WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:00.000
Good.

2
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.000
Good morning everyone. Nice to see you all. In the session about new family structures when today we have 4 papers.

3
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:21.000
Hopefully the person online will be there. But we have a really diverse for diverse issues in the new family formation.

4
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:29.000
And I'm very happy to invite this the first speaker

5
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:41.000
And How do you pronounce your man? A dish. Please.

6
00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:43.000
Just click on. The link to get money. So I just click here, right?

7
00:00:43.001 --> 00:00:45.000
I'll start and then I'll hopefully somebody, yeah. Yeah, but I really needed my notes anyway.

8
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:49.000
So good morning everyone. My name is. So good morning everyone. My name is Sabrina Zeich.

9
00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:56.000
I'm a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Quebec. And today my presentation will be on the impact of insemination fraud on family ties.

10
00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:03.000
So you see the first quote is from one of the participants that we met who was victims of inination fraud.

11
00:01:03.000 --> 00:01:13.000
I want to get into a moment. As to what insemination fraud means. So this is the general outline of my presentation, very classic.

12
00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:22.000
So what is insemination fraud? Insemination fraud is the intentional swapping of sperm samples in the context of insemination.

13
00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:31.000
So basically what that means is that a woman would go to a fertility doctor to be inseminated, to conceive a child alone or with a partner.

14
00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:44.000
And instead of inseminating her with the sperm that she chose, that of her partner. Or her chosen donor, he inseminates her with a different sample.

15
00:01:44.000 --> 00:02:02.000
So it can be another donor that she didn't choose or it can even be, it can even be the sperm of the doctor himself who's in performing the insemination.

16
00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:11.000
So, the fact that this is intentional and it's done without the patient's consent is very important.

17
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:17.000
So is it a rare phenomenon? Well, it's hard to assess the magnitude of this phenomenon.

18
00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:29.000
Since a majority of donor conceived people do not know their donor conceived. And the numbers around insemination froze at least the ones that we have are highly underestimated.

19
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:42.000
So what we know is barely the tip of the iceberg. But what we do know so far is that at least 50 doctors have been known to have committed such acts in 7 countries and on 3 different continents.

20
00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:51.000
And with the advent of direct to consumer DNA tests, sorry we can expect these numbers to rise.

21
00:02:51.000 --> 00:03:06.000
So is it a historical phenomenon? Well, it dates back as far as the first insemination that was done in a medical setting in 1,884 and the most recent cases that we know of are as early as the first decade of the 2,000.

22
00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:13.000
Is it illegal? There's been a void in terms of punitive and preventive measures. To address insemination fraud.

23
00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:22.000
So in terms of punitive measures. There's Sorry, yes. Sorry, it's the other way around actually.

24
00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:40.000
It's preventive measures. They're very poor donation tracking and and record-keeping procedures in fertility clinics makes it difficult to prove intentionality and there are gaps also in civil and criminal law that prevent people who are victims of insemination fraud to hold these doctors legally accountable.

25
00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:50.000
So we have like more than a dozen lawsuits that have been filed against these doctors and until very recently none of them led or involved criminal charges.

26
00:03:50.000 --> 00:04:02.000
So, so far. In terms of preventive measures also, there are only 11 US states that have passed a legislation that makes insemination fraud illegal.

27
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:13.000
Everywhere else it's not illegal for a doctor. At least it's not explicitly illegal for a doctor to inseminate his patients with his own sperm.

28
00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:35.000
So the goal of the presentation today is really to present the results of an exploratory study that was carried out with families who were victims of insemination fraud and the The angle here is really to examine the consequences of insemination fraud on family relationships.

29
00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:50.000
So the case that will be examined here is a case that happened in Canada and it involved A doctor who was a pioneer in assisted reproduction at first came insemination fraud was uncovered in the ninetys.

30
00:04:50.000 --> 00:05:06.000
And 10 years later, 2 more cases were uncovered. And the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's suspended the doctor for a couple of months and the following year he just stopped practicing in his closed his clinics.

31
00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:17.000
His clinic sorry and it was on me until 2,016. That the media revealed that he used his own sperm to inseminate his patients.

32
00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:40.000
And then that got a lot of media coverage and a class action followed from there involving 200 people, some parents in some offspring and it got resulted after 5 years of legal proceedings and it it resulted in a groundbreaking settlement amounting to millions of dollars but without any admission of wrongdoing on his from his birth.

33
00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:46.000
So that's the case that will be discussed today. So all the people that we met in this project were victims of that doctor.

34
00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:57.000
So we met with 8 families. There were different cases of different types of swapping that happened. So there are 2 cases where the father's sperm was swapped for an anonymous donor.

35
00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:10.000
There were 2 cases where the chosen donor's term was swapped for a different donor so that the parents didn't choose and there there were 4 cases where the doctor used his own sperm to inseminate his patients.

36
00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:16.000
So in total we we met with 15 people, 7 parents and 8 donor-conceived people.

37
00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:33.000
They were all living in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We met them in the winter, 2,019 and fall 2,021 and we carried out semi-structured interviews with the people in our project.

38
00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:46.000
So the results now, so 2 themes emerge out of the analysis of our data. One is the reshuffling of genetic ties and another one, the second one is the feared or real weakening of kinship bonds.

39
00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:59.000
So I'll take each one separately. So the first theme, so the discovery of insemination fraud changes the family mental map of genetic ties because some of them disappear, some of them are lost and new ones appear.

40
00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:07.000
So there is this reshuffling that happens in tube movements. So there is a shrinking of genetic ties and an expansion of genetic ties.

41
00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:23.000
And only in the context of a gamete mix up or insemination fraud where the mix-up is intentional does this reshuffling take both parents and offspring by surprise because even the parents didn't know that the swapping occurred.

42
00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:43.000
So if we take each movement separately, the shrinking movement. So in case where the father's perm was swapped, of course the offspring lose their genetic tie not only to the father but also to the paternal family and that can be a very a difficult realisation to come to terms with as you see here a

43
00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:52.000
quote by Lucy a teenage donor conceived. She says all your life you think that a person is biologically your father and then you learn that it's someone else that you don't know and it takes them a long time to come to terms with that realization.

44
00:07:52.000 --> 00:08:15.000
In case where the chosen donor sperm was swapped for an unknown donor the aspen lose their genetic tie not only to the donor himself sometimes they hope that eventually one day they will be able to meet him and know genetically where they come from, but also they could meet their half or donor

45
00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:24.000
siblings. So, so that hope is crushed by the insemination fraud. The other movement, the expansion of genetic ties.

46
00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:35.000
So when it comes to the donor, including when it's the doctor himself so when he used his own spoon to insulate his patients The offspring, although they acknowledge that they do share with him a genetic tie, they do not consider him as a father.

47
00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:44.000
They don't want. To meet him usually they don't want to build a relationship with him.

48
00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:58.000
And those who were conceived with the doctors sperm, they grapple with feelings of shame and guilt for being genetically related to the author of the fraud so it's even more challenging for them too.

49
00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:18.000
Realised the consequences of the insemination fraud. When it comes to donor siblings, so then these new genetic ties are described positively in contrast with the ties they have with the donor.

50
00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:24.000
And these new relationship changed the family landscape. So for example, if you have children who were only children, they didn't have any siblings.

51
00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:42.000
So suddenly they discover that they have siblings so they're no longer only children. So if their donor siblings have children so suddenly they become aunts and uncles, something they were not before.

52
00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:50.000
So it changes the family landscape. But however positive this New relationships may be with the donor siblings.

53
00:09:50.000 --> 00:10:00.000
They can also be a threat to the other members of the family and they can also be a constant reminder of the fraud.

54
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:12.000
So the second theme. So the degree of the fear or the actual weakening of kinship bonds varies according to the importance in individuals place on genetic ties.

55
00:10:12.000 --> 00:10:31.000
So when genetic ties are giving a subtle weight then it can lead to a family disconnect. And we have an example of Helen who's a mother whose husband's sperm was swapped for that of an unknown donor and now she for her genetics are very important so after discovering the insemination fraud

56
00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:40.000
I started looking at her children through that prison of genetics and seeing in them the donor that she didn't choose to conceive her children.

57
00:10:40.000 --> 00:11:00.000
So her children became like a constant reminder of that stranger to the family and she also was worried that her husband might reject his children now that he knows he's not genetically related to them and that it would go on to the next generation so what about the grandchildren how they will feel about him?

58
00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:16.000
In other cases, insemination fraud puts a train on an already difficult relationship with the father. So Emily, for example, here she says, there was definitely a pressure and worry for me about trying to prove that it didn't change anything with my family and with my dad.

59
00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:26.000
But then after that she goes on saying that it did change her relationship it became even more difficult and her father when he presents her he says, oh, she's not mine.

60
00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:30.000
So that hurts her deeply.

61
00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:44.000
Steve, another doctor conceived adult says that when he discovered he was not genetically related to his father, it freed him from his emotional obligation to his.

62
00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:53.000
Social father who had passed away a decade ago and he said it allowed him not to grieve his death and to be emotionally detached.

63
00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:58.000
So it frees him of the guilt of having to grieve his father's death.

64
00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:04.000
So some concluding remarks. So this study has shown that insemination fraud can have profound ramifications on family relationships.

65
00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:16.000
So in some nation fraud as we saw with the shrinking and expansion of genetic ties involves a new ecosystem of relationships.

66
00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:24.000
And that ecosystem includes a stranger and again as I said not only to the family unit but also to the parental project.

67
00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:30.000
And it's it's a reminder for the parents that the family they conceived is not the family that they had planned.

68
00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:51.000
To conceive. And this new understanding of the genetic map can also change the roles and identities of family members, as I said with the only children who suddenly discovered they have siblings and now they their aunt or uncle uncles and it can be experienced as a threatening disruption of family dynamics.

69
00:12:51.000 --> 00:13:00.000
In conclusion, so given all the challenges that insemination fraud can pose to family relationships, but also the ethical principles it violates.

70
00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:08.000
It is urgent that this practice receive the medical, legal, but also social scrutiny it deserves.

71
00:13:08.000 --> 00:13:22.000
So that concludes my presentation if you have any comment question. I'll be glad to answer them.

72
00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:37.000
So. So, Questions now? Okay, yes. One of the you probably don't require.

73
00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:46.000
I can certainly understand that finding that the person you think is your father is not your father. That someone else is genetic, your father is.

74
00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:57.000
At the least disquieting. The elements of ethics and fraud and so on. It's interesting that they've not even been addressed.

75
00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:04.000
In 40 years of insemination. They have not been addressed, which I think says something as well.

76
00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:13.000
But sociologically, I think it is another interesting question. Which is the whole issue of of or fatherhood.

77
00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:27.000
Yes. Till a hundred years ago when you even less we knew nothing about genetics. The whole is the whole distinction between the sociological biological father.

78
00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:51.000
Was not really there. There are many societies in the world. In which there is The complete disconnect I want to complete the disconnect between sociological and biological father and various social situations in which sexual relations take place.

79
00:14:51.000 --> 00:15:04.000
That the child born always belongs to the woman's partner or whoever the progenitor is. What would be your take on this?

80
00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:19.000
Well, I would quote a sociologist called Petra Novice who talks about genetic thinking and who says that now it genetics who talks about genetic thinking and who says that genetic thinking and who says that now genetics has become like this prism through which we understand that now it genetics has become like this prism through which we understand and we give meaning to

81
00:15:19.000 --> 00:15:29.000
relationships. And of course it varies from person to person by genetics have become really more and more, they're giving more and more importance.

82
00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:50.000
So we explain too many things. Through genetics and in a context like this than insemination fraud, realizing that your father is not biologically your father takes a whole different meaning because if that's the narrative you've grown up with and you've built yourself throughout your life, suddenly you realise actually it was

83
00:15:50.000 --> 00:16:13.000
not. An accurate narrative so you have to reprogram the whole narrative and that's when it becomes challenge for the person in terms of identity because the whole her whole life or their whole life that's how they constructed their identity through that prism and for the parents it's Mmm, like this notion of parental project

84
00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:25.000
has become very important. We not only have children, we decide when we have them in what conditions if we resort to a donor we choose the donor we have characteristics of the donor.

85
00:16:25.000 --> 00:16:33.000
So it's not just a child, it's a child with also kind of a symbolic imagination around it.

86
00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:40.000
So if it's not the child that we plan to have, then we feel. Tricked. So.

87
00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:53.000
Yes. My first thought when I saw your slide was genetic ties are social constructs. Absolutely. I think it'd be really interesting.

88
00:16:53.000 --> 00:16:58.000
I don't know where you're gonna go with this, but to parallel it with this, but to parallel it with people who know they're adopted versus not adopted and their people who know they're adopted versus not adopted and their narrative as a family.

89
00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:04.000
And then my second question slash comment to consider to talk about later that we don't talk about now.

90
00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:21.000
Is the strength of family ties, particularly in those locations even. But the street the family ties so for example I'm not very attached to my family and actually see that much of loyalty in family is actually the more people are like family first the one like oh that goes like a course of a tie and you're coming to you and

91
00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:31.000
that's why we have to have that narrative, which might seem to be different from other people. My point is I think there's a notion of family ties and how important family is.

92
00:17:31.000 --> 00:17:39.000
Absolutely. The person too that plays a part that could also be seen in the state or whatever level. Like I guess those 11 states are very family first states.

93
00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:52.000
Or very little places that it But. Absolutely. As it goes up, the stream It was going down.

94
00:17:52.000 --> 00:18:11.000
Can I comment or do I have time to? I would like to go to it. Whether the next speaker is

95
00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:14.000
What do I do now?

96
00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:30.000
Okay. So

97
00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:36.000
So good morning. Thank you to be here this morning. My name is Isabel Kuti.

98
00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:49.000
I'm full professor at the Department of Social Work. I'm a full professor at the Department of Social Work and I'm a full professor at the Department of Social Work in the University of Quebec, and I owe the Canada researcher on third party reproduction and family ties and as you can hear I'm I speak

99
00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:04.000
French so I hope my accent won't be too painful for you for the next few minutes. I am very happy to be here to present the experience of a young Canadian who will witness their mother surrogacy.

100
00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:08.000
So what

101
00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:22.000
Okay, so what do we know? About these children. In fact, we know just a few things because only 4 studies have been published on this subject.

102
00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:29.000
So we do know that the majority of these children, the children of Surrogate, have had a positive experience.

103
00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:37.000
It has also been shown that the relationship between the surrogate mothers family and the IPs meaning the Entenden parents.

104
00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:46.000
Can last over time as observed in 47% of the sample in the study of Jedi and memory.

105
00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:54.000
We also know that young people themselves find it very important to maintain contact with IPs. And the children through their mother.

106
00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:02.000
Some even consider the child carried by their mother. Some even consider the child carried by their mother as a siblings and the children generally express pride toward their mother.

107
00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:20.000
However, we do know also that younger children report experiences more negative emotions and anxiety as shown in the studies conducted by Riddle.

108
00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:28.000
So these studies provide interesting insights, but they do have some limitation in fully understanding the children's experience.

109
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:38.000
3 of these studies are based on small sample sizes and 2 others have mixed designs that leaves little room for children's voices.

110
00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:53.000
Whoops, look bad. Okay, so our studies. We met 62 children. Of 34 surrogates who had completed a total of 62 surrogacies.

111
00:20:53.000 --> 00:21:06.000
24 of these surrogacies were conducted within a national context, so with Canadian IPs. And 26 and vote foreign national IPs mostly from Europe and Australia.

112
00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:18.000
5 of these surrogacies were genetic, meaning the surrogate used their own egg. And while 43 were gestational, meaning the surrogate was not genetically related to the child.

113
00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:32.000
We do not have the information for 13 of these surrogacies. And the participants were between 5 and 24 years old at the time of the interviews we met 27 boys 34 girls and one non bin I review.

114
00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:49.000
Most most of them were between 8 to 12. So if I say children of surrogate, of course they are not all children because we have young adults and teenager but I use children meaning that they are the children of the surrogate.

115
00:21:49.000 --> 00:22:01.000
Well, okay. So, we conduct the interviews structured around 4 teams. So the children understanding of their mother's surrogacy journey.

116
00:22:01.000 --> 00:22:12.000
Their experience through the surrogacy process, their feelings about ending the baby to the IPs and their perceptions of the childborn true surrogacy.

117
00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:21.000
And for the presentation I will present the result regarding the second and 13.

118
00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:36.000
So, 29 participants reported only positive aspects. While 6 mentioned negative elements only. And 23 participants were fall in the middle of the continuum so positive and negative elements.

119
00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:47.000
Tree factors contribute to children experiencing negative emotions such as sadness, disappointment or stress during the surrogacy process.

120
00:22:47.000 --> 00:22:57.000
So first, among the element that Arrows negative feelings are generate ambivalence or fears related to type birth.

121
00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:07.000
Some children were left in the dark during their mother's pregnancy. The children didn't know what the bird will be like and many created scenarios that could generate anxiety.

122
00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:19.000
It was only after the child was born and the mother returned home that the children let go of their vigilance regarding their mother's elf.

123
00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:34.000
Of course, pregnancy can be a time when medical complication can occur. And it's of course very difficult experience for participants who have had to deal with the situation.

124
00:23:34.000 --> 00:23:45.000
6 of them at their mother had problem during the pregnancy as presenta Previa as Chloe is saying here.

125
00:23:45.000 --> 00:23:54.000
Bring and see also means that the mother needs more support with domestic chores. Chores, especially if the pregnancy presents complication.

126
00:23:54.000 --> 00:24:09.000
As a result, the family is called upon to contribute and the children take on new family tasks which some find it more difficult to cope with.

127
00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:20.000
But also several positive elements are mentioned by the children such as time spent with their mother. During pregnancy some surrogates stop working by choice or for medical reasons.

128
00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:31.000
And some participants mentioned that they took advantage of this period of time to do fun activities with their mother. Children are also interested by the baby during pregnancy.

129
00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:50.000
They explain their excitement and impressions regarding the birth and the opportunity to see the baby for the first time, what she or he looks like and all them are her in their arms, many of them spoke to us about that.

130
00:24:50.000 --> 00:24:59.000
It is often assumed that the separation from the child takes place immediately after delivery, but it's not necessarily the case.

131
00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:12.000
As the IPs don't usually live in close geographical proximity to the surrogate, they may have more they have to move closer to our place of residence in the days or even weeks preceding the birth.

132
00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:20.000
Some will also stay for a few weeks after the birth while the situation with the baby is regular, regularized.

133
00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:39.000
We did all right. Particularly in the case of transnational surrogacy. It's this period of varying length that the children refer to when they talk about the moment of separation.

134
00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:49.000
For some children, the separation was difficult. Because they already form a bond with the IPs and the child and the baby.

135
00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:56.000
When the IPs live in Adorcanadan province or overseas, the time spent together is obviously less frequent after the birth.

136
00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:07.000
However, even if they would like to see the baby and the IPs more often, several participants explained that they appreciate the type of contact they have with the family.

137
00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:17.000
Indeed, they value being able to receive photos and the chance to make occasional video conference calls from time to time.

138
00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:22.000
So. What does this results teach us? On the one end, we observed that children's experience are not one-dimensional.

139
00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:43.000
While the overall experience is generally positive, some elements can be more challenging. This is particularly the case when children and young people do not have all the necessary information to fully understand the different stages involved in the process.

140
00:26:43.000 --> 00:26:54.000
For example, when they don't understand how the childbirth will take place. Or also when they worry about pregnancy complications and potential impact on their mother's health.

141
00:26:54.000 --> 00:27:07.000
And an effort to avoid causing worry, mothers may instinctively avoid discussing these elements. Which results in children creating their own scenarios to compensate the lack of information.

142
00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:21.000
However, when we look at the overall experience of children and young people, including those who report the difficulties, we find that their mother surrogacy journey is generally perceived positively.

143
00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:31.000
The negative emotions mentioned are limited to specific elements and don't color the entirety of the children's discourse regarding the process.

144
00:27:31.000 --> 00:27:49.000
Furthermore, when we assured the Negative emotions usually dissipate. Several of these young participants report feeling pride toward their mother being happy for diabetes and they agreed that the experience allowed them to form meaningful relationships with people involved.

145
00:27:49.000 --> 00:28:00.000
Therefore, our results provide additional insights to the study conducted by Riddle. As they contribute to a better understanding of the factors that generate negative emotions.

146
00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:13.000
It becomes evident that the lack of information about what will happen or what could happen instead of protecting children as adult of intent to assume actually as the opposing effect.

147
00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:25.000
Finally, when we talk about surrogacy, the discussion often revolves around the IPs their surrogate and the childborn true surgacy excluding other family members.

148
00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:32.000
As the children of surrogates. However, children are not passive witnesses to their mother's surrogacy journey.

149
00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:46.000
They are active and engaged participants in the process. Since children experienced the surrogacy process alongside their mother, it is important to consider their well-being when discussing a surrogacy project among the stakeholders.

150
00:28:46.000 --> 00:28:52.000
In Canada, surrogates are required to meet a social worker with a social worker or a psychologist before embarking in the surrogacy journey.

151
00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:05.000
These meetings aim to assess the motivations and capabilities of the surrogate to assess the motivations and capabilities of the surrogate to successfully undertake the motivations and capabilities of the surrogate to successfully undertake such a project.

152
00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:11.000
However, it is important for these meetings to also address how the children of Surrogate's mother can experience.

153
00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:23.000
The journey and it is crucial to take into account the well being of the surrogates children and ensure that mothers can access psychosocial super for their children if it deemed necessary.

154
00:29:23.000 --> 00:29:29.000
Thank you very much. Thank you.

155
00:29:29.000 --> 00:29:39.000
We will have the question at the end. I guess so. Yeah. Yeah.

156
00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:52.000
With the after the lecture because

157
00:29:52.000 --> 00:30:07.000
Thank you very much. It was very interesting. I would like to, because it's not legal in Sweden with surrogacy so I would like maybe to elaborate a bit about the framework about this if it's completely legal with servicing or yeah please.

158
00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:15.000
Yeah, in Canada it's legal if the surrogates is older than 21 and if it's completely free.

159
00:30:15.000 --> 00:30:32.000
So it's an altruistic surrogacy that take place in Canada. And at the bird the child is automatically the child of the parents.

160
00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:53.000
How often the Soviet mother refuses to give the baby? Oh, it's it's a thing that we usually think about when we talk about surrogacy but in fact it's very very rare and we talk about surrogacy but in fact it's very very very rare and we haven't showed that surrogacy but in fact it's very very very rare and we haven't showed that in

161
00:30:53.000 --> 00:31:12.000
Canada but in fact it's very very rare and we haven't showed that in Canada but in one of my projects we have a woman who The parents didn't take the child so she she was stuck with the child and it was an international IP so when she gave birth they just don't show up.

162
00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:22.000
And she was in the obligation to keep the child.

163
00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:33.000
And. Thank you for this great presentation. I have a question really to the age.

164
00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:53.000
I saw you have a white range of the age of those children. I wonder if there are differences between younger children and kind of a little bit older children in their experience and also their attitudes.

165
00:31:53.000 --> 00:32:14.000
It's a good question, but It's surprising, but no. We saw nothing. But the youngest, they were more worried about their mother and about, you know, all the thing when she will go to the hospital what will happen and things like that, which was not the case of the oldest one, but it was the only

166
00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:27.000
difference that we saw. Thank you.

167
00:32:27.000 --> 00:32:48.000
We fly on the online presentations.

168
00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:59.000
And here is the option.

169
00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:25.000
Yeah, and you have to move the red the stock share and then share. Okay.

170
00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:48.000
Foster Maria.

171
00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:53.000
I don't see the name here.

172
00:33:53.000 --> 00:34:01.000
The name of the presenter.

173
00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:20.000
Rosa Maria, Camarana, Porto.

174
00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:50.000
Should have been well, You know. Yeah, I think we just need to share 3 and again and then.

175
00:34:52.000 --> 00:35:01.000
Go. Do you like to see if she's online? I can check, yeah, yeah. Well, the ninks, okay.

176
00:35:01.000 --> 00:35:16.000
Sure. Yeah, you found, I'm actually looking for. It doesn't look like she is Guessing Camarina is not there

177
00:35:16.000 --> 00:35:19.000
The virtual presenter has not logged in, no.

178
00:35:19.000 --> 00:35:30.000
Okay, thank you. Well, on to the next. The last one, beautiful. I'm just gonna hide that.

179
00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:33.000
Hey, go ahead.

180
00:35:33.000 --> 00:35:40.000
All right, good morning everyone. I was expecting 10 min so I can talk a little slower now.

181
00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:44.000
Okay, I'm Gail Kaufman coming from the US and my co-author is here, Delane Compton.

182
00:35:44.000 --> 00:35:55.000
And we're presenting on marriage attitudes after marriage equality.

183
00:35:55.000 --> 00:36:19.000
So we're giving a very brief background because again we thought we always had a little bit of time but basically just to set the scene is this graph shows data from the Gallup poll that has tracked attitudes towards same-sex couples getting married across time since the 1,900 ninety's and you can see clearly

184
00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:27.000
that there was not a lot of support in the ninetys and really it only got up to even about half of people.

185
00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:39.000
Supporting in about 2,012 we put in the Supreme Court decision in June, 2,015, which was almost exactly 8 years ago.

186
00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:52.000
And now the most recent data shows that 70% it might have even interrupted a little bit more than that but basically a clear majority of the public supports.

187
00:36:52.000 --> 00:37:11.000
Marriage between same-sex couples. So we were interested in Given that we have a situation in the context where there's marriage equality in law and that opinions are quite supportive of this.

188
00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:27.000
We were wondering how people feel more generally about marriage and different dimensions of marriage and so thinking about if people are supporting same-sex marriage are they also supporting different ideas about marriage or are they still sort of thinking of marriage?

189
00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:50.000
In a very similar way to before, you know, but now gay couples can do it. So we ask how do people who support same-sex marriage feel about marriage more generally and how do these attitudes vary by gender and sexual orientation?

190
00:37:50.000 --> 00:38:06.000
So we, to do this, we actually had a lot of fun creating our own survey and we we designed the survey and had some consultants but we used professional service and mayor speak to conduct the survey.

191
00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:20.000
They're part of the national opinion research center at the University of Chicago and they were able to do a probability based panel of US adults.

192
00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:29.000
And the sample is 2,806. And you can see I'm just showing the breakdown by gender and by sexual orientation.

193
00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:46.000
We can see that in gender we have a little higher representation of women than men and just under 2% of our sample identify as trans or non-binary.

194
00:38:46.000 --> 00:39:10.000
In terms of sexual orientation, it's about 80% identify as straight or heterosexual, we've got a pretty good representation with 8% identifying as gay or lesbian, almost 10% identifying as bisexual or pansexual and just under 2% identifying as asexual and we

195
00:39:10.000 --> 00:39:19.000
did. Define that in parentheses just to make sure that people might know what that is.

196
00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:30.000
Okay, so. The the server was mainly about attitudes, mainly looking at marriage. This is not all of the attitudes, but just.

197
00:39:30.000 --> 00:39:39.000
A sample to get a sense of what we were trying to get at. So we were trying to look at 3 basic areas.

198
00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:55.000
One was just general opinions about marriage. So statements like marriage is good for society or marriage is an outdated institution, these get at just broader feelings about marriage.

199
00:39:55.000 --> 00:40:04.000
Then we have attitudes related towards Same sex marriage, things like marriage should always be between a man and a woman.

200
00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:24.000
Or same-sex marriage is good for society. And then we were thinking about where does this go in the debates leading up to the Supreme Court decision there was talk of oh if You know, we let gay couples get married, then who knows, people are going to marry.

201
00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:42.000
All sorts of things are going to happen. And so we thought about this and thought well maybe that is the next step and maybe you know let's see in terms of thinking about polyamorous marriage marriage between 3 or more people and whether that should be legal or whether there should be rates there.

202
00:40:42.000 --> 00:40:57.000
So we did a cluster analysis to identify groups of people based on their attitudes towards these 3 dimensions.

203
00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:14.000
And we're still playing with, we've changed the titles. Around as we've gone through, but right now we we have 3 categories and we've named them traditional marriage supporters, pro-marriage folks and postmarriage individuals.

204
00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:42.000
So the first group, the traditional marriage supporters, that's those in the green, so 28.5% of folks fall into that and basically they have positive views of marriage, the general marriage, they think marriage is great, it's sacred, it should be forever, those kinds of things, but they do not support marriage

205
00:41:42.000 --> 00:42:03.000
between same-sex couples or polyamorous unions. So this would fall under sort of how we think about heteronormativity, sort of the idea that marriage should just be a man and a woman and no other, you know, so that more traditional view.

206
00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:19.000
And then the second group are those who support a view that's pro-marriage. These this is the blue so the largest group by a little bit, 37.4% of our sample.

207
00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:42.000
They have positive views of marriage between 2 people. Any 2 people have at it, you know? So they're, they support marriage between same-sex couples, but they're also, their views of marriage, they're supportive and think marriage is good generally.

208
00:42:42.000 --> 00:43:05.000
But they are not supportive of polyamorous marriage. So we think that this falls under what we, you know, we classify as homonormativity in the sense that you know, it's all well and good if gay or lesbian couples get married as long as they're like still doing marriage in

209
00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:14.000
the way that we think marriage should be. And then the third group are those that we consider postmarriage.

210
00:43:14.000 --> 00:43:23.000
They are the pink group. 34% of the sample and they support marriage between same-sex couples, but actually they're not really big on marriage otherwise.

211
00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:39.000
So they're pretty neutral about sort of marriage generally and they're they're not supportive of polyamorous marriage but they don't oppose it either.

212
00:43:39.000 --> 00:43:53.000
They are sort of neutral. So we think that maybe they're just neutral about marriage in general but feel like they should support same-sex couples.

213
00:43:53.000 --> 00:44:10.000
So we're thinking that this in that they might be following a non-normative route. Okay, so I don't know if we have time for all of this, but this is just looking at the different attitudinal.

214
00:44:10.000 --> 00:44:24.000
Items that we have and then the 3 groups the traditional pro marriage and postmarriage. The attitudes highlighted in yellow are looking at those related to same-sex marriage.

215
00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:36.000
The blue is the general marriage attitudes and the purple are polyamorous. So just the point that I want to highlight here and the numbers are all the means.

216
00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:47.000
So like that first number marriage should always be between a man and a woman for the traditional group. The average is 4.6 3 so it's close to 5.

217
00:44:47.000 --> 00:45:06.000
So basically they strongly agree that marriage should always be between a man and a woman. Whereas The pro marriage are 2, so they're on the disagree side and the post marriage 1.8 are disagree even moving towards a stronger disagreement.

218
00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:16.000
So what you can take away from this is that when we're looking at Those blue items, again, the general marriage.

219
00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:40.000
The traditional and the pro marriage are pretty similar, although the traditional are the most positive. Words marriage, but if you think about something like the in general, how do you feel about the institution of marriage, the traditional folks have 9.1 9 out of 10 so they're very high on this the pro marriage are 8.6 8 so

220
00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:58.000
they're quite high on that as well compared to the postmarriage being 6 more neutral or marriage is good for society both the traditional and parole marriage are agreeing on this whereas the postmarriage are very neutral.

221
00:45:58.000 --> 00:46:08.000
On the other hand, when we look at the yellow, the support for same-sex marriage, the pro-marriage, and the postmarriage tend to be similar on this.

222
00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:18.000
They're both supportive of same-sex marriage and think that same-sex marriage has had a positive impact on society and on family.

223
00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:30.000
Whereas the traditional those ones there are are basically saying that they that it's had a negative impact on society.

224
00:46:30.000 --> 00:47:00.000
And then the last bit the the polyamorous, the ones in purple, that's the most differentiation across the 3 groups but basically the traditional are quite opposed the pro-marriage are on the disagree side and the postmarriage are sort of neutral, maybe slightly over to the positive side.

225
00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:25.000
Okay, so just shortly looking at this by gender and then by sexual orientation by gender we don't see a lot of differences between cisman and cis women, the cis women may be slightly less likely to be traditional than the men, but we can see that clearly with trans and non-binary folks that

226
00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:36.000
they're almost all in the pro-marriage or in the post. Host marriage, sorry, yet they're almost all considered postmarriage.

227
00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:42.000
It is a small sample, but I think that's a notable pattern. In terms of sexual orientation, there are some interesting findings here.

228
00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:54.000
The individuals who identify as straight or heterosexual mirror the general pattern. They're pretty much divided between these 3 groups.

229
00:47:54.000 --> 00:48:22.000
Those who identify as gay or lesbian are really split actually between the postmarriage and the pro marriage so a little more likely to be postmarriage, but still it's interesting that of the Sexual minority is the gay and lesbian individuals are split here and that there are a pretty decent individuals are split here and that there are a pretty decent number who would fall in

230
00:48:22.000 --> 00:48:41.000
that there are a pretty decent number who would fall in that pro-marriage category. Not many in the traditional.

231
00:48:41.000 --> 00:49:05.000
And then lastly, the asexual folks are also most likely to be postmarriage but it is interesting that they have a little more traditional than the other 2 sexual minority groups but again small numbers so just This is just preliminary.

232
00:49:05.000 --> 00:49:14.000
Okay, so I'll just wrap it up. Basically, overall there's really high support for marriage.

233
00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:36.000
In general so there we this goes along with the ideas that there's high support for marriage between same-sex couples, but also that view just because there's great support for same-sex marriage doesn't mean that people aren't still having more traditional views of marriage.

234
00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:47.000
So that's what we're seeing a lot of. There's not a lot of support at this point for polyamorous marriage, There could be shifts in this.

235
00:49:47.000 --> 00:49:54.000
Also, we're seeing like younger cohorts and so forth being more supportive. So we'll see where that goes.

236
00:49:54.000 --> 00:49:59.000
But if you'd like more information, we do have a website on our project because we have a qualitative component.

237
00:49:59.000 --> 00:50:17.000
We're following up with now. Yeah, please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you.

238
00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:22.000
Questions?

239
00:50:22.000 --> 00:50:34.000
You can now address most free speakers. Nice. I just feel because when do we have like this fall?

240
00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:45.000
One of the things that I think is really interesting about this session specifically is the family structure aspect and one of the things I think is the family structure aspect.

241
00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:56.000
And one of the things that I think is really super interesting about this work related to that is that I think one of the big reasons the I think is really super interesting about this work related to that is that I think one of the big reasons the buy and the Trans highs are popping off is largely way to age and cohort.

242
00:50:56.000 --> 00:51:16.000
And so we have this like third of the population that's really ambivalent. And we have this third of the population and then we have these other parts of these populations that I younger age they're not as far out from their counterparts that are more But what would sort of suggesting is they might have more lax views

243
00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:24.000
towards what marriage is and what marriage could be. And the same thing related to if we take it away from marriage towards relationships.

244
00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:32.000
So our work has a lot of relationship structures so people may identify as married, but they're living in polyamorous relationships and the rate of one person but not there.

245
00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:45.000
But related to stereotyping to all about it's really interesting because one of the things they're doing right now that's fascinating for me is they are raising right now that's fascinating for me is they are raising children and how the children don't see.

246
00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:58.000
These lines at this distinctions that we see. And just a cohort of And I think it's gonna be interesting because the children of you know, typical 2 parent household in America.

247
00:51:58.000 --> 00:52:05.000
Is in that same vote with these other children. So it'll be interesting to see how that changes attitude moving forward.

248
00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:14.000
And I think we'll see some pretty interesting shifts in how we. I think we already see some interesting shifts in how we think about family in America.

249
00:52:14.000 --> 00:52:22.000
We are not seeing shifts academically. And I do think in 2,000.

250
00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:37.000
Anyway, and I do think. I don't know. My point is that I think We need these issues in how we're studying family because a lot of the way we capture family is with like marital status.

251
00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:51.000
Versus like a relationship status variable or the way we capture that where a household is. As Mary Houseful Generally versus this is a household or this is a household with children versus very possible with children.

252
00:52:51.000 --> 00:52:59.000
So my point is I think we have strong bias in even how we study that means towards understanding families as a mayor.

253
00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:06.000
And I think we should consider that one.

254
00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:23.000
Many years ago when I worked my Ph. DI struggled with the family structure. And I came up with the idea of instead of marriage.

255
00:53:23.000 --> 00:53:34.000
And, cohort, computation. The pox imitated which was very very useful for my research.

256
00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:50.000
Thank you very much. It was very interesting and I agree with you especially as a chemist and I agree with you especially as a chemotherapy as we don't marry.

257
00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:59.000
I was interesting about the thing of Paula Morris, the question that you have of polyamorous is dangerous for kids or something that you have polyamorous is dangerous for kids or something like that.

258
00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:23.000
As I'm an expert to a court for 3 parents one to be recognized as parents. Okay. And, the big issue is that if we open the door of tree parent for a kid, we must open the door at polyamorous marriage, which we don't want to because polygamy or a thing like

259
00:54:23.000 --> 00:54:47.000
that but we Maybe we want to have 3 parents and see a troubles be recognized as such, but not 3 person being married because one man will marry 10 women and then it will open you know the Pandora box so I just want to hear something about that the marriage versus the parent ship and

260
00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:58.000
Yep. Do you wanna say something? Do you want to come up here instead? You cannot hear.

261
00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:09.000
What I guess I really want to say about that is I have a prior project I did where we interviewed LGBT couples and a prior project I did where we interviewed LGBT couples and a lot of this stuff I did where we interviewed LGBT couples and a lot of this stuff came up because one of

262
00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:17.000
the things, a lot of this stuff came up because one of the really things that's interesting things in America for queer couples and interesting things in America for queer couples is that a lot of the stuff came up because one of the really things that's interesting things in America for queer couples is that a lot of the way they secure rights is through

263
00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:23.000
adoption. And the adoption process is actually better for you if you're not married as far as getting your money back on taxes.

264
00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:37.000
So like the queer couples would want to adopt the child and and then maybe sometimes get married. Well, one of the earlier states to adopt marriage started forcing, they wanted to force marriage before you could adopt.

265
00:55:37.000 --> 00:55:48.000
But then they wouldn't get their tax credit and so the adoption would be kind of expensive. And so it was really kind of interesting because we actually went to write a project like First Comes.

266
00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:55.000
Adoption. Like first comes baby then comes adoption then comes marriage for queer couples to be financially smart.

267
00:55:55.000 --> 00:55:59.000
And because also they shouldn't have to do the adoption, but that and that's expensive.

268
00:55:59.000 --> 00:56:07.000
So it's actually not, it's actually kind of free if you're able to take the tax credit, you get reimbursed up to a certain point.

269
00:56:07.000 --> 00:56:15.000
So it was really an interesting idea because judges started forcing marriage if they could in the state. And actually that was a reason federal marriage started to pass.

270
00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:30.000
But anyway, the thing that I'm getting at is that you can find ways through contract law to create certain securities, but what happened was the judges started going to enforce marriage and and when you bring children into it, people worry about marriage.

271
00:56:30.000 --> 00:56:36.000
And I'm fascinated by this idea just because I mean that's why I study marriage and family probably.

272
00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:53.000
But we put so much into the idea of marriage and as Americans I don't even we value the idea of marriage and a very very specific Notion of marriage that few of us really live And I'm just fascinated about how this notion stands so strong when so many people don't even live this notion.

273
00:56:53.000 --> 00:57:01.000
And so anyway, that's a little bit. I hope did that answer a little, but just the connection of kids in marriage.

274
00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:13.000
Also I think the point that like I guess heterosexual or shred like that there could be multi parent families.

275
00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:25.000
You know, step parent families, etc. Where you would have meant more than 2 parents, but I think you're onto that.

276
00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:35.000
You know, the concern is if that's open then. Yeah, because lots of places parents have my son has 3 moms.

277
00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:36.000
Is what he said, what he'll say. He's like, I have 3 moms.

278
00:57:36.000 --> 00:57:43.000
And then other kids are like, I have 4 moms and they're counting a number of step-moms that came before the current step-mom.

279
00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:56.000
Do you know what I mean? I believe you listen to them on the playground, a lot of them have 6 to 10 plus adults that have at some point cared for them and we don't have a problem with that but it's like all of a sudden if those adults might be in a romantic relationship, now

280
00:57:56.000 --> 00:58:01.000
we're scared of the. We now we want them married if there's a child, but I don't know.

281
00:58:01.000 --> 00:58:12.000
It's interesting. We have 3 masons actually going to work with 2 And one of the cases that there was actually a couple and there's already the other 1 2 lesbian and their daughter and the other one is in trouble.

282
00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:38.000
So this one will reach out my next word one. It's more challenging to the part because there are no relationships all together living in the same house evident having a kid so That's more complicated than the other idea situation.

283
00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:42.000
Specifically, don't ask them to without their donor because you know it's a that.

284
00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:49.000
It. Oh, we really do. Okay. And actually we had, Oh, okay.

285
00:58:49.000 --> 00:58:57.000
Yeah, I was gonna talk about It's a whole that we interview. Yeah, yeah. This is, this is me.

286
00:58:57.000 --> 00:59:11.000
Yeah. Sorry. Just had a quick question and I don't know if it's something that you look at but the fact that you said that the younger cohort had more positive attitudes, it reminded me of something that was discussed early on during the Congress.

287
00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:27.000
There was a roundtable around and one of the presentation was the attitudes towards childless women by choice and the the person who was presenting she said in terms of younger cohorts.

288
00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:36.000
Even in that cohort, the younger younger. Surprisingly, we're less, I had less positive attitudes towards shyness women by choice.

289
00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:45.000
So you had like the very young and then the older and then in between there were more positive but at the other end of the spectrum.

290
00:59:45.000 --> 01:00:01.000
So I was wondering. Expience pilots were positive. Yeah, no, I mean ours was we were divine because we have another paper and it was the millennials because we have another paper and it was the millennials I think we have another paper and it was the millennials I think we we we have Gen Z but we

291
01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:15.000
just it's not as large of a sample. I'd like to expand a bit of our move.

292
01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:28.000
We haven't talked about what marriage is. And where marriage, what and parenthood and what is the distinction between marriage and cohabitation?

293
01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:37.000
We seem to get sucked in, I'm sorry to say this. This romantic concept of marriage as a relationship.

294
01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:50.000
Marriage is not a relationship. Marriage is about property rights. And at the same time It's about the right of the person.

295
01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:01.000
Who doesn't necessarily have comfort. Well, marriage is not just. Of public statement we are living together.

296
01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:07.000
And I think One of the things that gets lost

297
01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:18.000
In this discussion of opening up marriage. Put myself in the postmarriage group by the way. Even though I'm married.

298
01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:23.000
For the last 52 years.

299
01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:34.000
One of the things that gets lost in the discussion of let's open up the concept of marriage. Is the issue.

300
01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:38.000
Of exploitation.

301
01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:54.000
That there is in some sense strong and exploitative partner and a weak and an exploited partner whether it's exploited sexually or exploited financially or emotionally or whatever.

302
01:01:54.000 --> 01:02:04.000
And I think, you know, when you. You pose the question. In terms of argue in favour of marriage and so on.

303
01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:12.000
First of all there's a lot of hidden agenda there which different people will read in different ways. Am I in favor of people living together?

304
01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:27.000
Am I in favor of people formalizing their living together and so on? But I think one of the things that gets lost when we focus on the relationship aspect is the exploitative aspect of marriage.

305
01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:40.000
Which I think needs to be incorporated. Into better understanding of the underlying processes. Because I'm always going to wake up in will be in 2030, 40 years.

306
01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:45.000
The new form of exploitation.

307
01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:53.000
Given under different name. The basic issue of exploitation within the household

308
01:02:53.000 --> 01:03:04.000
Main needs to be addressed. Yeah, absolutely. So I think that that's what we're curious about.

309
01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:18.000
Does this like? Is marriage changing at all or are we stuck on a certain view? Right? And so we also, we're a little limited as is all quantitative.

310
01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:25.000
Well, all research is limited, but quantitative research would be limited in terms of, yeah, here are a bunch of statements.

311
01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:29.000
We've used some that were tested before we added some of our own, but now we're doing qualitative research.

312
01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:47.000
We're doing interviews specifically with LGBTQ folks. Like being able to ask more like, how do you feel about this and what does it look like to you and what does it mean and so forth?

313
01:03:47.000 --> 01:04:01.000
I think there is a lot more. Sort of practical. Potentially legalistic kind of especially for for we're seeing age differences or cohort differences there as well.

314
01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:21.000
But like the one example I was going to also point to with the earlier question was we interviewed people from Mathropol or 3 people and 2 of them were married and then the third person came on and they each have children and they had talked about, oh, should we get divorced?

315
01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:31.000
These 2 get married so that they're linked. And you know they're all connected to the children either through everybody's connected.

316
01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:44.000
With my question about the Ming of Kern. What is parent? What is it? Well, and the marriage is powerful.

317
01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:52.000
I think in that definition too. So we have states that allow multiple names on the birth certificate and then I'm from that definition too.

318
01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:55.000
So like we have states that allow multiple names on the birth certificate and then I'm from Li live in Louisiana.

319
01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:01.000
My son was born in The child has to have the same last name as the mother if she's unwed and there's no option for me.

320
01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:08.000
It was no option for me to be on the birth certificate. And so my son doesn't have a parent on his birth certificate.

321
01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:13.000
It's like 2 dashes. And so, you know, and this would all be based around marriage.

322
01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:18.000
But the other thing you'll see is that a lot of these laws. Are based around protecting men.

323
01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:34.000
So this was a, this situation was about protecting men being accused of being fathers. And having to then like child support and support like that, which doesn't make sense in a conservative state of Louisiana where the state would theoretically not want to have unwed parents that they would then support.

324
01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:43.000
Does that make sense? So it goes even against their conservative ideology and it's about the power dynamic of who we're protecting.

325
01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:48.000
And then the other thing I just wanna say is. The idea of the power dynamic in any dyad, it's rarely balanced.

326
01:05:48.000 --> 01:06:01.000
So it's almost always unequal whether people want to believe that or not. It may equal out on an average and over time and that's kind of the idea of like what some people think is the best we can wish for in a dyad.

327
01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:12.000
But one way we can make a much more equal system is actually by adding a third. So like some people would argue like the poly relationship, I think I'm arguing for poly. I'm actually quite traditional.

328
01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:19.000
But the poly relationship would be more balanced or more chances of balance, less chances of if everybody's interacting.

329
01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:33.000
But we may then have strong stereotypes of the poly relationship being kind of like polygamy right and that being oppressive But so there's a there's a lot so much to consider and learn.

330
01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:44.000
Which brings me back to the first presentation with Adonis. How many children, how many dollars? Want to be recognized, want to recognize it.

331
01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:52.000
This means that in the future. Somebody will pop up and say, hey, you are my father, even if genetically it's true.

332
01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:57.000
And I want part of your property.

333
01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:03.000
Yes, we could get the donors. I know that in some countries in Israel, the donors.

334
01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:07.000
I know that in some countries in Israel, for example, the donors are unknown news. Especially for the reason because otherwise they won't have donations.

335
01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:17.000
In America they check whether they would want to know or not know so you could actually get that data from the websites when you're purchasing.

336
01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:36.000
But yeah, yeah. Yeah. And then the siblings are finding one another in forms. You mean donors don't make theirs from with the hope that one day they will feel the relationship?

337
01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:53.000
Or we will hope to know that not. To help you know who is No, on the contrary. I guess a lot of them don't believe because that's where they were told also that they could give Okay, anonymously.

338
01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:07.000
But with the DNA test now, it's getting less and less. And now they're being found, some of them are not Get others are.

339
01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:28.000
Happy to know! We're, so it in a lot of like, I mean the people who found their donors, some of them told us that the rule is just completed that we won't end up any pieces of event, others were okay just Occasionally I am the They have it's really created a

340
01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:36.000
lot. Is there a systematic study of these relationships? Yeah. It's a positive sense.

341
01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:49.000
So we had 22 people that Yeah, so it's not open. Okay.

342
01:08:49.000 --> 01:09:03.000
Yeah, I have a question to the Lane and Gay and I wonder about like That is, if the persons had children if that had any sort of impact on their views.

343
01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:06.000
If you did any of.

344
01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:11.000
Sticking up. I don't know. I don't know if we've interviewed enough people to really pick up on on that.

345
01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:18.000
But I can sort of say anecdotally and talking about my work with parents. In similar situations.

346
01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:26.000
That sometimes people who have been married and divorced have very different kind of views. But they understand the actual dynamics of parenthood.

347
01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:41.000
And also marriage. They seem more open. Yeah, I think with our quantitative analysis I'm trying to remember I think parenthood did have to remember I think parenthood did have some It was more conservative.

348
01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:48.000
Yeah, it was more conservative for the children. Yeah, I write a paper called for the children.

349
01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:55.000
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we did have some people say now I'm refusing my mom, but they don't seem to back it up in America.

350
01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:00.000
You like theoretically we care about children but we don't like stop mash shootings. We don't offer free lunch to kids at school.

351
01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:11.000
Like if we really care about kids, they wouldn't be hungry when they went home for. So, but I think the parenthood was more.

352
01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:22.000
In my recollection, the distinction was more maybe pro-marriage, but not like the more traditional.

353
01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:30.000
But they're less like they're most likely to be pro-marriage, not post-marriage, but not traditional either.

354
01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:37.000
Yeah. Yeah, and something else I think we're going to see is that the children in the poly relationships I think actually have more resources.

355
01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:55.000
So like you have 3 or 4 adults to come home to. Somebody is more likely to be able to interact with you or somebody's at their cap that day that person can go take a break and just piece out that night and the other adults will continue and or you have more incomes if one person loses a job it's easier for 2 people

356
01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:01.000
to buffer that. You also have more differentiation in how they help with school work and who does the chores.

357
01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:08.000
So it's it's actually a lighter load in that work family balance.

358
01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:30.000
Yeah, exactly. And it's a numbers thing. But We have but I think it comes back to the point that was made as well like it depends on who's in the dynamics as long as because it definitely could have the potential to be.

359
01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:37.000
Yeah, yeah, but I always think about that one question about if you think they'll be harmed by this, right?

360
01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:39.000
Yeah, but I always think about that one question about if you think they'll be harmed by this, right?

361
01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:49.000
And if you look at the that that grow our children the resources available to them quality time of all that how many times have been touched today right like every kid needs 14 touches a day.

362
01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:56.000
Have you all read that one? Anyway, all of these things may actually theoretically numerically would have access to more resources.

363
01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:02.000
And we know in divorce the real issue of divorce that hurts children is the is if half of the resources go away.

364
01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:16.000
So if one parent checks out and leaves and they take their resources, they take their time, they take their cubs, they take, you know, this is what hurts the children more so than the parent separating them.

365
01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:37.000
Yes, exactly. Last day I think we can go group or visit. Tourists. Yes, because I'm a bit curious because in Sweden cohabitation is so very common and often the case for marriage is very common and often the case for marriage is to settle the legal arrangements around.

366
01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:52.000
Children. So I want about this The concept of cohabitation almost Oh, I have to say that in intersexual capitals and collaborators, what did you maybe elaborate a bit that I'm also the objectives or reasons?

367
01:12:52.000 --> 01:13:05.000
For it. Yeah, I mean, I think that the US is quite different from Sweden. And potentially from many other countries.

368
01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:24.000
It is very focused on marriage and I think some of the points that were already made in terms of like the legal like why even get married and what do you get out of it like if if health care and if various things were available without marriage.

369
01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:33.000
Would people be getting married as much? Maybe not. But But yeah, I think that.

370
01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:41.000
Like in the US context, there's, there are no the legal rights are just very different if you're cohabiting versus.

371
01:13:41.000 --> 01:14:04.000
These are mass sources are attached to marriage. They always care. Like, yeah, if you're, although this is interesting, I think this came up before as well I think this came up before as well I think in the period of time where where where there was same sex marriage in some states but not other states there was and we were moving in

372
01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:17.000
that direction, the states without it might have like my employer had rights for partners, right? You could get health care for your partners.

373
01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:26.000
Like Compton was saying, as soon as marriage was available, oh, you know what we're getting rid of the rights for partners.

374
01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:36.000
Like if you're married, then you're. Spouse can get the health care but not but unmarried partners don't qualify so I think so I think it is interesting, but that's what we also hope to explore more.

375
01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:50.000
With the qualitative data like if you're If you're not marrying, do you wanna cohabit or, you know, and what.

376
01:14:50.000 --> 01:15:12.000
What might be the you know, how might that look and what sort of issues do people have to address because they're not married, I think it would be very interesting to compare the US and Sweden on that.

377
01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:22.000
Okay. Thank you very much.