Financial barriers and desire for personal autonomy drive decisions to choose known donors
Home-insemination: the motivations and experiences of same-sex and gender diverse couples using self-insemination and known donors to conceive in Aotearoa New Zealand. (Fyfe, 2025)
Fyfe, A., Goedeke, S., & Du Preez, E. (2025). Home-insemination: the motivations and experiences of same-sex and gender diverse couples using self-insemination and known donors to conceive in Aotearoa New Zealand. Human Fertility, 28(1), 2572997. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2572997
Geographic Region: Aotearoa New Zealand
Research Question: What are the motivations and experiences of same-sex and gender diverse couples who use known donors and home insemination methods to conceive?
Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Data were collected between July and August 2024 through eight interviews (seven online, one face-to-face) lasting 50-80 minutes each. The interview guide covered motivations, preparation, donor selection and approach, support systems, cultural and spiritual considerations, stakeholder roles, home insemination experiences, and challenges encountered. Participants were recruited through advertisements on the Fertility NZ website and private Rainbow Families Facebook group.
Sample: 11 participants (five individuals and three couples) representing eight families with nine children conceived via self-insemination and known donors. Six participants were gestational parents and five were non-gestational parents, with children’s ages ranging from second trimester in utero to 19 years. Participants’ ages ranged from 28-53 years (mean 37 years). Participants self-identified their ethnicities as Māori (3), Pākehā/New Zealand European (6), and other European (2), with pronouns she/her (9), she/her/ia (1), and they/them (1). All donors had children of their own: six within heterosexual couples and two within same-sex couples. Two donors had previously donated to other families, resulting in other donor-conceived children who were not referred to as half-siblings of participants’ children. Among the eight donors, four had pre-existing friendships with recipients, two had social or work connections, and two were recruited online by recipients who then spent time developing relationships before attempting home insemination.
Key Findings
Participants prioritized finding “ideal donors” who were good people with aligned values, accessible to donor-conceived children throughout their lives, and capable of ongoing relationships. Most couples first approached family and friends as donor options based on pre-existing connections and shared values. For two Māori participants, finding a Māori donor was highly desirable or essential to support cultural identity and whakapapa (genealogy/heritage) connections for their children.
Finding suitable donors proved difficult, forcing most couples to compromise their initial criteria and expand their search networks. Couples faced limited options as potential donors reconsidered decisions, experienced fertility issues, or withdrew support. This lack of choice was described as “distressing and restrictive,” with participants feeling they had “less agency and control” than initially hoped.
Financial barriers were a primary motivation for choosing home insemination, with all participants except one identifying high fertility clinic costs as inaccessible or unacceptable.
Participants preferred home insemination as a “normal, at-home, non-medical intervention” that allowed greater autonomy and avoided medical settings. Some experienced fertility clinics as unwelcoming or uninformed about their needs, while others expressed discomfort with medical systems from te Ao Māori perspectives.
Participants lacked clear guidance about home insemination procedures, finding information difficult to locate, ambiguous, or conflicting. The actual insemination process sometimes involved awkward practical interactions that were uncomfortable for both donors and couples, though often managed with humor. Uncertainty about effective procedures created stress and self-doubt, with decisions made in the moment based on best guesses.
All couples rejected the “dad” role for donors, instead conceptualizing them as “helping uncles” or extended family members with ongoing but circumscribed roles and responsibilities. Participants deliberately constructed “extended families by choice” to offer donor-conceived children wider familial networks and support identity development, including in some cases donor-sibling connections and broader whānau/iwi (kinship/tribal) connections.
Every couple created written agreements with donors before beginning insemination, ranging from simple checklists ensuring mutual understanding to detailed contracts covering future possibilities, boundaries, and considerations for all stakeholders. These agreements addressed donor financial responsibilities, ongoing accessibility to children, and relationship expectations. Half of the couples engaged lawyers to review contracts, while others used collaborative processes between couples and donors.
Participants navigated their experiences with inadequate information, resources, and support. They encountered lack of understanding from healthcare professionals who appeared unfamiliar with home insemination nuances and had “no box for” donor-conceived babies outside clinical settings. Online support resources were described as highlighting social infertility and being predominantly American with insufficient New Zealand-specific guidance. Five of eight couples sought counseling, with mixed experiences ranging from well-matched support to conflicts between wanting informed therapists while maintaining privacy in small communities.
Limitations: The small sample size means findings may not represent the diversity of views and experiences among same-sex and gender diverse couples who conceive using home insemination and known donors, particularly more private and conservative individuals. Two of eight interviews were with couples during first pregnancy, meaning their donor conception experiences were emerging rather than complete. The study does not include perspectives from donors themselves, donor-conceived children, or the donors’ own families, limiting understanding of the full constellation of experiences and relationships.
Applications: Mental health professionals need training on diverse family formation methods, particularly home insemination with known donors among same-sex and gender diverse couples. Healthcare providers should educate themselves about home insemination so they can provide informed support to families conceived through this method.
Lead Author: Angela Fyfe is a researcher in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, School of Clinical Sciences, at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
New Zealand operates under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (2004), which specifies procedures for reproductive assistance and promotes an ethic of openness regarding donor information.
Mandatory registrations apply to any donations made at a New Zealand fertility clinic on or after 22 August 2005 that resulted in a birth. People conceived from donations made on or after that date can find out the identity of their donor once they are 18 or older (or 16 if the Family Court agrees).
Clinics are allowed to use sperm or eggs from the same donor for a maximum of 10 children, though most clinics do not use sperm for more than 5 families.
The law prohibits commercialization of gamete donation and surrogacy arrangements, though altruistic procurement is permitted.
Requirements for publicly funded treatment include that the person/couple must have been trying to conceive for at least twelve months, Women must be 39 years of age or younger at time of referral, and couples cannot have two or more children under the age of 12 living at home.
Related Posts
New Zealand parents support early disclosure to donor-conceived children but worry about long-term wellbeing and stigma (Anderson, 2025)
From genetic to social relatedness: How grandparents adapt to donor conception (Shaw, 2025)
Egg donors navigate complex boundaries in recipient relationships (Goedeke, 2023)