In her book Misconception, Ann Bell discusses the “good mother” “bad mother” dichotomy under which a ‘good mother’ is a white, able-bodied, middle- to upper- class, cisgender women married to a man of all the same attributes. The less of those attributes one possesses the further they are othered into the “bad mother” construct (2). While forced and coerced sterilization and the targeted use of long acting reversible contraceptives are generally methods of limiting poor, disabled, and folks of color form reproducing, there are a number of social and legal pressure preventing LGBTQ+ and non-monogamous folks from accessing reproduction. Cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous couples with children have long been praised as the ‘nuclear family’ who properly reproduces, while all other relationship structures are ostracized.
LGBTQ+ folks could not win custody of their children from previous marriages until the 1970s and even so were often prohibited from performing in ‘homosexual activities’ or living with a partner in order to keep said custody. It was not until 1979 that the first gay couple was permitted to adopt a child, prior to which many queer folks hid their identities in order to obtain a child. State-wide bans on LGBTQ+ adoption were not overturned nation-wide until 2010, when the last state ban in Florida was lifted. Still couples were turned away from adopting through various other types of bans until marriage equality became federally protected in 2015 (6).
And these biases against the reproduction of LGBTQIA2S+ folks do not stop at policy. The consequences of policy like these leave medical providers unprepared to provide healthcare to folks who aren’t cisgender, heterosexual, and monogamous (7). This pattern extends from physical care to support as well. Providers were found to be ill fit to provide support to LGBTQ+ couples navigating post-loss and miscarriage care as compared to cis-het couples (5). This exclusion of LGBTQ+ folks is also reflected in other systems of aiding reproduction including family planning services and adoption programs. These biases are then reinforced in popular media and culture, shown by findings that when the media portrays transgender reproduction it frames it as a brand-new phenomenon that exists “in contrast to normative, cis-gender reproduction” (4).
Looking to policy privileging monogamy, historically and contemporarily, sanctioned non-monogamous relationships have been illegal across the United States and Canada. The resistance to polyamory extends to the social realm as well, with folks tending to classify non-monogamous relationships as lesser quality than monogamous one’s.8 Public texts in Canada reveal a culture which constructs a monogamous mainstream and the “polygamist outsiders” (1). Additionally, findings suggest that despite the prevalence of non-monogamous identifying folks in society, most people engage in only monogamous relationships due to the pressures of laws and social norms (3).
The evident norms, policy, and medical practices which best assist cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous couples’ reproduction deny LGBTQ+ and non-monogamous folks’ reproductive freedom by placing a vast number of barriers in the way of their reproduction and inadequately supporting them when they do manage to succeed in reproducing. There are no universal attributes which make a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ mother. Deconstructing these ideas at their core is key to ensuring not only LGBTQ+ and polyamorous folks’ reproductive justice, but all marginalized people.
[1] Barnett, J. P. (2014). Polyamory and criminalization of plural conjugal unions in Canada: Competing narratives in the s. 293 reference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11(1), 63–75.
[2] Bell, A. V. (2014). Misconception: Social class and infertility in America. Rutgers University Press.
[3] Emens, Elizabeth F., Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence (February 2004). U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper №58, New York University Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 29, p. 277, 2004, https://ssrn.com/abstract=506242 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.506242
[4] Lampe, N. M., Carter, S. K., & Sumerau, J. E. (2019). Continuity and change in gender frames: The case of transgender reproduction. Gender & Society, 33(6), 865–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219857979
[5] Luxion, K. (2020). LGBTQ reproduction and parenting. Companion to Sexuality Studies, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119315049.ch10
[6] Rudolph, D. (2020, April 17). A very brief history of LGBTQ parenting. Family Equality. Retrieved November 23, 2022, from https://www.familyequality.org/2017/10/20/a-very-brief-history-of-lgbtq-parenting/
[7] Smith, S. K., & Turell, S. C. (2017). Perceptions of healthcare experiences: Relational and communicative competencies to improve care for LGBT people. Journal of Social Issues, 73(3), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12235
[8] Vil, N. M. S., Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Ginn, H. G., & Chen, Z. (2022). Perceptions of monogamy, nonconsensual nonmonogamy and consensual nonmonogamy at the intersections of race and gender. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 24(1), 109–124.
