Carmen’s opening commentary:
I recall the conversation I had in 2017 with my publisher about what letters we were going to include in what was then a growing list of letters describing our nation’s sexual revolutionaries. People understand the L and G but I would have to explain the B. So I told them about the woman who is a pastor and identifies as bisexual and denies the patriarchal constraints of monogamous marriage. I could not have predicted then that a mere 3 years later polygmous marriage would be affirmed in an American city.
The conversation we had about the T in LGBTQ led to a story about Katie who became over time Alex. Alex is now a fully transitioned trans man, married to a woman, ordained as a pastor and publicly recognized and quoted as a man – by people I can assume never knew him as Katie and, would never know today that he is a person with XX chromosomes.
But when we arrived at the Q I recall resistance. “What value is there in adding that confusion?”, I was asked. I was also asked if Queer wasn’t still an offensive term.
“Well,” I recall saying, “let me tell you about John.”
John is a tall Texan who is also an ordained minister. He doesn’t identify as gay or bi or trans. He identifies as gender fluid and queer. He doesn’t want to be constrained by labels and yet, he is probably asked more often than the others to explain his preferred label because you have to ask every time you see John what his preferred pronouns are today.
Complicated and burdensome? Yes. But I think it’s fair to say, that’s part of the point.
The reason I bring this up is that if I were writing Speak the Truth today, I would have to address the letter P. We talked two weeks ago with Peter Kapsner about a city in Massachusetts which included the affirmation of polyamorous relationships in a city code – today we’re looking at a development in so called reproductive technologies that would allow for multiple people, absent a person of the opposite sex if that’s preferred, to “parent” children.
Carmen then talks with Peter Kapsner about the NYTimes article, The Poly-Parent Households are Coming by Debora L. Spar – a professor and senior associate dean at Harvard Business School, and the former president of Barnard College. She is the author of the forthcoming “Work Mate Marry Love: How Machines Shape Our Human Destiny,” from which this essay is excerpted.
Spar opens with this no longer hypothetical scenario:
Anna and Nicole, 36 and 39 years old, have been close friends since college. They each dated various men throughout their 20s and 30s, and had a smattering of romantic relationships that didn’t quite work out. But now, as they approach midlife, both women have grown weary of the merry-go-round of online dating and of searching for men who might — or might not — make appropriate fathers for the babies they don’t yet have. Both Anna and Nicole want children. They want to raise those children in a stable, nurturing environment, and to continue the legacy of their own parents and grandparents. And so they decide to have a baby — a baby that is genetically their own — together.
Later she acknowledges:
For most of human history, after all, families across the Western world were defined in largely biblical terms: one man, one woman, with children conceived through sex and sanctified by marriage. Everyone else was just a bastard.
After walking through the technological and social severing of children from parents who have to have sex in order to procreate, Spar says:
The most recent shift — and arguably the most crucial — occurred in 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court famously extended the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The implications of this decision are well known,