‘Social Infertility’: Where Biomedical Profiteering Intersects Social Justice™

“The global surrogacy* market was estimated at USD 22.4 billion in 2024. The market is expected to grow from USD 27.9 billion in 2025 to USD 201.8 billion in 2034, at a CAGR of 24.6% during the forecast period,” per Global Market Insights — nearly a ten-fold increase over less than a decade.

*”Global surrogacy” being a euphemism for economically endowed homosexuals growing children in Third World women’s wombs so as to commandeer them upon birth — ostensibly to raise them as their own, but realistically for whatever possibly depraved purposes tickle their fancy.

A whole sub-genre of social media posts has sprung up in recent years in which progressive homosexual couples pose with newly purchased babies — in the same manner that big game hunters pose with the bucks they poach — using them as tools for harvesting social clout and living out their fantasy of having a “family,” with society at large expected to play along with the rouse or risk being labeled homophobic.

Here’s ultra-progressive Pete Buttigieg, for instance, recounting how he bought a pair of black babies for a “discount.”

These “fathers” are what the medical literature, in the service of advancing the LGBTQ4GF150+++™ cause and the biomedical industry, has termed “socially infertile.”

Via Springer Nature (emphasis added):

“In the United States, single individuals and LGBTQ couples who wish to conceive biological children are considered to be “socially infertile” due to their relationship status. Due to the high cost of infertility treatments and inadequate insurance coverage, the socially infertile has minimal access to assisted reproductive technology (ART). Under the current medical definitions of infertility, even in states with infertility insurance mandates, only heterosexual couples with physiological infertility are covered for ART. It is well documented that infertility interferes with many aspects of the human experience and reduces the quality of life for involuntarily childless individuals regardless of whether the infertility is physiologically or socially based. Physiological infertility was initially considered to be a private issue before being recognized as a medical diagnosis and has since legitimized heterosexual couples’ access to ARTs. The medical diagnosis of infertility not only affirms that their intention to conceive biological children is justifiable but also confirms that it is a condition that can and should be treated with current medical interventions. Expanding the current definition of infertility to include social infertility will elevate it to a treatable medical condition, justifying the use of ART for such individuals and potentially alleviating the negative impacts of infertility. Thus, states with infertility insurance mandates should provide the same infertility coverage to socially infertile individuals as physiologically infertile heterosexual couples.”

By definition, of course, “social infertility” is not a medical condition; it’s a social one.

But shoehorning “social infertility” into the medical literature as an official diagnosis guarantees a boon of services available to the LGBTQ “community” that were previously reserved for legacy couples experiencing actual infertility.

Via Wildflower (emphasis added):

“Social infertility is a newer term used to describe situations where people want to become parents but are not biologically able due to social or relational circumstances. This includes factors like sexual orientation, relationship status, and life circumstances, which might necessitate fertility treatments. In support of this movement, in the fall of 2023, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) updated their definition of infertility to include “anyone needing medical interventions to achieve a successful pregnancy either as an individual or with a partner” (ASRM 2023). Additionally, in 2022, Illinois updated its legal language around infertility to be more inclusive of the LGBTQIA community and single people, recognizing one of the definitions of infertility as “a person’s inability to reproduce either as a single individual or with a partner without medical intervention” (Illinois General Assembly 2022). This change mandates many (though not all) insurance plans within Illinois to cover fertility treatments for people experiencing social infertility.”

Related: Illinois Gov Launches Historic LGBTQ Hotline For Persecuted Rainbow People

Thus, the medical and moral justification is laid for legitimizing and subsidizing an industry in which reproductively healthy, capable people in deviant — “deviant” not necessarily being a moral judgment, just an accurate descriptor — sexual relationships purchase children, mainly from the impoverished women of the developing world in desperate need of cash.

Via Angelus (emphasis added):

“The diagnosis of infertility triggers a cascade of “goods” ranging from societal sympathy to insurance coverage of hugely expensive artificial methods like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy.

Two, some progressive activists, in the name of inclusion, hope to lift every sexual arrangement to the social level of the naturally occurring family, the only arrangement that “organically produces children through the complementarity of the sexes.

What makes an individual or a couple socially infertile? Simply wanting a child for 12 months and failing to conceive, even when the individual or couple has done nothing that would naturally lead to pregnancy (heterosexual intercourse) is enough to trigger a “diagnosis” of social infertility.

This redefinition of infertility would allow same-sex couples to be diagnosed as infertile, even though they are perfectly healthy and could reproduce in an opposite-sex relationship…

Progressive bioethicists propose redefining the word “treatment.” Instead of reversing or mitigating a physiological impediment, treatment would mean the artificial production of a baby, because the only way for the socially infertile to reproduce is through the very expensive (and ethically dubious) means of egg buying, embryo creation, and surrogacy.”

One small step for the alphabet people, one giant leap for transhumanism — with, of course, a healthy dose of exploitation of the underclass along with way.

Via International Coalition for the Abolition of Surrogacy (emphasis added):

“It is clear that women – whether they migrate from their country of origin to another country to be used as ‘surrogate mothers’ or oocyte donors, or are recruited once there – present very similar profiles. The vast majority of them, if not all, are in a situation of great economic, professional and social insecurity. This explains why intermediaries find it so easy to recruit them in exchange for financial remuneration, or merely a promise of remuneration that is not always fulfilled.

We believe that the great precariousness in which these women find themselves also explains why it is so easy for traffickers to lure them (often by deceiving them about the reasons for their contact), to sequester them and to make them victims of human trafficking by moving them against their will from one state to another, and by forcing them to carry a pregnancy. These women become victims of human trafficking and reproductive exploitation through forced pregnancies, but also of sequestration and physical and psychological abuse. In the eyes of their traffickers, these women are nothing but machines for producing babies that can be sold on the illegal adoption market.

All the actors involved in this practice – intermediaries, clinics, laboratories, lawyers, bankers, psychologists, etc., and the clients who commission them – shamelessly take advantage of the vulnerability of these women to achieve their respective ends, which are, for the former, financial gains and for the latter, a child; a child which is bought as a commodity and also, in many occasions, is a victim of trafficking.”