Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 555–570, 2001 Copyright © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0277-5395/01/$–see front matter PII S0277-5395(01)00193-5 WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? ARGUMENTS AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTING Victoria Clarke Loughborough University, Women’s Studies Research Group, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE 113TU, UK Synopsis — In this article, I explore arguments commonly used to support the claim that lesbians and gay men should not be parents. Thematic analysis of recent media representations of lesbian and gay parenting and six focus groups with university students highlighted the repeated use of a number of ar- guments to oppose lesbian and gay parenting. I critically discuss the six most prevalent in this article. These are: (1) “The bible tells me that lesbian and gay parenting is a sin”; (2) “Lesbian and gay parent- ing is unnatural”; (3) “Lesbian and gay parents are selfish because they ignore ‘the best interests of the child’”; (4) “Children in lesbian and gay families lack appropriate role models”; (5) Children in lesbian and gay families grow up lesbian and gay; and (6) “Children in lesbian and gay families get bullied.” I examine these themes in relation to other debates about lesbian and gay and women’s rights, and high- light the ways in which they reinforce a heterosexual norm. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights re- served. INTRODUCTION from feminist research and theorising on mar- ginal parenting in this paper, by focusing on Feminist research has noted that while moth- the construction of lesbians and gay men as in- erhood is socially constructed as fulfilling and appropriate parents. essential for all women, many groups of While there is increasing support from women are excluded from the category “suit- members of the “public” for extending the able” or “appropriate” mother and are deval- rights of individual lesbians and gay men, few ued as “unsuitable” or “inappropriate” moth- are willing to recognise and endorse lesbian ers (Woollett & Phoenix, 1991). Research has and gay families (Ellis, 2001). Many people focused on the experiences of women defined continue to cling to the notion of the tradi- as inappropriate mothers (such as teenage, tional nuclear family, closely tied to the institu- older, disabled, and working mothers), and has tions of marriage, heterosexuality, and biologi- examined the ideologies that underpin the cal parenthood. Stereotypes of gay men as construction of categories appropriate and in- paedophiles and lesbians as “masculine, ag- appropriate mothers. However, feminist re- gressive, and . confused about their gender” search has often failed to consider the experi- (Lewin & Lyons, 1982, p. 250) remain power- ences of lesbian mothers (Kitzinger, 1996; ful determinants of public perceptions of les- Oerton, 1997; and gay fathers, who are bian and gay parents. Lesbian’s and gay men’s equally, if not more, marginal). I redress this right or “fitness” to parent is vigorously de- exclusion of lesbian mothers (and gay fathers) bated in a number of contexts, from the legal and policy arena to tabloid newspapers and talk shows. The British press, for example, has I thank Virginia Braun, Celia Kitzinger, Sharon Lockyer, accused lesbians of making “a mockery of Elizabeth Peel, Susan Speer, and an anonymous reviewer motherhood” (Daily Mail, 31 July 1998: “A for their comments on an earlier version of this article. This article is based on my PhD research, which is funded mockery of motherhood”), and one gay cou- by an ESRC research studentship (Award number: ples’ attempt to have children together has R00429734421). been branded a “tangled saga” (Daily Mail, 1 555 556 Victoria Clarke September 1999: “The tangled saga of two gests, for instance, that lesbian parents who wealthy gays and the woman who is helping are open about their sexuality with their mid- them realise their dream of having children to- wife can encounter “embarrassment, expres- gether”) and a “bizarre baby-making arrange- sions of disgust, coldness or outright hostility.” ment” (Women’s Own, 6 September 1999: Discrimination is also evident in interactions “Take two gay men, two donor eggs, and one with schools (Casper and Schultz, 1999), where surrogate mum, what do you get? A Family”). lesbianism and gayness is perceived as a threat As the lesbian and gay campaigning group to the education of children (and the “promo- Stonewall point out, in the UK “it is generally tion” of homosexuality and lesbianism is for- assumed in law that lesbians and gay men do bidden in the UK; Donovan, 1997), and in the not form meaningful relationships with each workplace (Kitzinger, 1991, p. 238), where other and do not have children” (Stonewall, most lesbians and gay men are in the closet 1998, p. 1). Contrary to this assumption, lesbi- and “paternity leave, and leave to accompany ans and gay men can and do have children. a pregnant woman to antenatal care, is granted Lesbians and gay men become parents in a by some employers to fathers, but not to the number of ways: through heterosexual rela- lesbian co-mother” or gay coparent. tionships before they “come out” as lesbian or In the late 1970s and early 1980s, psycholo- gay, through adoption or fostering, through gists began to identify arguments used to op- the use of donor insemination or surrogacy, or pose lesbian and/or gay custody (Golombok, by becoming the partner of someone who al- Spencer, & Rutter, 1983; Mucklow & Phelan, ready has children. However, gay men “en- 1979). Golombok et al. (1983, p. 551), for ex- counter enormous prejudice” (Stonewall, 1998, ample, highlighted three arguments commonly p. 1) when they attempt to gain custody of used to support a denial of custody: “the sup- their children and lesbians have an “unspoken posed risks of aberrant psychosexual develop- burden” (Stonewall, 1998, p. 1) to prove that ment . isolation from or rejection by peers . they are like “normal” mothers. Additionally, [and] emotional/behavioural problems arising many local authorities are hostile toward lesbi- from the general stress of being brought up in ans and gay men who apply to adopt or foster such an atypical family.” More recently, re- children, the majority of “fertility” clinics will search has examined heterosexuals’ attitudes not accept lesbians as clients (and lesbians ex- toward lesbian and gay parenting (Crawford & perience heterosexism in the law when they Solliday, 1996; King & Black, 1999), and has self-inseminate with a privately arranged donor), found a strong correlation between “ho- and lesbian and gay coparents are “simply not mophobia” and people’s level of support for recognised in law” (Stonewall, 1998, p. 4). lesbian and gay parenting. However, while dis- Beyond these basic parental rights, lesbian cussed across psychology and the social sci- and gay parents are also widely discriminated ences (e.g., Raymond, 1992), there have been against. First, they have to face the assumption few attempts to empirically explore the argu- that “lesbians are not mothers” (Pollack, 1987, ments used to oppose full parental rights for p. 316) and gay men are not fathers. As Lewin lesbians and gay men. The purpose of this pa- and Lyon (1982, p. 250, emphasis in original) per is to rectify this omission by identifying indicate, in relation to lesbian parents, the av- and critically discussing arguments used to op- erage person wants to know, “how . can a pose lesbian and gay parenting. As others lesbian possibly be a mother?,” “how is it pos- (e.g., Alldred, 1998; Meyers, 1994; Pratt & Tuf- sible for women who by definition do not en- fin, 1996) have suggested, by examining the ar- gage in heterosexual behavior to be mothers?” guments used to oppose lesbian and gay rights, These questions presuppose a primarily sexual we can develop ways to challenge them. This view of lesbians which “puts the lesbian mother article contributes to literature in psychology in a theoretically impossible category” (Lewin and the social sciences, which explores the & Lyon, 1982, p. 250). This incomprehension is construction of antilesbian and/or antigay ar- evident in lesbian and gay parents’ interactions guments in the media and public debate (Mc- with social and health service providers, such Creanor, 1996), specifically, on talk shows as midwifes (Wilton, 1996), social workers (Er- (Clarke, 1999; Epstein & Steinberg, 1998), in lichman, 1989) and mental health professionals the press (Alldred, 1998; Ellis & Kitzinger, (Steinhorn, 1982). Wilton (1996, p. 129) sug- 2000; Meyers, 1994) and in Hansard (Ellis & Lesbian and Gay Parenting 557 Kitzinger, 2000; Epstein, Johnson, & Stein- ate student, and the members of the group berg, 2000). In one of the only papers to em- were recruited through personal contacts. pirically examine opposition to lesbian parent- There were a total of 44 participants in these ing, Alldred (1998) explores the arguments groups (between six and nine participants in used to undermine a lesbian couple in one arti- each group), 37 were female and 7 were male, cle in a British tabloid newspaper. Although, and most were under 20 years of age, white, some of arguments I outline are similar to heterosexual and able-bodied. some of the ones she identifies, her analysis fo- Although the sources of data differ substan- cuses on whether the arguments are presented tially in purpose and format, the aim was to convincingly—whether they are credible and identify the range of arguments put forward to coherent—and thus is an analysis of journalis- oppose lesbian and gay parenting; thus, I have tic techniques as much or more than it is an largely ignored the context in which the argu- analysis of the actual arguments used to under- ments were produced. My concern is not to mine lesbian parenting.