• •

BACK

Beyond Biology: Lesbian Kinship and Adoption in Contemporary Family Studies

Family and kinship have traditionally been understood through the lens of biology and heterosexual norms. However, evolving social realities challenge these conventional definitions, especially as diverse family forms emerge in modern society.

Lesbian families and adoptive families, in particular, complicate long-held assumptions about what constitutes legitimate kinship. These family structures question the centrality of biological ties and highlight how gender, sexuality, and social perceptions shape experiences of parenthood and family belonging.

This post reviews two important works that explore these themes from different angles. Hayden’s “Gender, Genetics, and Generation” investigates lesbian kinship and the ways biology and social roles intertwine in non-heteronormative families. Howell’s “Imagined Kin, Place and Community” examines the social stigma surrounding adoption and the dynamics of family formation beyond biological parenthood. By analyzing these texts, this essay will consider how societal understandings of motherhood, legitimacy, and kinship influence and often marginalize families that deviate from traditional models.

Hayden, C. P.’s 1995 work, “Gender, Genetics, and Generation: Reformulating Biology in Lesbian Kinship,” is an essay analyzing American kinship through the lens of lesbian families, exploring the intersections of kinship, gender, and sexuality. In contrast, Howell, S.’s 2007 article, “Imagined Kin, Place and Community: Some Paradoxes in the Transnational Movement of Children in Adoption,” discusses the decline of adoption in American society since the 1970s, addressing the social stigma surrounding adoption. This essay offers a comparative review of both articles, focusing on adopted kinship, societal understandings of motherhood, and the stigmatization of non-traditional family forms. Without further ado:

Gender, Genetics, and Generation: Reformulating Biology in Lesbian Kinship explores “the ways in which many lesbian mothers employ notions of biology, in the context of donor insemination, to articulate their own sense of uniquely lesbian kinship” (Hayden, 1995, p. 42). The essay is structured into seven sections, beginning with an overview of traditional American kinship defined by biology and love, a relationship primarily rooted in procreation within heterosexual families, as explained by scholars such as Schneider.

This view contrasts with research by Weston and others who studied kinship in found or chosen families. Hayden introduces two approaches to kinship to highlight how queer families often incorporate elements of biology, love, and choice simultaneously. She further explains Schneider’s model of family as hierarchical, shaped by age and gender roles. Lesbian families challenge this hierarchy, as both mothers share parental roles equally rather than one replacing a father figure.

It challenges the concept of “heteromothering” (Cooper, 1987, p. 223), positioning lesbian kinship as a potential disruptor to traditional family roles. However, lesbian families face a different internal hierarchy based on biological and legal rights, with the birth mother as “legitimate” and the co-mother as “other,” creating a fragile family structure open to change. The essay concludes with a discussion of the donor’s role and the possibility of surrogacy, raising questions about the difference between motherhood and maternity.

It is important to note that Hayden’s article, published in 1995, predates the 2015 nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. At the time, legal recognition of both mothers as parents was not possible, which limits the article’s applicability to current circumstances. Additionally, the study’s focus on American contexts excludes countries where homosexuality remains illegal, restricting the generalizability of its findings.

Howell’s Imagined Kin, Place and Community addresses adoption from multiple angles by asking five central questions. The article begins by questioning the importance of studying adoption, countering its negative social portrayal with a call for a pluralistic understanding of family diversity, an analysis of kinship redefinition, and recognition of race, gender, and class influences. She also highlights adoption’s broad impact, touching millions of people.

Howell then examines who adopts children and why, finding infertility and difficulty conceiving as primary reasons, with altruism as a secondary factor. When exploring why children are relinquished for adoption, Howell acknowledges the diverse and complex backgrounds of birth mothers, noting the psychological and emotional challenges they face.

The article also reviews outcomes for adoptive parents and adoptees, citing research indicating that the majority experience successful and satisfying adoption relationships (Brodzinsky et al., 1992; 1998). Howell concludes by addressing social stigma, arguing that adoption is not necessarily stigmatized but often viewed as a “second option” compared to having biological children, a perception that reinforces the primacy of biological kinship.

Comparing these two articles reveals shared concerns about kinship legitimacy and societal acceptance in non-biological family formations. Hayden’s focus on lesbian nuclear families and Howell’s on adoptive nuclear families both highlight how parents without biological ties to their children navigate struggles for recognition and validation. Despite evidence suggesting lesbian families may have more equal parenting dynamics and that adoption generally benefits parents and children, prevailing social attitudes still prioritize biological connections as more “authentic” or “essential” for children’s wellbeing.

Articles reviewed: