"No perogative to create rainbow families" at Calgary fertility clinic

[lokiki]

Thoughts?

 

A single woman was doing IVF at the fertility clinic in Calgary (the only one in Calgary). She requested a particular sperm donor, and the refused her request based on the fact that he is not white (like her).

“I’m not sure that we should be creating rainbow families just because some single woman decides that that’s what she wants,” he said. “That’s her prerogative, but that’s not her prerogative in our clinic.”

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/25/no-prerogative-to-create-rainbow-families-calgarys-only-fertility-centre-restricts-donations-that-dont-match-ethnicity/

 

The clinic released an update, hitting the news cycle today, that they no longer have this policy in place. Moreover, they are saying that one of the doctors at the clinic was no stating their views when he made the comment I quoted above.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Fertility+clinic+claims+ended+policy+about+ethnic+donors+more+than+year/10071895/story.html

[xkittens]

I .... hate people.

[rmorelan]

People still care about that sort of thing?

 

I always have to surprise my surprise

[seeking1]

Well I, for one, would prefer a violet-skinned child.

[Renoir]

Well I, for one, would prefer a violet-skinned child.

 

In the words of Mitch Hedberg, Whoa whoa whoa. Purple people? I say down with purple people.

[lexiiiluther]

That's just ridiculous... I guess you should only be able to adopt within the same ethnic background as well then!

 

I also can't believe that this policy was upheld after the incident 5 years ago...

 

And their reasoning about not wanting designer babies? I guess that means we shouldn't be able to decide what our children look like at all? Who are these people? Ridiculous.

[Birdy]

Well, I should just go stick a Chanel label on my kids, then.

 

We pick mates - from a biological standpoint -based on characteristics that we feel will contribute to healthier children. If this woman feels that particular donor's attributes will contribute to healthy, successful children, then that is all that matters. No different than choosing a donor with blue eyes or red hair or dimples. The only difference is we're talking skin instead of hair colour.

 

I will say I find the 'rainbow families' thing annoying. We aren't a rainbow. We are a family. My kids and husband tan, I don't. My son and I have freckles, my husband and daughter don't. Both kids have darker hair than either of us, but with natural red highlights like me. That's as much concern as we put into colouration.

[Mithrandir]

I actually think the doctor has a point. The idea that skin colour doesn't matter is ridiculous. Different races and different ethnicities have countless rich histories, languages, traditions, beliefs. Countless cultural values that have every right to be passed down and protected and exist in a world that is very much white-washed.

Why does this white woman want a child of another race when she has no understanding or connection to that culture? I think the doctor, when saying he has no intention of creating "rainbow families" just because this woman decides thats what she wants, is questioning the women's motives. Why choose a child of a different race? Is it so she'll feel better about herself? Because it seems like some "white-savior" rhetoric to me. It's one thing to adopt a child of a different race (this is a child that has no home and that's different) but to create a child, on purpose, of a different race, with absolutely no connection to the culture and history that comes with that race, or any personal understanding of the struggles that come with race is simplifying race to the colour of one's skin.

And it's not... coloured people face many different degrees of struggles that we’re implemented by white people via conquests using weapons such as warfare, religion indoctrination, and oppression.

 

This reminds me of a quote by one of my favourite theorists, bell hooks:

 

“Since the notion that we should all forsake attachment to race and/or cultural identity and be “just humans” within the framework of white supremacy has usually meant that subordinate groups must surrender their identities, beliefs, values, and assimilate by adopting the values and beliefs of privileged-class whites, rather than promoting racial harmony this thinking has created a fierce cultural protectionism.”

[Mithrandir]

Well, I should just go stick a Chanel label on my kids, then.

 

We pick mates - from a biological standpoint -based on characteristics that we feel will contribute to healthier children. If this woman feels that particular donor's attributes will contribute to healthy, successful children, then that is all that matters. No different than choosing a donor with blue eyes or red hair or dimples. The only difference is we're talking skin instead of hair colour.

I will say I find the 'rainbow families' thing annoying. We aren't a rainbow. We are a family. My kids and husband tan, I don't. My son and I have freckles, my husband and daughter don't. Both kids have darker hair than either of us, but with natural red highlights like me. That's as much concern as we put into colouration.

 

There is a huge problem with this way of thinking. To say that race is only skin colour and skin colour is no different than eye colour, or freckles (merely aesthetics) is EXTREMELY dismissive of the very real struggles and oppression faced by people of colour every day. It's also dismissive of a very harsh history of violence towards people of colour. Our white skin afford us MANY privileges. And finally, it completely erases that different races have rich cultures, languages, histories, origins.

[xkittens]

I actually think the doctor has a point. The idea that skin colour doesn't matter is ridiculous. Different races and different ethnicities have countless rich histories, languages, traditions, beliefs. Countless cultural values that have every right to be passed down and protected and exist in a world that is very much white-washed.

Why does this white woman want a child of another race when she has no understanding or connection to that culture? I think the doctor, when saying he has no intention of creating "rainbow families" just because this woman decides thats what she wants, is questioning the women's motives. Why choose a child of a different race? Is it so she'll feel better about herself? Because it seems like some "white-savior" rhetoric to me. It's one thing to adopt a child of a different race (this is a child that has no home and that's different) but to create a child, on purpose, of a different race, with absolutely no connection to the culture and history that comes with that race, or any personal understanding of the struggles that come with race is simplifying race to the colour of one's skin.

And it's not... coloured people face many different degrees of struggles that we’re implemented by white people via conquests using weapons such as warfare, religion indoctrination, and oppression.

 

This reminds me of a quote by one of my favourite theorists, bell hooks:

 

“Since the notion that we should all forsake attachment to race and/or cultural identity and be “just humans” within the framework of white supremacy has usually meant that subordinate groups must surrender their identities, beliefs, values, and assimilate by adopting the values and beliefs of privileged-class whites, rather than promoting racial harmony this thinking has created a fierce cultural protectionism.”

 

Colours and features carry cultures you say? I get confused for all sorts of different races all the time, my identity struggle is ever so real.

Also, major rofl at the highlighted irony

[Phosphorus]

I'm surprised to hear about this sort of issue in Canada, but I am not surprised by the issue itself. While we may be in 2014, racism is still a large issue in the world today, even in developed countries such as the United States.

 

I personally am against the motives of this clinic, but to play devil's advocate: As a potential MMI question, should small businesses have the right to discriminate who they serve so long as they don't provide an essential (emergency) service?

 

There was a story in the U.S. not too long ago regarding a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for an engaged gay couple. The courts sided with the gay couple and ruled against the bakery on grounds of discrimination, ordering the bakery to bake them a cake. Those who sided with the owners of the bakery claimed that the owners should have the right to serve whoever they wish.

 

Of course, I would prefer that everyone treat everyone equally. However, in this case, I am a little more split on the issue. Given that our economy is based on free-market economics, people who are against the actions of this clinic (and even the bakery) will stop asking the clinic for their services – that is, they will go some where else. Eventually, the this clinic loses enough business to the point where it can no longer sustain itself financially. Whether the rights and freedoms of the owners are being infringed is no longer relevant because it's not an authority (a government or a court) that forces the owners of this establishment to align their views with modern society. Instead, it's both the economic pressure and societal pressure (negative media coverage) that ultimately make the owners of this clinic realize that they are on the wrong side of this argument.

 

Of course, this is assuming that we are dealing with a small business. Large corporations like Walmart could not be able to discriminate in this sense given that they provide a service (while not essential) to a very large number of people.

 

Would this be an appropriate answer if this were an MMI question? My only concern is that it might look like I sympathize with those who are racist (which I don't and obviously wish not to portray).

[futurepediatric]

I actually think the doctor has a point. The idea that skin colour doesn't matter is ridiculous. Different races and different ethnicities have countless rich histories, languages, traditions, beliefs. Countless cultural values that have every right to be passed down and protected and exist in a world that is very much white-washed.

Why does this white woman want a child of another race when she has no understanding or connection to that culture? I think the doctor, when saying he has no intention of creating "rainbow families" just because this woman decides thats what she wants, is questioning the women's motives. Why choose a child of a different race? Is it so she'll feel better about herself? Because it seems like some "white-savior" rhetoric to me. It's one thing to adopt a child of a different race (this is a child that has no home and that's different) but to create a child, on purpose, of a different race, with absolutely no connection to the culture and history that comes with that race, or any personal understanding of the struggles that come with race is simplifying race to the colour of one's skin.

And it's not... coloured people face many different degrees of struggles that we’re implemented by white people via conquests using weapons such as warfare, religion indoctrination, and oppression.

 

This reminds me of a quote by one of my favourite theorists, bell hooks:

 

“Since the notion that we should all forsake attachment to race and/or cultural identity and be “just humans” within the framework of white supremacy has usually meant that subordinate groups must surrender their identities, beliefs, values, and assimilate by adopting the values and beliefs of privileged-class whites, rather than promoting racial harmony this thinking has created a fierce cultural protectionism.”

 

lizosaurusrex, this is actually pretty interesting, i would have never thought of it this way at all

[futurepediatric]

Well, I should just go stick a Chanel label on my kids, then.

 

We pick mates - from a biological standpoint -based on characteristics that we feel will contribute to healthier children. If this woman feels that particular donor's attributes will contribute to healthy, successful children, then that is all that matters. No different than choosing a donor with blue eyes or red hair or dimples. The only difference is we're talking skin instead of hair colour.

 

I will say I find the 'rainbow families' thing annoying. We aren't a rainbow. We are a family. My kids and husband tan, I don't. My son and I have freckles, my husband and daughter don't. Both kids have darker hair than either of us, but with natural red highlights like me. That's as much concern as we put into colouration.

 

Lol umm... isn't that a little weird? Why would she feel like Black skin colour in particular would contribute to healthy, successful children?

[Phosphorus]

Lol umm... isn't that a little weird? Why would she feel like Black skin colour in particular would contribute to healthy, successful children?

 

Perhaps the donor has an excellent history of health (both himself and his family). That's not to say the others don't have a family history of illness, however. Regardless, even if aren't any health benefits to be gained by picking a black male donor (i.e., it's just for aesthetic purposes), she should still be able to make that decision.

[lexiiiluther]

I personally feel that a lot of women in this situation would want a X donor based on health - not a "white saviour rhetoric". I just can't imagine that type of mindset being so common that a woman would choose to give birth to a child with a father of a different race because of it.

[Birdy]

Lol umm... isn't that a little weird? Why would she feel like Black skin colour in particular would contribute to healthy, successful children?

 

My point was more about the donor profile. I know people who have used donor sperm and their choice was based on the donor's overall profile, not one specific trait or another. I do know one person who was single and used sperm from a donor of a different race than hers, and it was done because he had a great profile, not because he was white (as was the case.)

 

There is a huge problem with this way of thinking. To say that race is only skin colour and skin colour is no different than eye colour, or freckles (merely aesthetics) is EXTREMELY dismissive of the very real struggles and oppression faced by people of colour every day. It's also dismissive of a very harsh history of violence towards people of colour. Our white skin afford us MANY privileges. And finally, it completely erases that different races have rich cultures, languages, histories, origins.

 

I did not say race was only skin colour. I said that skin colour (as well as other physical features that are common to certain races, but I used skin colour as it is the most obvious) is a trait like other traits, because it is. Yes, skin colour has social issues surrounding it, but that isn't what I was talking about at all. I was talking about it as a physical trait. Period.

 

As to the bolded part, race, inasmuch as it exists as a collection of traits, is a physical characteristic, culture is a social one. They often coincide, but they are not one in the same and to lump race and culture together as you have is a gross oversimplification.

 

I find it amusing that you've taken to lecturing me on white privilege, something of which I am acutely aware for reasons that really don't need to come into play here. I discussed a physical attribute as being a physical attribute - that does not mean I am ignorant or dismissive of the struggles that minority populations - like my family - face.

 

Your post comes off as rather haughty and presumptuous. It is best to take care how you phrase your posts as tone can be very easily misconstrued in text.

[rmorelan]

Lol umm... isn't that a little weird? Why would she feel like Black skin colour in particular would contribute to healthy, successful children?

 

she may have been looking at a lot of factors and simply didn't consider the skin colour relevant as Birdy said. Maybe the donor's profile is someone who is 6 foot+, IQ over 150, very educated, successful, athletic with no family history of genetic disease whose great grand parents are still alive at 100 (to play to the usually stereotypical typical traits) etc, etc. Maybe he is fact is on paper the best donor the centre has.

[Mithrandir]

 

I did not say race was only skin colour. I said that skin colour (as well as other physical features that are common to certain races, but I used skin colour as it is the most obvious) is a trait like other traits, because it is. Yes, skin colour has social issues surrounding it, but that isn't what I was talking about at all. I was talking about it as a physical trait. Period.

 

As to the bolded part, race, inasmuch as it exists as a collection of traits, is a physical characteristic, culture is a social one. They often coincide, but they are not one in the same and to lump race and culture together as you have is a gross oversimplification.

 

I find it amusing that you've taken to lecturing me on white privilege, something of which I am acutely aware for reasons that really don't need to come into play here. I discussed a physical attribute as being a physical attribute - that does not mean I am ignorant or dismissive of the struggles that minority populations - like my family - face.

 

Your post comes off as rather haughty and presumptuous. It is best to take care how you phrase your posts as tone can be very easily misconstrued in text.

 

"If this woman feels that particular donor's attributes will contribute to healthy, successful children, then that is all that matters. No different than choosing a donor with blue eyes or red hair or dimples. The only difference is we're talking skin instead of hair colour."

First of all: simplifying race to skin colour is exactly what you did

Secondly: I merely brought up that race is more than skin colour, but also deep layers of intersecting languages, cultures, origins, etc. etc.

I did not lump them together but just brought up how these things intersect with race in complicated ways and dismissing them is oversimplifying.

I'm sorry you took this as an attack, it was not. I was only trying to explain how your language, in that particular post, was problematic and dismissive.

It was merely a comment on the overlying narrative of "were all the same, race is just a skin colour, were all members of the human race".

 

 

Edit: Furthermore, please do not tone police me. This response to me was extremely "haughty", if you will. It's necessary for people to speak up against language and cultural ideals that oppress others. Sometimes we do not even realize we are being problematic, and to acknowledge it is more effective than to become defensive and rude.

[Birdy]

"If this woman feels that particular donor's attributes will contribute to healthy, successful children, then that is all that matters. No different than choosing a donor with blue eyes or red hair or dimples. The only difference is we're talking skin instead of hair colour."

First of all: simplifying race to skin colour is exactly what you did

Secondly: I merely brought up that race is more than skin colour, but also deep layers of intersecting languages, cultures, origins, etc. etc.

I did not lump them together but just brought up how these things intersect with race in complicated ways and dismissing them is oversimplifying.

I'm sorry you took this as an attack, it was not. I was only trying to explain how your language, in that particular post, was problematic and dismissive.

It was merely a comment on the overlying narrative of "were all the same, race is just a skin colour, were all members of the human race".

 

Instead of requesting clarification you made assumptions about my understanding of issues, something that tends to rub me the wrong way and I may have responded more harshly than I should have. For that, you have my apologies. I was not attempting to tone police you, but to point out that your post came across a certain way which might not have been your intention and I was leaving an opening for you to clarify whether you intended it to be read differently.

 

Again, I did not say in my post that race and skin colour were the same thing. I addressed skin colour as a physical characteristic that may or may not play a part in the decision making process. This was because of the 'rainbow family' (eg. different colours) comment, which I followed up with discussion on the actual colours in my family to further demonstrate my annoyance with that term.

 

My choice of language was direct and I left out the social nuances of race relations intentionally, not to be dismissive of these issues but because I actually was discussing skin colour only. I wasn't discussing race, I was discussing skin colour. Two things which, you and I seem to agree, are not the same.

 

You did, however, directly equate race and culture, things that are also not equivalent, when you repeatedly asserted this woman would have no connection to the culture that "comes with that race." As you pointed out, problematic attitudes do need to be pointed out which is what I was doing when I mentioned that.

 

It appears we are unlikely to agree on what I actually said, so please accept my apology if I have caused any offence. It is clear you are concerned with historical and ongoing injustices in the world and that's certainly a good thing and a credit to your character.

[seeking1]

In the words of Mitch Hedberg, Whoa whoa whoa. Purple people? I say down with purple people.

 

Now I miss Mitch...

[aaronjw]

Lol umm... isn't that a little weird? Why would she feel like Black skin colour in particular would contribute to healthy, successful children?

 

Better athletes for sure.

 

If I were breeding for an athlete i'd definitely want a brotha or sista!

[xkittens]

I'm surprised to hear about this sort of issue in Canada, but I am not surprised by the issue itself. While we may be in 2014, racism is still a large issue in the world today, even in developed countries such as the United States.

 

I personally am against the motives of this clinic, but to play devil's advocate: As a potential MMI question, should small businesses have the right to discriminate who they serve so long as they don't provide an essential (emergency) service?

 

There was a story in the U.S. not too long ago regarding a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for an engaged gay couple. The courts sided with the gay couple and ruled against the bakery on grounds of discrimination, ordering the bakery to bake them a cake. Those who sided with the owners of the bakery claimed that the owners should have the right to serve whoever they wish.

 

Of course, I would prefer that everyone treat everyone equally. However, in this case, I am a little more split on the issue. Given that our economy is based on free-market economics, people who are against the actions of this clinic (and even the bakery) will stop asking the clinic for their services – that is, they will go some where else. Eventually, the this clinic loses enough business to the point where it can no longer sustain itself financially. Whether the rights and freedoms of the owners are being infringed is no longer relevant because it's not an authority (a government or a court) that forces the owners of this establishment to align their views with modern society. Instead, it's both the economic pressure and societal pressure (negative media coverage) that ultimately make the owners of this clinic realize that they are on the wrong side of this argument.

 

Of course, this is assuming that we are dealing with a small business. Large corporations like Walmart could not be able to discriminate in this sense given that they provide a service (while not essential) to a very large number of people.

 

Would this be an appropriate answer if this were an MMI question? My only concern is that it might look like I sympathize with those who are racist (which I don't and obviously wish not to portray).

 

No. This is the exact argument used 50 years ago against blacks and today against gays. Every racist will claim they're being discriminated against because they're not granted the freedom to openly discriminate. There are protected classes of people for this very reason, refusing to provide your service to someone because of something like race is flat out discrimination and should not be allowed.

[Phosphorus]

Simple and elegant point. Thanks, MeGusta.