“It wasn't feasible for us”: Queer Women of Color Navigating Family Formation

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12303
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Author: Emily H. Ruppel,Hannah E. Karpman,Maria Torres
• Published date: 01 February 2018

H E. K  E H. R Smith College

M T Smith College School for Social Work

“It wasn’t feasible for us”: Queer Women of Color

Navigating Family Formation

Objective: This intersectional analysis was

designed to explore how lesbian, bisexual, and

queer (LBQ) women of color understand and

navigate family formation decisions.

Background: Family formation research cen-

ters White heterosexual parents and heteronor-

mative pathways (i.e., adoption and cryobank

purchasedsperm). Choosing a known donor may

be a way for LBQ women of color to circumvent

a process that has not been responsive to their

needs.

Method: Our qualitative analysis of 13 inter-

views of LBQ parents in families of color exam-

ined (a) the processes through which queer

women of color arrive at the selection of a

known donor, (b) the characteristics that queer

women of color prioritize in donor selection,

and (c) how women’s interactions with exter-

nal institutions (e.g., cryobanks) and histories of

oppressive racialized family formation practices

inuence their decision-making.

Results: Participants arrived at the selection of

known donors because the desired donor char-

acteristics were unavailable through commer-

cial sperm banks, particularly with regardto the

intersection of a person who could be known

and mirrored specic racial, ethnic, and cul-

tural characteristics. This decision was highly

Lilly Hall, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063 (hkarp-

man@smith.edu).

Key Words: Assistive reproductivetechnology, family forma-

tion, intersectionality, queer, sperm donor, women of color.

connected to their individual identities and the

intersections of those identities.

Conclusion: LBQ women of color may choose

known sperm donors and seek to minimize

their use of biotechnology because they do not

consider other alternatives (e.g., bank-acquired

sperm) desirable or feasible.

Implications: Findings invite the reimagination

of a cryobanking system that operates on a rela-

tional rather than biomedical model and the

need for services that practice outside of White,

heteronormative paradigms.

Up to six million children in the United States

have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-

gender, or queer (LGBTQ) parent (Gates,

2014). Further, lesbian couples of color are

more likely to raise children than their White

lesbian counterparts (Movement Advancement

Project, Family Equality Council, & Center

for American Progress, 2011). We use the

phrase of color throughout this article to refer

collectively to those who are at risk of being

marginalized for the color of their skin and do

so as a means to center the intersection of race,

ethnicity, and colorism in the marginalization

of women’s experiences (Burton, Bonilla-Silva,

Ray, Buckelew, & Hordge Freeman, 2010;

Crenshaw, 1991; Few-Demo, 2014). Although

each of these phenomena is a distinct marker

of experience, they also are strongly interwo-

ven. Further, such phrasing acknowledges the

inuence of a queer of color critique, which

asserts the need to also center queerness along

118 Family Relations 67 (February 2018): 118–131

DOI:10.1111/fare.12303