Search

In China, neither reproduction and parenthood by lesbian couples nor their marital status are regulated or protected by law. In 2020, the first legal dispute in China involving a lesbian couple over custody of their joint baby was heard in court. This study examines the legal and ethical issues that lesbian couples confront when they decide to give birth to a child of their own. These challenges begin with regulatory restrictions on their lawful access to assisted reproductive technology and extend to gaps in the legal establishment of parenthood. We found that the lack of access to legitimate reproductive assistance for lesbian couples in China has caused them to make efforts to circumvent laws and regulations to have a child. However, the legislative gaps later led to ethical dilemmas when resolving disputes over parenthood. This study discusses different accounts of establishing and determining natural parenthood in China and concludes by pointing out the urgent need for change in legislative and sociocultural attitudes toward both assisted reproductive technology and same-sex relationships, mapping the way forward for lesbian couples to obtain better protection of procreation and parenthood before their marriage is culturally accepted and finally legalized., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Emerging studies focus on minority stressors emanating from society's stigmatization of particular relationship forms (i.e., couple-level minority stressors). The present study examines how same-sex couples experience one such couple-level minority stressor: limitations to participation in families of origin. Qualitative data are drawn from a sub-sample of same-sex couples (N = 18) who participated in a large-scale study of minority stress among 120 same-sex couples distributed equally across two study sites (Atlanta and San Francisco) in 2012 and 2013. Instances of limitations to participation in families of origin ranged in severity, falling into three distinct areas: 1) partial acceptance , where some family members were accepting and others were not, 2) mixed messages where some family members said they were accepting but behaved as though they were not and, 3) rejection , where some family members were blatantly unwelcoming or hostile. These types of exclusion were also evidenced in dyadic minority stress processes of stress proliferation (e.g., stress discrepancies and stress contagion) causing additional stress for both partners. These narratives portray struggles associated with experiences of couple-level minority stress faced by people in same-sex relationships.

Study Question: In lesbian couples, is shared motherhood IVF (SMI) associated with an increase in perinatal complications compared with artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID)?, Summary Answer: Singleton pregnancies in SMI and AID had very similar outcomes, except for a non-significant increase in the rate of preeclampsia/hypertension (PE/HT) in SMI (recipient's age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.7-5.2; P = 0.19), but twin SMI pregnancies had a much higher frequency of PE/HT than AID twins (recipient's age-adjusted OR = 21.7, 95% CI = 2.8-289.4; P = 0.01)., What Is Known Already: Oocyte donation (OD) pregnancies are associated with an increase in perinatal complications, in particular, preterm delivery and low birth weight, and PE/HT. However, it is unclear to what extent these complications are due to OD process or to the conditions why OD was performed, such as advanced age and underlying health conditions. Unfortunately, the literature concerning perinatal outcomes in SMI is scarce., Study Design, Size, Duration: Retrospective study involving 660 SMI cycles (299 pregnancies) and 4349 AID cycles (949 pregnancies) assisted over a 10-year period., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All cycles fulfilling the inclusion criteria performed in lesbian couples seeking fertility treatment in 17 Spanish clinics of the same group. Pregnancy rates of SMI and AID cycles were compared. Perinatal outcomes were compared: gestational length, newborn weight, preterm and low birth rates, PE/HT rates, cesarean section rates, perinatal mortality, and newborn malformations., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Pregnancy rates were higher in SMI than in AID (45.3% versus 21.8%, P < 0.001). There was a non-significant trend to higher multiple rate in AID (4.7% versus 8.5%, P = 0.08). In single pregnancies, there were no differences between SMI and AID in gestational age (278 days (268-285) versus 279 (272-284), P = 0.24), preterm rate (8.3% versus 7.3%, P = 0.80), preterm <28 weeks (0.6% versus 0.4%, P = 1.00), newborn weight (3195 g (2915-3620) versus 3270 g (2980-3600), P = 0.296), low birth rate (6.4% versus 6.4%, P = 1.00), extremely low birth weight (0.6% versus 0.5%, P = 1.00), and the distribution of newborns by weight groups. Cesarean section rate, newborn malformation rate, and perinatal mortality were also similar in SMI and AID. Additionally, there was non-significant trend in hypertensive disorders to an increase in PE/HT among SMI (recipient's age-adjusted OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.7-5.2). Overall, perinatal data are consistent with what is reported in the general population. In twin pregnancies, the aforementioned perinatal parameters were also very similar in SMI and AID. However, SMI twin pregnancies had a very high risk of PE/HT when compared with AID (recipient's age-adjusted OR = 21.7, 95% CI = 2.8-289.4, P = 0.01)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Our data regarding the pregnancy course were obtained from information registered in the delivery report as well as from what was reported by the patients themselves, so a certain degree of inaccuracy cannot be ruled out. Additionally, in some parameters, there was up to 10% of data missing. However, since the methodology of reporting was the same in SMI and AID groups, one should not expect a differential reporting bias. It cannot be ruled out that the risk of PE/HT in simple gestations would be significant in a larger study. Additionally, in the SMI group allocation to the transfer of 2 embryos was not randomized so some bias is possible., Wider Implications of the Findings: SMI, if single embryo transfer is performed, seems to be is a safe procedure. Double embryo transfer should not be performed in SMI. Our data suggest that the majority of complications in OD could be related more with recipient status than with OD itself, since with SMI (performed in women without fertility problems) the perinatal complications were much lower than usually described in OD., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external funding was received. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: This study aimed to compare reproductive outcomes after Reception of Oocytes from Partner (ROPA; also called reciprocal in vitro fertilization) with those after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) with autologous oocytes, in lesbian couples. Methods: This was a retrospective matched cohort study of couples performing a first cycle of either ROPA ( n  = 60) or autologous IVF/ICSI ( n  = 120) between February 2012 and May 2018. Couples were matched 1:2 by age of the oocyte provider, day of embryo transfer (ET), and number of embryos transferred. Pregnancy and live birth rates after the first ET and cumulative results after all subsequent ETs performed until June 2019 were evaluated. Results: Reproductive outcomes were significantly better after ROPA at first ET: biochemical pregnancy 70.0% versus 47.5% ( p  = 0.004), clinical pregnancy 60.0% versus 40.0% ( p  = 0.011), ongoing pregnancy 60.0% versus 36.7% ( p  = 0.003), and live birth 57.1% versus 29.8% ( p  = 0.001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, and number of mature oocytes, we still observed a significant improvement across all outcomes in ROPA (live birth rate odds ratio [OR]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-6.57). Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were also higher after ROPA (live birth 66.1% vs. 43.4% [ p  = 0.005]). The adjusted analysis result for cumulative live birth was OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.14-5.54. Conclusion: When medically indicated, ROPA can potentially improve reproductive outcomes for lesbian couples through the possibility of selecting the best combination between two oocyte providers and two gestational mothers, provided that both women wish to participate in the pregnancy plan.

In this article, Susan Krieger reflects on how lesbian realities have figured in her published work over the years, although the word "lesbian" did not appear in the books' titles. Why the invisibility? What lessons are to be learned from exploring the frequent invisibility of lesbian subject matter? Krieger's discussion throws light on the challenges of writing and publishing from a lesbian perspective.

Introduction: France is known for its conservative and unique position in assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). At the eve of the future revision of French Bioethics laws, we decided to conduct a national survey to examine the opinions of French specialists in ARTs about social issues., Material and Methods: Descriptive study conducted in May 2017 in a university teaching hospital using an anonymous online questionnaire on current issues in ARTs. The questionnaire was sent by email to 650 French ARTs specialists, both clinicians and embryologists., Results: After 3 reminders, 408 responses were collected resulting in a participation rate of 62.7% (408/650). Concerning pre-implantation genetic testing, 80% of the physicians were in favor of expanding the indications, which in France are presently limited to incurable genetic diseases. Authorizing elective Fertility Preservation was supported by 93.4% of the specialists, but without social coverage for 86.3% of them. Concerning gamete donation, 77.4% of the French ARTs specialists were in favor of giving a financial compensation to donors, 92% promoted preserving their anonymity and 80.9% were against a directed donation. ARTs for single heterosexual women were supported by 63.4% of the French specialists and by 72.5% for lesbian couples. The legalization of surrogacy was requested by 55.2%., Discussion: Pending the revision of the French Bioethics laws, this survey provides an overview of the opinion of the specialists in ARTs on expanding ARTs for various social indications.Because of the evolution of social values, a more liberal and inclusive ART program is desired by the majority of ART specialists in France., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: Are there differences in the clinical outcomes of IUI among different populational groups (heterosexual couples, single women and lesbian couples)?, Summary Answer: The outcome of donor IUI (D-IUI) is similar in all populational groups and better than that seen with autologous insemination., What Is Known Already: A vast body of literature on clinical outcome is available for counselling heterosexual couples regarding decisions related to ART. The reproductive potential of single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples who need donor semen is assumed to be better, but there is a scarcity of data on their ART performance to actually confirm it., Study Design, Size, Duration: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, a total of 7228 IUI treatment cycles performed in 3807 patients between January 2013 and December 2016 in 13 private clinics belonging to the same reproductive medicine group in Spain were included. Patients with previous IUI attempts were excluded from the study. Only 1.9% of cycles were lost to follow-up., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A total of 5318 D-IUI cycles were performed in three different populational groups: heterosexual couples (D-HC, 1167 cycles), single women (SW, 2839 cycles) and lesbian couples (LC, 1312), while a total of 1910 autologous IUI cycles were performed in heterosexual couples (A-HC). This last one was considered the control group and was composed of cycles performed in couples with a male partner with sperm parameters equivalent to those requested from donors. In order to identify factors with an impact on clinical outcome, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Regarding live birth rate (LBR), mixed effect models were employed to control for the fact that different patients were submitted to different numbers of treatments., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Parameters that were significant to the primary outcome (LBR) according to the multivariate analysis were the populational group (D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC) to which the patient belonged, female age and a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve. At the age range of good prognosis (≤37 years), LBR was similar in all groups that underwent D-IUI (18.8% for D-HC, 16.5% for SW and 17.6% for LC) but was significantly lower in the autologous IUI (A-HC) group (11%). For all these significant findings, the strength of the association was confirmed by P values <0.001. From 38 years of age on, no significant differences were observed among the populational groups studied, and for all of them, LBR was below 7% from 40 years of age on., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: To the best of our knowledge, a smoking habit was the only known factor with a potential effect on ART outcome that could not be controlled for, due to the unavailability of this information in a significant percentage of the clinical files studied. Our study was not capable of precisely quantifying the impact of a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve on the LBR of both IUI and D-IUI, due to the number of cycles performed in patients with such diagnosis (n = 231, 3.2% of the total)., Wider Implications of the Findings: For the first time, a comparison among D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC was performed in a study with a robust sample size and controlling for potential sources of bias. There is now sound evidence that equivalent clinical outcome is seen in the three groups treated with donor semen (D-HC, SW and LC). Specifically, regarding the comparison between SW and LC, our findings rule out differences in LBR proposed by previous publications, with very similar clinical outcomes within the same age ranges. At age ranges of good prognosis (≤37 years), reproductive performance of D-IUI is significantly better than that seen in heterosexual couples undergoing autologous IUI, even when only cases of optimal sperm quality are considered in this last group. This finding is in agreement with the concept that, as a group, A-HC are more prone to have female factor infertility, even when their infertility assessment finds no contraindication to IUI. Age affects all these groups equally, with none of them reaching a 7% LBR after the age of 40 years. Our findings will be useful for the counselling of patients from the different populations studied here about ART strategies., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): None., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permission@oup.com.)

It has been over ten years since the last special issue regarding lesbian family lives appeared in the Journal of Lesbian Studies (volume 12, issue 2-3). In my introduction to this special issue, I offer perspectives on contemporary lesbian family lives from 2009-2019, considering three key questions: (1) What important social and legal changes have occurred over the last decade? (2) What have we learned about lesbian family lives during this time period? (3) What do we still not yet know?

Shared motherhood IVF treatment is becoming increasingly accepted among assisted reproductive techique practitioners and patients in Europe, although data on its overall efficiency remain scarce. This 6-year retrospective study from a single, private, UK HFEA-regulated centre included consecutive lesbian couples (n = 121) undergoing shared motherhood IVF treatment (141 cycles). Recipients were more parous and had undergone more previous intrauterine insemination and IVF treatments than donor partners, who had slightly higher ovarian reserve markers than recipients. Indications in most cycles (60%) were non-medical. Most (79%) egg-providers were stimulated with gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist protocol, and no moderate or severe cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) arose. A total of 172 fresh and vitrified-warmed embryo transfers were carried out: 70% at the blastocyst-stage and 58% involved a single embryo. Cumulative live birth rate per receiver was 60% (72/120), and twin delivery rate was 14% (10/72). Perinatal outcome parameters were better for singleton than twin pregnancies, although the latter also achieved generally favourable outcomes. No significant difference in cumulative outcomes were found between synchronized and non-synchronized cycles. Shared motherhood IVF combines ovarian stimulation with single blastocyst transfer to provide a safe and effective treatment modality offering reassuring obstetrical and perinatal outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the emerging context of marriage equality, it is important to explore the reasons for and experience of marriage for long-term same-sex couples, including the role of minority stress. In Wave 3 of the population-based, longitudinal CUPPLES Study we interviewed 21 long-term same-sex couples (14 female, 7 male) who resided in 12 different states and who were legally married. Couple members ranged in age from 37 to 84 and reported being together as a couple from 15 to 41 years. Seven couples lived in states that did not recognize their marriage at the time of the interview. Legal protection and social validation emerged as the two primary domains that captured couples' lived experiences of marriage. Minority stress experiences emerged in the narratives in the context of couples' long-term commitment, the availability of civil marriage, and couples' participation in activist efforts on behalf of marriage equality for themselves and others.

North American and global cultures in general-and the field of Couple and Family Therapy in particular-have made significant strides toward recognizing and validating LGBTQ identities and relationships. However, clinical assessment and conceptualization of queer couples still lack the complexity needed to encompass the issues involved in treatment. Existing literature provides clinicians a basic understanding of queer couples and the dynamics that make them unique from nonqueer couples. However, much of this knowledge has been normed on White middle-class couples and has rarely included couples with transgender or bisexual members. This article invites clinicians and researchers to apply a feminist model of intersectionality to understand queer couples. Our proposed intersectional lens considers multiple axes of identity and power and their interrelationships (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). We argue that intersectionality is important for understanding all identities, whether privileged or marginalized (Falicov, 2003). This application of the concept of intersectionality is unique in its relational focus, emphasizing how partners' complex individual identities overlap with and intersect with one another. Additionally, this lens considers how the therapists' and clients' multidimensional identities intersect. Three case studies are presented to illustrate application of the intersectional lens. In each case, exploring the partners' multiple social locations, their influences on one another, and the therapist's intersections of identity all proved critical to the direction of therapy., (© 2015 Family Process Institute.)