Adult offspring of lesbian parents report satisfaction with donor contact levels
Sperm donor relations among adult offspring conceived via insemination by lesbian parents (Koh, 2023)
Koh, A. S., Rothblum, E. D., Bos, H. M. W., Carone, N., & Gartrell, N. K. (2023). Sperm donor relations among adult offspring conceived via insemination by lesbian parents. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. DOI: 10.1080/02646838.2023.2227867
Geographic Region: United States
Research Question: How do adult offspring of lesbian parents relate to their anonymous, open-identity, or known sperm donors?
Design: Part of Wave 7 of a 36-year longitudinal study (U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study). Online survey conducted between March 2021 and November 2022.
Sample: 75 donor-conceived offspring ages 30-33 years. 52% were female, 91% were white, and 68% were heterosexual. 91% have a college degree or higher, and 79% are in committed relationships. 47% had unknown donors and 53% had known donors. The retention rate was 90% from the original study cohort. Forty participants knew their donors, including 24 who had known them since childhood and 16 who met them as adults. Twenty participants with anonymous donors and 15 with open-identity donors still did not know their donors.
Key Findings
Whether the donor was unknown or known at this stage of their lives, most participants were satisfied with their contact level.
Of those who contacted donors after age 18 (n=16), main motivations were curiosity about the donor and understanding family background and health history. Over half indicated that having “a better understanding of why I am who I am” was a motivation for contacting the donor. Over half of those with donor contact maintained ongoing relationships primarily through email and visits. None reported using the term “father” for the donor.
Most offspring told family members about donor contact without negative impact on family relationships. The donor also met family members in 63% of cases.
Those still unknown donors were comfortable not knowing their donors.
Limitations: This study looked at a very small, unrepresentative group - mostly white, highly educated families from one country, with tiny subgroups that make statistical comparisons meaningless. The 75 participants were conceived between 1986-1992, so their experiences may not reflect how donor conception works today.
My Hot Take: I’m curious about why the researchers asked different questions to different groups of participants. While offspring who contacted their donors since age 18 (n=16) received comprehensive questioning, including their motivations for conntacting the donor and preferred terminology, those with unknown donors (n=35) were only asked about their comfort level with not knowing their donor and offspring who had known their donors since childhood (n=24) were essentially ignored, receiving no specific questions about their donor relationships at all. This means 79% of participants weren't asked key questions, yet the researchers presented conclusions as if they applied to everyone. This inconsistent data collection is a massive missed opportunity for understanding how different groups conceptualize their donor relationships.
The study's interpretation of terminology data reveals another potential flaw. The researchers asked participants "Do you consider your donor a(n)?" and offered a very limited set of options like "father," "uncle," "acquaintance," etc. Based on the finding that no one selected "father," they concluded that "none of the offspring thought of their donor as a father." However, the researchers only gave participants a handful of traditional relationship labels to choose from, which completely fails to capture how donor-conceived people might actually think about this unique role. The researchers left out many terms that donor-conceived people commonly use, such as "genetic parent" and "biological father." The difference between "father" (implying a social, parental role) and "biological parent" (acknowledging genetic connection without social expectations) is huge - but participants weren't given this choice. By limiting people to such a narrow, poorly-designed list of options, the researchers made it diffiicult for participants to accurately describe their real feelings about their donors.
Applications: The research found satisfaction across different contact levels - some comfortable not knowing donors, others seeking contact. This indicates that supporting autonomy means respecting that donor-conceived people will make different choices about donor relationships based on their individual needs and circumstances. The most common motivation for contact was simply wanting to know "what is he like". Recognizing and normalizing curiosity about genetic origins appears important for healthy identity development.
Funding Source: No specific funding reported
Lead Author: Audrey Koh is affiliated with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
Regulatory Context
There are no comprehensive federal laws regulating gamete donation or donor conception in the U.S. The process is largely self-regulated by the fertility industry.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does have some oversight, primarily related to screening and testing of donors for infectious diseases.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) provides ethical guidelines and recommendations for donation practices. However, these are not legally binding.
There are no legal limits on compensation for donors. A 2011 court ruling (Kamakahi v. ASRM) determined that price caps on donor compensation violate antitrust laws.
ASRM recommends a minimum age of 21 for gamete donors, but this is not legally mandated.
The U.S. does not have laws prohibiting anonymous donation.
Some states have enacted their own laws regarding aspects of assisted reproduction, and parentage, but these vary widely.