbirth' , JOGNN - Journal of Obstetric Gynaecologic and Neonatal Nursing35(1): 13-23.
29.
McNeil, M. (1990) `Reproductive Technologies: A New Terrain for the Sociology of Technology', pp. 1-26 in M. McNeil, I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
30.
McNeil, M.,I. Varcoe and S. Yearley, eds ( 1990) The New Reproductive Technologies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
31.
Mamo, L. (2007) `Negotiating Conception: Lesbians' Hybrid-Technological Practices', Science, Technology and Human Values32(3): 369-93.
32.
Oakley, A. (1976) `Wisewoman and Medicine Man: Changes in the Management of Childbirth', in J. Mitchell and A. Oakley (eds) The Rights and Wrongs of Women. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
33.
Oakley, A. (1987) `From Walking Wombs to Test-Tube Babies', pp. 36-56 in M. Stanworth (ed.) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Cambridge : Polity Press.
34.
Parry, D. (2005) `Women's Experience with Infertility: The Fluidity with Conceptualizations of "Family"', Qualitative Sociology28(3): 275-91.
35.
Peterson, M. (2005) `Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Equity of Access Issues', Journal of Medical Ethics31: 280-5.
36.
Ragoné, H. (1998) `Incontestable Motivations', pp. 118-31 in S. Franklin and H. Ragoné (eds) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
37.
Rapp, R. (1999) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York and London: Routledge.
38.
`Resolution from the FINRRAGE Conference, July 3-8, 1985, Vallinge, Sweden' ( 1987) pp. 211-12 in P. Spallone and D. Steinberg (eds) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
39.
Rich, A. ([1980] 1993) `Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence', pp. 227-54 in H. Abelove, M. A. Barale and D. M. Halperin (eds) The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
40.
Roberts, C. and S. Franklin (2004) `Experiencing New Forms of Genetic Choice: Findings from an Ethnographic Study of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis', Human Fertility7(4): 285-93.
41.
Rothman, B. (1994) The Tentative Pregnancy: Amniocentesis and the Sexual Politics of Motherhood. London: Pandora.
42.
Saffron, L. (1998) Challenging Conceptions: Planning a Family by Self-insemination . (Printed by author.)
43.
Sandelowski, M. and S. de Lacey (2002) `The Uses of a "Disease": Infertility as Rhetorical Vehicle', pp. 33-51 in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (eds) Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies . Berkeley: University of California Press.
44.
Scott, S. and S. Jackson (2006) `Sexuality', pp. 233-50 in G. Payne (ed.) Social Divisions, 2nd edn. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan .
45.
Spallone, P. and D. Steinberg , eds (1987) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
46.
Stanworth, M. (1987a) `Reproductive Technologies and the Deconstruction of Motherhood', pp. 10-35 in M. Stanworth (ed.) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press.
47.
Stanworth, M., ed. (1987b) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Cambridge : Polity Press.
48.
Steinberg, D. (1990) `The Depersonalisation of Women through the Administration of in vitro Fertilisation', pp. 74-122 in M. McNeil , I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies . New York: St. Martin's Press .
49.
Strathern, M. (1992) Reproducing the Future: Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester : Manchester University Press.
50.
Strathern, M. (1995) `Displacing Knowledge: Technology and the Consequences for Kinship', pp. 346-63 in F. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (eds) Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
Sullivan, M. (2004) The Family of Woman: Lesbian Mothers, their Children, and the Undoing of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
Taylor, J. (2000) `Of Sonograms and Baby Prams: Prenatal Diagnosis, Pregnancy and Consumption', Feminist Studies26(2): 391-418.
53.
Thompson, C. (2001) `Strategic Naturalizing: Kinship in an Infertility Clinic', pp. 175-202 in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
54.
Thompson, C. (2002) `Fertile Ground: Feminists Theorize Infertility' , pp. 52-78 in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (eds) Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
55.
Thompson, C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
Ulrich, M. and A. Weatherall (2000) `Motherhood and Infertility: Viewing Motherhood through the Lens of Infertility', Feminism and Psychology10(3): 323-36.
57.
Van Balen, F. and M. Inhorn (2002) `Introduction. Interpreting Infertility: A View from the Social Sciences', pp. 3-32 in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (eds) Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies . Berkeley: University of California Press.
58.
Van der Plog, I. (2004) `"Only Angels Can Do Without Skin": On Reproductive Technology's Hybrids and the Politics of Body Boundaries', Body and Society10(2-3): 153-81.
59.
Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
60.
Wittig, M. ([1981] 1993) `One is Not Born a Woman', pp. 103-9 in H. Abelove, M. A. Barale and D. M. Halperin (eds) The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. London : Routledge.
