Parent-On-A-Chain Jewelry: A heated discussion

By admin on February 25, 2018

There has been a recent (heated) conversation on the Donor Sibling Registry Facebook group page about the Parent-On-A-Chain Jewelry.

When POAC founder Jennifer Moore first introduced the idea to me last summer, I liked it. I then ran the idea by our Board (a former sperm donor, another mother of a donor child [LGBT], a donor-conceived person, and a mental health professional) at our annual meeting last summer and they all thought it was a great idea, too. They all agreed that the DSR could get behind it, especially since some of the profit would be donated to the DSR. I also ran it by a lot of other people (all stakeholders) in the donor community and received only positive feedback.

The DSR was created to facilitate and celebrate the connection between half-siblings. Many people proudly wear these necklaces to do just that: celebrate the connection that they have with their half-siblings. Some donor-conceived people have felt the need to get their donor number tattooed onto their skin — a sperm donor number onto a foot, an egg donor number onto the back of a neck. I imagine that for most donor-conceived people, they’d prefer to wear a necklace, rather than get a tattoo.

Some donor offspring have recently expressed their dislike of the necklaces, and I do understand why. But I also acknowledge those who might wear the necklace instead of a tattoo to acknowledge the importance of the missing/unknown one-half of their ancestry, genetics, and first-degree genetic relatives. Or they might wear the necklace to celebrate the bond that they have with their half-siblings.

We’ve conducted quite a bit of research on donor-conceived people over the years, from many different surveys, some with as many participants coming from outside as inside the DSR. There is always a huge variance in how donor-conceived people view their conception — some are very angry, some are just fine, most are somewhere in-between, and many vacillate at different times in their lives.

For parents whose children don’t struggle or who are not angry, it can be hard to understand why some donor-conceived people are so angry. So, with regard to the necklace, some offspring see it as a celebration of the connecting they’ve had with half-siblings. Some see it as an important statement about their profound connection to their unknown biological parent, and that number is the only solid representation of that missing person that they have. Some see it as both. And some offspring don’t like the necklace, because they feel that it’s somehow celebrating the act of deliberately cutting one off from one’s genetic origins.

“Just a note to say my son loved the necklace. He wears it all the time. I told him that the donor is part of him, just as I am. He cried! He proudly refers to him by number in a way he didn’t before. In some ways it’s like he now carries his father with him.” —Mom to a donor-conceived child

“[It’s] a reminder that half of us is nothing but some arbitrary number.” —A donor-conceived adult

“My daughter’s reaction to it surprised me. She held that necklace in her little hand as if it were a link to her donor. She liked it.” —Mom to a donor-conceived child

“I think the necklaces are really sweet.” —A donor-conceived adult

“This necklace is in poor taste.” —A donor-conceived adult

“I would get the necklace with my number and my sister’s name that I found through DSR. I would also get one for my sister as a gift, with our number and my name. We have given each other presents with our donor number on them ever since we found each other.” —A donor-conceived adult

So, I get it. For those who see the necklace as a negative, don’t purchase one. For those who see the necklace as a positive, we invite you to check out the options.

Guest Blog: The future donor child as an “empty chair”

By admin on February 24, 2018

Empty Chair

by Harriette Rovner Ferguson, LCSW

I am a psychotherapist specializing in working with individuals and couples who are experiencing infertility. I have been doing this work for well over 20 years and lately have concentrated on people using third party reproduction to create their families. I began to notice that it was hard for couples to imagine themselves as parents. How could they? After sometimes years of failed treatments, the thought that a procedure might bring them a successful pregnancy was just too hard to conjure up in their minds and so when they came into my office, talking about their future child was too far a stretch.

The problem is that I need to talk to them about their family building option and their belief of how their child’s conception would impact him/her later in their lives. My job is to open up a discussion about their feelings about disclosure (who to tell, who not to tell), family support, their individual feelings about being biologically or non biologically linked to their child and what they imagined this relationship would look like.

I began to wonder how I could help them believe that one day they might hold a baby in their arms. A baby who would call them Mommy and or Daddy. So when they sat down in my office and I told them that during our consultation (as mandated by their physician), they were not the most important person in the room, but their future child is. Everything that we will talk about will revolve around what is in the best interest of their child and nine times out of ten, they looked at me like I had three heads.

I am trained as a Gestalt therapist. We use an empty chair technique to help our clients focus on the different parts of themselves. The client places an imaginary inner child or the people in their lives that have hurt them onto the empty chair, which allows them to open up about their feelings. As they speak to this projected person, they can get in touch with the feelings and begin to name them, recognize them and start releasing the negativity from their lives.

Hmmm! I looked around my office and realized that I could use an empty chair with the people who are planning to have a child. I could ask them to project that baby/child/teen onto the chair (that has a few teddy bears on it!!) and when I questioned them about how they thought they might feel telling their child they were conceived through a donor, surrogate, gestational carrier, they could imagine it. If they sit for a minute and focus on the chair, they are able to let their heart and their minds project how they might feel.

So when I ask them "What do you think about talking to your child about his/her biological origins," they take the question in and ponder. Before I used the chair, most couples’ immediate response would be that they would not ever tell or they would wait to tell or they were undecided and were afraid to even think about it. But with the chair present and my coaxing them to think deeply about what would be in the best interest of their child, they almost always decide that if they have their child’s best interest in mind and heart and they want to be honest parents that their children can trust, they decide just like the research teaches us. The earlier the story begins, the easier it evolves and the family moves on to create a secure and stable environment where children can grow and flourish, no matter how they came to be.

So, thank you empty chair for bringing this imaginary longed for child into the room so these future parents can make a decision that will benefit all of the members of this beautifully conceived family.

Harriette Rovner Ferguson, LCSW, has been specializing in providing psychotherapy to individuals and couples experiencing infertility for the past twenty years. She is a mental health consultant to infertility clinics on Long Island, New York City, and Pennsylvania. She conducts interviews and evaluations for infertility patients entering an IVF cycle or those contemplating using a third-party to create their families.

Dibling-Dumpling

By admin on January 27, 2018

Dibling

Some of you love the word, and some of you detest it, so here’s my opinion about using accurate terminology, along with a few weigh-ins from several parents, a donor, and a few donor-conceived people.

A hot topic of discussion on the Donor Sibling Registry has always been terminology. We even devoted an entire section to terminology in our book Finding Our Families. Most of the discussions have revolved around the terms used for the gamete seller: e.g., donor, father, biological mother, donor dad, sperm seller, mother, genetic parent, bio dad, genetic mother, biological father, etc. But there hasn’t been too much discussion about others born from the same “donor” ... until now.

The feedback that I have received indicates that while some parents of young children like the term, many donor-conceived people do not like cutesy words like “dibling” to describe themselves or their half-sibling relationships.

“I think the problem with the term dibling, and its continued use, is that it marginalizes DC individuals and underscores the way many of us feel society views us. We are whole people, not dumplings or diblings — we have real feelings and desire acknowledgement as being biologically connected to the families to which we are related.”

Explaining to people that you are a donor-conceived person, or that you have half-siblings, is factual, and accurate. Using a word like dibling only calls for explanation, and labels the person as something “different.” I have found that even for young children, accurate terminology can be very important. Children are not diblings, they are just children. They are donor-conceived people, and most of them have half-siblings, other people born from gametes (sperm or eggs) from the same genetic parent. They have half-brothers and half-sisters, not “diblings.”

Adopted people who connect with their half-siblings don’t call them adopt-iblings. They refer to them as siblings or half-siblings, even though they didn't grow up in the same home.

Personally, every time I see the word I want to say dumpling.

One mom gives some insight:

“I think it is also done to make things easier for the non bio parent. I know for my wife there are insecurities about that, like being afraid that recognizing those relationships as real will make hers less valid. Luckily, though, my wife works through those issues privately with me and does not let it trickle down to our daughter. She prioritizes our daughter’s right to her own narrative and placing her own importance on relationships. Our feelings don’t matter in this. This is our daughter’s life. When we chose to conceive her this way, we agreed to respect her right to define her family in whatever way feels right to her, and to support her in that any way we could.”

And from another mom who uses the term:

“Without that word [dibling] my daughter would have had to wait years to meet her brothers & sisters. The D word provided a term that left all parties comfortable.”

But it wasn’t “all parties.” It was parents who might not have been comfortable connecting if not somehow lessening or defining the relationship as somehow “different” by calling the half-siblings something other than what they actually were.

A few more moms chime in:

“Using made up words to describe a relationship diminishes the situation. With my daughter I have always used words that parallel those she hears to describe all other family relationships she knows. It’s hard enough to feel different without having words like ‘dibling' to fictionalize the relationship.”

“My son refers to his two half sisters as ‘my sisters’; he doesn’t like dibling or half sister or any other term for it. He has bonded with them and has a good relationship with them. He refers to the donor, whom he has met in person a few times, as ‘My Dad.’ I always referred to him as ‘the guy who donated for us to have you.’ Kids choose their own names for their relationships and they should be able to call them whatever they are comfortable with.”

“For those of us who feel strongly about the human rights of DC people to frame their genetic relationships in life and public debate around words like ‘dibling,’ I found it incredibly helpful to reach out to my online civil rights communities and share with them the ‘otherness’ that’s created around DC folks. These are groups that include a large number of POC [people of color], adoptive parents with POC children, LGBTQ parents. The idea of DC extended family is new to many of them, but they understood without explanation that it’s the fundamental right of the person in the group, in this case the DC, to name their relationships. Many also expressed that the word ‘dibling’ requires much more information than half-siblings or siblings as it’s not universally used to describe familial relationships.”

This mom likes the word:

“When I explained donor siblings / half siblings to my (then) 5 year old daughter, she came up with diblings and loves it. She thinks it makes her special and her relationship with her half siblings special. I think that it was great as she was jealous of her friends at school who had a dad as she did not and this gave her something special to hold on to. Our group from our donor (about 26 and counting) all use the term on our Facebook page. That said, all the kids are under 10 (I think) so maybe that is a factor.”

A few more adult donor-conceived people weigh in with varying opinions on terminology:

“As a donor conceived person, I reiterate that I am not offended by the term ‘dibling,’ I just think it’s stupid. It’s just an abbreviation for donor sibling, and I honestly cannot stand any more acronyms and abbreviations. To the parents and donors in this group, you can use whatever words you want to describe your child’s or offspring’s half-siblings from the same donor. But I just feel this word isn’t going to catch on.”

“Diblings is a stupid f-n word. Sorry, I’m more blunt than you.”

“I’m DC and while I haven’t found any half-siblings that aren’t directly connected to my donor, dibling doesn’t sound that dumb. I don’t know if I’d use it, but I don’t see anything wrong with other people using it. DC siblings ARE different. There’s nothing wrong with being different, it’s just who we are.”

“Had one sister, now I have two. Dibling is an awful word.”

“While I don’t think that the term is used maliciously, as a DC person people rarely take my plight or struggles seriously. Often times, if the subject is broached, I am told that I should be grateful that my mother wanted me so much that she sought out sperm donation. I don’t know if any other DC persons agree with my feelings, but to me the term dibling perpetuates the frivolous viewpoint many outsiders have regarding those who are donor conceived. We are marginalized and treated like a punch line in pop culture (the movie Delivery Man, Joey from Friends donating, etc), so this terminology contributes to the continuation of making ‘light’ of our circumstances.”

“It does not bother me when other people use it. I would not tell you what to do in your own life. Besides, it’s just a word. However, my opinion of the word is that it is confusing and that it implies that the relationship between donor siblings is less than that of siblings raised together. Some might say that this is true. But even if it is true, the negativity of the implication makes it derogatory and offensive to some people.”

“We don’t need a ‘special’ term. Special terms are often created to label differences. DC people already feel like they are different and are often viewed as a less authentic family member by those to whom they connect through DNA. At the worst, using the term perpetuates the belief that those who are donor conceived are not ‘real’ members of a family (there’s enough evidence of that on this site based on the rejections DC individuals often experience when attempting to reach out to their biological family members). At the least it is a superfluous name that unnecessarily gives credence to those who believe that we are different and that we should be proud of our differences. I would never tell a person of color or of a specific ethnic group that they should embrace terminology that (though not malicious or insulting) minimises or classifies their identity. This situation is no different. Can you imagine if there was a word that was pushed upon another marginalised group and when they complained they were told that the word makes them special and they should embrace it? I don’t know how else to explain the problems DC individuals have with the word dibling.”

“A lot of very passionate views about this term. It seems it’s almost hurtful to some. As a 44 year old DC person, I would never call my sister my dibling. I think it sounds silly or stupid. I call my sister either my sister or my half-sister. It doesn’t need to be complicated.”

And finally, from an egg donor (whose children are half-siblings to the children created from her donated eggs), after listening to parents of young children defend the word:

“Instead of jumping to defend a term that doesn’t in any way describe yourself, listen to the people who your label is about, and how they do not like it. Realize that your own child might also grow up to hate the term that says her biological half siblings are less than enough to be called what they actually are. Years ago parents were told to not tell their children they were donor conceived. Then as those children were finding out as they were older and started speaking out about how it hurt them so much, it changed the way many parents are now parenting DC children. They are telling them from young ages, the truth of their conception, because they learned it was best for their child to honor their truth. Some parents still believe in keeping that a secret, even though research shows it isn’t the best way.

You and other DC parents have the benefit to learn from DC adults, when they tell you that your cute term is not a good one. It offends and hurts them. All I am saying is learn from them so your DC child doesn’t look back as an adult and ask you why you ignored sound advice, research that shows it is best to correctly identify relationships. Like other DC parents, you can learn a better way to use correct terms and be honest. Dibling is not a correct term. It is slang for half sibling, who isn’t really your sister/brother. While you now think it is cute, you are being told it isn’t, but rather it is harmful. So please by all means do what you want for your family, because a stranger on the internet doesn’t live with you. Your DC children do, and they are the ones affected by your choices.”

As we continue to redefine family on the Donor Sibling Registry, we all need to be very aware that the words we choose to use to describe our families say a lot about how we think and what we value. We will probably never all agree on donor family terms that make everyone happy. But in the meantime we can be acutely aware about how the terms we use affect donor-conceived people, many of whom already struggle with the fact that they have been deliberately cut off from half of their first-degree relatives, ancestry, and medical histories.

Our language will certainly continue to evolve. Parents (and others) owe donor-conceived people the respect of using terms that do not make them or their familial relationships any “less than” people and relationships in more traditional families.