Surrogacy, feminism and LGBTQ2S+ family building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surrogacy plays a key role in enabling LGBTQ2S+ family building. However, many LGBTQ2S+ intended parents have faced, and continue to experience difficulties accessing surrogacy and other forms of reproductive technologies. Even in countries where absolute prohibitions on surrogacy do not exist, LGBTQ2S+ persons may face barriers to building their families through surrogacy including through parentage laws, heteronormative clinical practices and financial obstacles. Feminist scholars and activists are divided on whether these restrictions or prohibitions are warranted. In this chapter, we argue that law and policymakers can introduce measures which support LGBTQ2S+ parents while nonetheless protecting surrogates’ rights and interests. We use Canada as a case study to illustrate how law and policymaking impacts family building through surrogacy for LGBTQ2S+ families. We focus on four areas: (1) recognition of parental rights and responsibilities; (2) transnational or cross-border family building; (3) care by fertility clinics and hospitals; and (4) financial considerations. In our view, the Canadian experience may provide helpful insight for other jurisdictions seeking to reform their surrogacy laws in order to protect both the interests of surrogates and LGBTQ2S+ families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".