The D List

Musings on social, political and emotional issues for parenting donor-conceived children

I Have To Tell You a Question

“I have to tell you a question”. That’s what our daughter says whenever she has something really important to say. Like, “Emma’s favorite color is pink” or “After Sam falls asleep I want to watch Bob the Builder”.

You don’t need an advanced degree to see that it’s not so much a question as a statement. Yet on a certain level it’s a curiously appropriate phrase if you apply it to telling people about donor conception. It’s a topic that tends to generate many questions. In a way, you really are telling a question when you tell someone that your children are donor-conceived.

Over in the UK, the Donor Conception Network (DCN) is expanding their “Telling and Talking” series, which helps parents tell a child they are donor-conceived. The new booklet in development will provide guidance on talking with family and friends. Later this month I’ll be talking with DCN’s Olivia Montuschi about our experience of telling. Of course, I’m probably not the most typically representative mother of donor-conceived children. A lot of newer friends, colleagues and acquaintances learned our truth by reading my New York Times Motherlode piece, or from reading this blog. It’s a rather public expression of a private matter. But I do like to stir up a bit of trouble and I want to write, so the shoe fits. However, it’s not for everyone.

That being said, recent experience represents round two of telling. Round one took place many years ago, before we were even married. As it turns out, it’s a lot easier to talk about your hypothetical donor-conceived child than to talk about the real one. I spent many happy evenings in grimy New York bars talking with friends about how we might have a child someday, if the time came. Talking about your hypothetical child sets you on the path of openness, laying the foundation for building your family in a spirit of honesty. But it doesn’t necessarily prepare you for openness once they are here. To my slight surprise, once pregnant I found myself retreating from telling. As I started to research how you introduce a child to the concept of being donor-conceived, I also started to feel that our daughter should be the next person I tell. Newer friends, no matter how much I adored them, could wait. For me, the most respectful path was to start talking with our daughter before sharing with anyone else.

For other parents of donor-conceived children, the path to telling may look entirely different, particularly for LGBT and single-mothers-by-choice. There’s no right or wrong way, just the most comfortable, respectful, and child-centered way. For many people trying to figure it all out, I have no doubt that DCN’s booklet will help a lot of them find their path.

Posted in Books, Talking about DI | 2 Comments

Subject This!

Please indulge me a geeky librarian post. So it turns out that the Library of Congress (LC) recently added a new subject heading to their catalog, entitled “Children of sperm donors”.  It’s viewed as a significant addition, because it’s the first time that a renowned library institution has recognized that books about, or written for, donor-conceived children do in fact warrant their own subject heading. For the last two decades the books had been lumped under “Infertility” or “Babies”. The LC had a subject heading for “Children of celebrities”, but nothing for a topic that involves millions of families worldwide. Nice, LC. After several years spent ignoring impassioned lobbying from research librarians, the LC finally changed their tune.

But here’s the controversy – everyone except the dimwits at the LC think that “Children of sperm donors” is a spectacularly crappy subject heading. Librarians had been lobbying for “Donor offspring”, “Donor-conceived”, or even “Children of donor conception”. As Patricia Mendell and Patricia Sarles write on the American Fertility Association blog, the subject heading is wholly inadequate, “recognizing one group of donor children over another, instead of recognizing the importance of creating an all inclusive heading that recognizes all donor offspring”.

Knock me over with a feather, but even Elizabeth Marquardt over at Family Scholars is in agreement, advocating “Persons conceived via gamete donation” or Mendell and Sarles’ “Donor-conceived.” Her conclusion? That naming of any kind is a step forward. She didn’t quite elaborate on why she thinks this. I can only presume it’s because, if the donor-conceived receive greater recognition from official institutions, it provides a path for the bioethicists to eradicate the entire mode of family building from Planet Earth. Or whatever their master plan is.

Who the bloody hell except geeky librarians like me care about LC subject headings, you ask? Well, firstly, formal recognition by the LC helps elevate the status of the donor-conceived in the U.S. and worldwide. Where the LC goes, others follow. They’re like the Lady Gaga of the library world. Pretty influential. But the other reason this is important? So we can categorize and locate books written about and for the donor-conceived! People: Google is not a library catalog. It’s more like a giant, syrupy fruit salad where everything’s jumbled up together and if you don’t like watermelon you have to try and pick it out but it’s really bothersome. LC subject headings provide order. They help librarians and laymen alike identify all books on a given subject rather than leaving it to “feeling lucky”.

Mendell and Sarles are continuing to put pressure on the LC to add the subject heading “Children of donor conception” or “Donor-conceived”. I wish them speedy success.

Thank you for indulging me.

Posted in Books | 1 Comment