Technology is reshaping how informal sperm donors and recipients know each other

Donor profiles, spreadsheets and video calls: un/known donor conception in the digital age (Gilman, 2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Gilman, L., & Davis, A. (2026). Donor profiles, spreadsheets and video calls: un/known donor conception in the digital age. Human Fertility, 29(1), 2604885. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2604885

A close up of a cell phone with a keyboard

Geographic Region: United Kingdom

Research Question: How do digital technologies shape what informal sperm donors and intended parents know about each other, and how do they manage what they share, when, and with whom?

Study Design: A qualitative, interview-based study drawing on data from the Digital Donor Conception research project. The study used in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted in 2024 with intended parents who had arranged or were pursuing informal donor conception and informal sperm donors. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2.5 hours and were conducted via video call or in-person. Participants were asked about how they came to informal donor conception, how conception was organized, and their experiences over time. Inspired by ‘media go-along’ and ‘scroll back’ methods, participants were encouraged to show and explain how they had used digital platforms.

Sample: 49 participants: 30 intended parents or recipient parents and 19 sperm donors. Participants self-selected after seeing recruitment advertisements shared via the study’s social media channels, UK-based organizations serving donor-conceived families, LGBTQ+ and solo-parent communities, infertility organizations, and platforms specifically used for informal sperm donation. The majority of the parents were cisgender women (26), with 3 transgender men and 1 person of another gender. Fifteen identified as gay or lesbian, 4 as bisexual, 8 as heterosexual, and 1 as greysexual. Most were single (13) or in various relationship configurations. Among the 19 donor participants, all identified as cisgender men; 14 identified as heterosexual and 4 as gay or bisexual. Ethnicity was less diverse: most participants identified as white British, with others identifying as other white, Black, Asian, or mixed/multiple ethnicities. Nineteen parents and 18 donors had engaged with specialised digital platforms (e.g., Facebook groups, Pride Angel), while 15 parents and 5 donors had found a donor/recipient through pre-existing relationships and networks. Many had used both routes as well as clinical donor conception at some point.

Key Findings: The study identifies four interconnected modes of knowing that donors and intended parents negotiate in informal donor conception.

Managing Identifying Information

Sharing or withholding real names, addresses, photographs, and other identifying data was the most explicit mode of managing knowledge. Approaches varied widely, from full use of pseudonyms and separate ‘donor profiles’ to upfront use of real names.
Most participants took a graduated approach, sharing more information as trust was established (e.g., first name on profile, surname added only once conception was successful).
Some participants reported accidentally learning or searching for identifying information (e.g., reverse image searches, name on a bank card), raising questions about consent and mutual understanding of what ‘knowing’ means.

(Dis)Embedding Donor-Recipient Connections

Some donors and recipients kept their connection entirely separate from their wider social networks (dis-embedded), using separate email accounts and social media profiles known only to donation contacts.
Dis-embedded connections are vulnerable to sudden rupture: loss of a phone, deletion of accounts, or the death of a donor can make contact permanently impossible. One parent described fearing her long-term donor had died because she had no way to reach anyone in his wider life.
Some donors created digital records (spreadsheets, Facebook groups, Ancestry profiles) linking all the families they had helped create, offering a form of embedded knowledge across donor sibling networks, including notifying recipients when two of their children might live near each other or attend the same school.

Communicative Knowledge

For all participants, direct communication (both before and after conception) was central to ‘getting to know’ someone. Planning an informal donation always involved at least one face-to-face meeting.
Participants described a perceived hierarchy of communicative modes: in-person meetings were most valued, followed by phone/video calls, with asynchronous text messaging seen as useful but requiring verification through more embodied forms of contact.
Knowledge gained through communication was often described as instinctual (’I just felt it,’ ‘you go with your gut’) rather than factual, and had a moral dimension: participants assessed whether potential matches seemed like ‘good people’ rather than just suitable candidates.
Many participants emphasized the importance of ‘staying in touch’ after donation, not frequent or intrusive contact, but retaining a communication channel so that knowledge of each other could be updated over time. Digital platform affordances (asynchronous messaging, ability to ‘like’ posts) facilitated a particular rhythm of low-level contact directed from recipients to donors.

Creating Digital Artifacts

Recipients often gathered digital artifacts (e.g., photographs, questionnaire responses, messages) for the donor-conceived child who might one day want to know about the donor. Some parents retained all their messages with donors as a future archive for their children. Others created questionnaires asking donors about their favorite films, foods, and other personal details.
Some donors intentionally created information packages modeled on the UK clinical system’s identity-release approach: non-identifying details for younger children (height, eye color) and fully identifying information (name, schooling, family details) for when the child was older.
Some donors created digital records tracking all their donations, outcomes, and the families they had helped create.

Limitations: The sample is predominantly white British, limiting transferability to the experiences of racially and ethnically diverse families using informal donor conception. Participants self-selected, creating selection bias toward people who were comfortable discussing their experiences. Those who found informal donation harmful, distressing, or who had negative outcomes may be less represented. The sample includes only informal sperm donors, not egg donors, embryo donors, or recipients of egg and embryos.

Applications: The study suggests that many donors think about their donor-conceived offspring and the long-term implications of their donation. For mental health professionals and counsellors, the paper's four-mode framework offers a practical structure for conversations with informal donor conception clients: What identifying information has been shared? How connected are the parties within each other's wider lives? What communication exists and what is expected going forward? And what records or information will be available to a donor-conceived child in the future? Working through each dimension can help clients think through the longer-term implications of their arrangements.

Funding Source: The Wellcome Trust (grant number: 225536/Z/22/Z).

Lead Author: Leah Gilman is a Research Fellow in the School of Sociology and Criminology at Manchester Metropolitan University, specialising in sociological perspectives on reproduction, kinship, donor conception, digital media, and personal relationships. No personal experience of donor conception is disclosed.

Regulatory Context:

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates licensed fertility clinics and sperm banks in the UK.
Since 2005, the HFEA requires all donors at licensed clinics to be identifiable, meaning donor-conceived people conceived after April 1, 2005, can access identifying information about their donor at age 18, along with the identity of any willing donor siblings. Those conceived before 2005 do not have the same legal right; a voluntary register (the Donor Conceived Register) exists for voluntary matching.
Fertility treatment is provided at both NHS and private licensed clinics. Single women, female same-sex couples, and heterosexual couples all have equal legal access to fertility treatments, including donor conception. Since 2013, all women qualify for fertility services regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
The 10-family limit restricts the number of families that can be created from a single donor at UK licensed clinics; this limit applies to both UK donors and imported donor sperm.
Donors can only be compensated for verified expenses: £750 per cycle for egg donors and £35 per clinic visit for sperm donors. Only altruistic donation is permitted.

Related Posts

Donor Conception Journal Club

Comments

Ready for more?