Reflecting sex, social class and race inequalities in reproduction? Study of the gender representations conveyed by 38 fertility centre websites in 8 European countries.
Europe
Fertility centres
Gender
Intersectionality
Medically assisted reproduction
Websites
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2024
19 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
24
06
2024
accepted:
14
10
2024
medline:
20
10
2024
pubmed:
20
10
2024
entrez:
19
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both infertile people and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they are also a window to attract potential future patients. They give formal and practical information but in the way the information is displayed, they also convey social representations, and in particular, gender representation in its intersectional dimension. The objective is to analyse the sex, class and race representations regarding reproduction and parenthood that are embedded in the content of fertility centre websites in eight European countries. The 5 most visible fertility centres that appeared in the first places on Internet search were selected for each country under study, except for one country which has only three fertility centres. In total, 38 fertility centre websites were considered for a thematic analysis using an iterative approach and a comprehensive perspective. Each centre details its services and techniques according to the legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation. The logos generally depict women or parts of their bodies, as do the photos, which mainly show white women with light eyes. The description of the causes of infertility and the techniques offered by the centres also highlights gender differences. Sperm donation, where MAR is reserved for heterosexual couples, is included among the techniques for women with the comment that it will enable them to fulfil their dream of becoming mothers. MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice. The research team formulated guidelines for fertility centres to encourage them to adopt a more inclusive approach in terms of sex, social class and race, so that the diversity of infertile people feel involved and welcome in these centres, to avoid misperceptions about infertility in the general population and to reinforce autonomy and justice in reproductive matters. Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both people undergoing MAR and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they may also be a window to attract potential future patients. In this context, they convey formal and practical information but also, through their content, narratives and visuals, social representations. The objective is here to analyse the gender representations of reproduction and parenthood that the 38 European fertility centres under study convey through the texts and images they display on their websites. Each centre details its services and techniques according to the social and legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation, including in terms of social class and race. MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both infertile people and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they are also a window to attract potential future patients. They give formal and practical information but in the way the information is displayed, they also convey social representations, and in particular, gender representation in its intersectional dimension. The objective is to analyse the sex, class and race representations regarding reproduction and parenthood that are embedded in the content of fertility centre websites in eight European countries.
METHODS
METHODS
The 5 most visible fertility centres that appeared in the first places on Internet search were selected for each country under study, except for one country which has only three fertility centres. In total, 38 fertility centre websites were considered for a thematic analysis using an iterative approach and a comprehensive perspective.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Each centre details its services and techniques according to the legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation. The logos generally depict women or parts of their bodies, as do the photos, which mainly show white women with light eyes. The description of the causes of infertility and the techniques offered by the centres also highlights gender differences. Sperm donation, where MAR is reserved for heterosexual couples, is included among the techniques for women with the comment that it will enable them to fulfil their dream of becoming mothers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice. The research team formulated guidelines for fertility centres to encourage them to adopt a more inclusive approach in terms of sex, social class and race, so that the diversity of infertile people feel involved and welcome in these centres, to avoid misperceptions about infertility in the general population and to reinforce autonomy and justice in reproductive matters.
Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both people undergoing MAR and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they may also be a window to attract potential future patients. In this context, they convey formal and practical information but also, through their content, narratives and visuals, social representations. The objective is here to analyse the gender representations of reproduction and parenthood that the 38 European fertility centres under study convey through the texts and images they display on their websites. Each centre details its services and techniques according to the social and legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation, including in terms of social class and race. MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Fertility centre websites are a key sources of information on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for both people undergoing MAR and the general public. As part of a global fertility market, they may also be a window to attract potential future patients. In this context, they convey formal and practical information but also, through their content, narratives and visuals, social representations. The objective is here to analyse the gender representations of reproduction and parenthood that the 38 European fertility centres under study convey through the texts and images they display on their websites. Each centre details its services and techniques according to the social and legal provisions in force in its country. However, on all the websites studied, the fertility centres demonstrate a strong gendered representation, including in terms of social class and race. MAR, and through it the project of having a child and procreative work, is presented as a matter for white, cisgender and heterosexual women, thus fueling stratified reproduction and limiting reproductive justice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39427161
doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01890-2
pii: 10.1186/s12978-024-01890-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
150Subventions
Organisme : European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
ID : 872706
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393–406.
pubmed: 28760517
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005
Adamson GD, Zegers-Hochschild F, Dyer S. Global fertility care with assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(3, Part 1):473–82.
pubmed: 36642305
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.013
Adamson GD, Dyer S, Zegers-Hochschild F, Chambers GM, De Mouzon J, Ishihara O, et al. O-154ICMART preliminary world report 2019. Human Reprod. 2023;38(1): dead093187.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead093.187
Malmanche H, Rozée V. Usages et pratiques de la digitalisation des soins et des relations : ce que les outils numériques font à la PMA transfrontière. Anthropologie & Santé. 2024;28. https://doi.org/10.4000/w5iw .
Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P, Westphal LM, et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1277–88.
pubmed: 29808382
pmcid: 6063838
doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x
The Competition and Markets Authority, BritainThinks. Patients’ experiences of buying fertility treatment. Qualitative research report. 2022. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632c2fefe90e073721b08402/Consumer_research_report_160922.pdf .
Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Ward S, Greenblatt E, Casper RF. Use of the Internet by infertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1179–82.
pubmed: 10856479
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00515-X
Patrizio P, Albertini DF, Gleicher N, Caplan A. The changing world of IVF: the pros and cons of new business models offering assisted reproductive technologies. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(2):305–13.
pubmed: 35048274
pmcid: 8769942
doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02399-y
Perler L, Schurr C. Intimate lives in the global bioeconomy: reproductive biographies of Mexican egg donors. Body Soc. 2021;27(3):3–27.
doi: 10.1177/1357034X20936326
Schurr C. From biopolitics to bioeconomies: the ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico’s surrogacy market. Environ Plan D Soc Space. 2017;35(2):241–62.
doi: 10.1177/0263775816638851
Vertommen S, Pavone V, Nahman M. Global fertility chains: an integrative political economy approach to understanding the reproductive bioeconomy. Sci Technol Human Values. 2022;47(1):112–45.
doi: 10.1177/0162243921996460
Johnson KM. Excluding lesbian and single women? An analysis of U.S. fertility clinic websites. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2012;35(5):394–402.
doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2012.05.002
Mohammadi L, Aranda D, Martínez-Martínez S. The narratives of fertility clinic’s websites in Spain. Profesional de la información Inf Prof. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.19 .
doi: 10.3145/epi.2019.mar.19
Abusief ME, Hornstein MD, Jain T. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):88–92.
pubmed: 17081534
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.073
Avraham S, Machtinger R, Cahan T, Sokolov A, Racowsky C, Seidman DS. What is the quality of information on social oocyte cryopreservation provided by websites of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member fertility clinics? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):222–6.
pubmed: 24140039
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.008
Galiano V, Orvieto R, Machtinger R, Nahum R, Garzia E, Sulpizio P, et al. “Add-ons” for assisted reproductive technology: do patients get honest information from fertility clinics’ websites? Reprod Sci. 2021;28(12):3466–72.
pubmed: 33939166
doi: 10.1007/s43032-021-00601-7
Coveney C, Hudson N, Funes SL, Jacxsens L, Provoost V. From scarcity to sisterhood: The framing of egg donation on fertility clinic websites in the UK, Belgium and Spain. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296: 114785.
pubmed: 35151147
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114785
Gürtin ZB, Tiemann E. The marketing of elective egg freezing: a content, cost and quality analysis of UK fertility clinic websites. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021;12:56–68.
pubmed: 33336090
doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.004
Ginsburg F, Rapp R. The politics of reproduction. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1991;20:311–43.
pubmed: 12288961
doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.20.100191.001523
Löwy I, Rozée V, Tain L. Nouvelles techniques reproductives, nouvelle production du genre (Introduction). Cahiers du Genre. 2014;56:5–18.
doi: 10.3917/cdge.056.0005
Nadimpally S, Marwah V. The gendered nature of infertility and ARTs. In: Rozée V, Unisa S, editors. Assisted reproductive technologies in the global South and North: issues, challenges and the future. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 40–52.
Brun S, Cosquer C. Sociologie de la race. Paris: Armand Colin; 2022.
Rapp R. Race & reproduction: an enduring conversation. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(8):725–32.
pubmed: 31855472
doi: 10.1080/01459740.2019.1671838
Roberts D. Killing the black body. Race, reproduction and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books; 2017 (1997).
Rozée V, de La Rochebrochard É. La PMA en France: une reproduction des inégalités de genre ? Travail, genre et sociétés. 2023;50(2):43–60.
doi: 10.3917/tgs.050.0043
Mamo L. Queering reproduction in transnational bio-economies. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018;7:24–32.
pubmed: 30723813
pmcid: 6287057
doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.008
Colen S. ‘Like a mother to them’: stratified reproduction and West Indian child care workers and employers in New York. In: Ginsburg FD, Rapp R, editors. Conceiving the new world order: the global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995. p. 78–102.
Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter Ch, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Human Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1):2399–3529.
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoz044
Alon I, Pinilla J. Assisted reproduction in Spain, outcome and socioeconomic determinants of access. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):156.
pubmed: 34229664
pmcid: 8259134
doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01438-x
Rozée V, de La Rochebrochard E. Travelling from France for CBRC: an internet survey as a first step to measure this phenomenon. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(Suppl. 1): i14.
Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Giannelou P, Pierouli A, Rapani A, Maziotis E, et al. Treating infertility: current affairs of cross-border reproductive care. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14:292–9.
pubmed: 30931395
doi: 10.1515/med-2019-0026
Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Scaravelli G, Kupka M, Ferraretti AP, Prados FJ, et al. Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use. Human Reprod Open. 2017;2017(1):1–9.
Mukamurera J, Lacourse F, Couturier Y. Des avancées en analyse qualitative : pour une transparence et une systématisation des pratiques. Recherches qualitatives. 2006;26(1):110–38.
doi: 10.7202/1085400ar
Weber M. Economie et Société 1. Les catégories de la sociologie. Paris: Pocket; 1995 [1956].
de La Rochebrochard E, McElreavey K, Thonneau P. Paternal age over 40 years: the “amber light” in the reproductive life of men? J Androl. 2003;24(4):459–65.
pubmed: 12826682
doi: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003.tb02694.x
Hertzog I-L, Mathieu M. Toward a comprehensive, international and interdisciplinary analysis of procreative work. Enfances Familles Générations. 2021;38. https://journals.openedition.org/efg/12363 .
Culley L, Hudson N, Rapport F, Blyth E, Norton W, Pacey AA. Crossing borders for fertility treatment: motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travellers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2373–81.
pubmed: 21715450
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der191
Hertzog I-L. Les coûts de l’assistance médicale à la procréation pour les femmes salariées. Cahiers du genre. 2014;56:87–104.
doi: 10.3917/cdge.056.0087
Rozée V, Mazuy M. L’infertilité dans les couples hétérosexuels: genre et “gestion” de l’échec. Sciences sociales et santé. 2012;30(4):5–29.
doi: 10.3917/sss.304.0005
Letherby G. Childless and Bereft? Stereotypes and realities in relation to “voluntary” and “involuntary” childlessness and womanhood. Sociol Inq. 2002;72(1):7–20.
doi: 10.1111/1475-682X.00003
Maher J, Saugeres L. To be or not to be a mother? Women negotiating cultural representations of mothering. J Sociol. 2007;43(1):5–21.
doi: 10.1177/1440783307073931
Ulrich M, Weatherall A. Motherhood and infertility: viewing motherhood through the lens of infertility. Fem Pscychol. 2000;10(3):323–36.
doi: 10.1177/0959353500010003003
Merkison JM, Chada AR, Marsidi AM, Spencer JB. Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2023;119(3):341–7.
pubmed: 36682687
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.023
Tam MW. Queering reproductive access: reproductive justice in assisted reproductive technologies. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):164.
pubmed: 34340704
pmcid: 8327458
doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01214-8
Inhorn MC, Fakih MH. Arab Americans, African Americans, and infertility: barriers to reproduction and medical care. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):844–52.
pubmed: 16580363
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.10.029
Ceballo R, Graham ET, Hart J. Silent and infertile: an intersectional analysis of the experiences of socioeconomically diverse african american women with infertility. Psychol Women Q. 2015;39(4):497–511.
doi: 10.1177/0361684315581169
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(1):54–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.019
Jain T. Socioeconomic and racial disparities among infertility patients seeking care. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):876–81.
pubmed: 16580368
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1338
Bell AV. Beyond (financial) accessibility: inequalities within the medicalisation of infertility. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(4):631–46.
pubmed: 20163560
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01235.x
Rozée V, Malmanche H. Pour être « seule aux manettes » : parcours solo de la PMA en France. Enfances Familles Générations [Online]. 2023; 44. http://journals.openedition.org/efg/19186 .