"In England, the NHS will fund in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) for heterosexual couples who have been trying for a baby unsuccessfully for at least two years and meet certain other criteria such as age and weight."
"...But same-sex couples are often expected to demonstrate their infertility before the NHS will fund IVF..."
I accidentally spit take'd tea all over my monitor.
Wait, wait wait.
Are they really trying to say that same sex couples, that is sex, not gender, have to demonstrate infertility.
First, how do you demonstrate something like that? Do doctors just watch you unsuccessfully fuck?
"Right, as you can see I have inseminated my male partner, and he still has not conceived"
Demonstrate they are literally infertile, not just fertilizing barren lands.
I.E. if you're gay but can also prove you happen to have sperm/eggs that aren't fit for regular heterosexual procreation, you can also access the same fertility aids.
I understand that part. But friend, same sex couples cannot create children.
My confusion lies here:
Why would they need to show that they are infertile. Shouldn't that be the obvious thing? Whether they are or are not is irrelevant. Two men cannot create a child any more than two women can.
I guess I'm just perplexed at the wording and phrasing being used in the article, like it's not completely wrong, and somehow makes sense when it does not.
If you can't conceive because there's two women or two men, the chance that one or both of them is infertile is irrelevant. You can't make a child without a sperm and an egg. One of those two people will not have the other if they're the same sex.
The article stated sex, not gender. So they weren't playing the gender spectrum game. Did they genuinely not understand you can't will someone into being?
It's more of a beaurocratic loophole. Sexuality has no bearing either way on eligibility for IVF assistance, it doesn't disqualify or qualify you. So if you're gay can still get IVF assistance, but only if you're so infertile that you would qualify for assistance even as a heterosexual. Normally that is proven by trying and failing in a heterosexual relationship, but they can get a sperm count test or proof of polycystic ovaries or whatever.
Which leads to the perverse incentive that with a gay couple the one with the least functional reproductive system will be the one to sire the child, even though that comes with increased medical costs and risk of lifelong birth defects, just so they can freeload harder.
BBC’s main goal - manufacturing grievances in mentally unwell/violent peoples.
The British Bureau of Cuckoldry
So when I say "taxes are gay", everyone loses their minds, but BBC saying it...
Imagine being raised by two women lol
It's a huge risk factor for getting transed, that for sure.
"In England, the NHS will fund in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) for heterosexual couples who have been trying for a baby unsuccessfully for at least two years and meet certain other criteria such as age and weight."
"...But same-sex couples are often expected to demonstrate their infertility before the NHS will fund IVF..."
I accidentally spit take'd tea all over my monitor.
Wait, wait wait.
Are they really trying to say that same sex couples, that is sex, not gender, have to demonstrate infertility.
First, how do you demonstrate something like that? Do doctors just watch you unsuccessfully fuck?
"Right, as you can see I have inseminated my male partner, and he still has not conceived"
... are we sure this isn't satire?
Demonstrate they are literally infertile, not just fertilizing barren lands.
I.E. if you're gay but can also prove you happen to have sperm/eggs that aren't fit for regular heterosexual procreation, you can also access the same fertility aids.
I understand that part. But friend, same sex couples cannot create children.
My confusion lies here:
Why would they need to show that they are infertile. Shouldn't that be the obvious thing? Whether they are or are not is irrelevant. Two men cannot create a child any more than two women can.
They can get a sperm donor or surrogate, but still need medical aid to make that work.
So can a regular man and woman couple.
I guess I'm just perplexed at the wording and phrasing being used in the article, like it's not completely wrong, and somehow makes sense when it does not.
If you can't conceive because there's two women or two men, the chance that one or both of them is infertile is irrelevant. You can't make a child without a sperm and an egg. One of those two people will not have the other if they're the same sex.
The article stated sex, not gender. So they weren't playing the gender spectrum game. Did they genuinely not understand you can't will someone into being?
It's more of a beaurocratic loophole. Sexuality has no bearing either way on eligibility for IVF assistance, it doesn't disqualify or qualify you. So if you're gay can still get IVF assistance, but only if you're so infertile that you would qualify for assistance even as a heterosexual. Normally that is proven by trying and failing in a heterosexual relationship, but they can get a sperm count test or proof of polycystic ovaries or whatever.
Which leads to the perverse incentive that with a gay couple the one with the least functional reproductive system will be the one to sire the child, even though that comes with increased medical costs and risk of lifelong birth defects, just so they can freeload harder.
If everything about X isn't free, it's X-phobic.
The Handmaids Tale but with gay couples instead of Christians.