"It's like we have a sword hanging over our heads": Planned lesbian-parented families dealing with social oppression in Portugal. Presented at the International Convention on Psychological Science, Amsterdam, March 2015

1. “It’s like we have a sword hanging
over our heads”: Planned lesbian-
parented families dealing with
social oppression in Portugal
Pedro Alexandre Costa, Ph.D.
pcosta@ispa.pt
Co-authored by FionaTasker, Henrique Pereira & Isabel Leal

2. Studies on same-sex parenting
• It has been consistently reported that there are no differences
between children raised in same-sex families and children raised in
opposite-sex families in terms of their social, psychological or
behavioral adjustment. Similarly, no differences were found for
parental competences and emotional involvement between
gay/lesbian and heterosexual parents (Anderssen, et al., 2002).
• Nevertheless, same-sex families face unique experiences caused by
social oppression and multiple discriminations (Clarke, 2002) that
may have repercussions on their family dynamics, as well as on the
ways that they interact with other social agents and contexts.
Literature has just recently started to uncover possible mediators
that prevent these experiences from undermining same-sex families’
well-being, especially the disclosure of the family configuration both
inside and outside the family (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

3. The Portuguese Context
Milestones:
2001: “Civil partnership” approved for same-sex couples.
2004: Introduction of a clause of non-discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation in the Portuguese Constitution
(Article 13 – Principle of Equality).
2006: A female same-sex couples disputed the law by trying
to get married, and sued the State.
2006: A civic platform was created in support of same-sex
marriage, named “Equality in the access to civil marriage”.
2010: Same-sex marriage was approved in equal
circumstances to the traditional different-sex marriage.

4. The Portuguese Context
Setbacks:
2001: “Civil partnership” excluded parental rights.
2006: Only opposite-sex couples can have access to
Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
2010: Same-sex marriage law explicitly prohibits same-
sex couples’ adoption.
2011-2014: Several draft laws proposing co-adoption,
full adoption, and donor insemination rejected.

5. Sexual prejudice in Portugal
• 71% against same-sex marriage, and 81% against same-sex
adoption (Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011);
• Within the cluster with lowest support of homosexuality,
alongside mostly ex-communist countries (Lottes & Alkula,
2011);
• In the “frontier” between central-eastern and western European
countries (Kuntz, Davidov, Schwartz, & Schmidt, 2014).
• Highest levels of prejudice among men, conservatives, and
religious / Lowest prejudice among those with interpersonal
contact (Costa, et al., 2013, 2014)
• More negative evaluation of same-sex parents, and anticipation
of difficulties in their children (Costa et al., 2013)

6. Social Oppression
Describes a relationship of dominance and
subordination between categories of people (or
groups), in which one benefits from abuse, exploitation,
and systematic injustice over another.
LGBT people have historically been oppressed in the
form of harassment and violence, and discrimination in
various spheres - work, health, law. The social
oppression has consequences in terms of health and
mental health of LGBT people (Harper & Schneider,
2003)

7. Social Oppression
Legal Unequal access to marriage and parenting rights;
Medical Prejudice in clinical settings; obstacles to the social
(co-)parent;
Psychological Managing “family secret”; support and
community responses; consequences of stigma
(internalization);
Educational Schools permeable to religion and prejudice;
peer harassment and bullying;
Society Structural stigma and inequalities, discrimination;
micro-aggressions.
(Costa et al., 2013)

8. Theoretical basis
o It is family processes (co-parenting adjustment,
parent-child relationships, etc.) and NOT family
configuration (same-sex parents) that link into child’s
psychological adjustment;
o Being out as a family poses additional stress to the
families, and may put children in potential victimizing
situations (e.g. at school);
o The “no difference outcomes” studies are very
limited, and do not consider resilience and
compensatory processes used by families;

9. Objective
• The purpose of this study was to address the
question of how lesbian planned families
remain healthy and stable despite the
oppression they face.
• This was done by assessing the different forms
of oppression that these families experienced,
and the resilient behaviors that they may
employed to deal with these experiences.

10. Method
• Design: qualitative study.
• Measures: 1) sociodemographic questionnaire; 2)
Interview script
• Participants: 6 lesbian-parented families
• Procedures: Mothers were interviewed using a
semi-structured interview script. Interview
transcripts were then subjected to Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, et al., 2009).

11. Participant Families
Mothers
Family
configuration Conception Age(s) Relationship
two-parented private donor 38yo & 39yo 12 years (married 1 year)
two-parented private donor 30yo & 34yo 8 years (not married)
single mother insemination abroad 40yo single (new relationship)
single mother insemination abroad 38yo single
single mother insemination abroad 34yo single
single mother insemination abroad 35yo single (new relationship)
Children
Number Sex Age(s)
1 girl 3yo
1 boy 1yo
2 boy & girl 6yo & 8 yo
2 boy & girl 6yo & 8 yo
1 girl 1yo
1 girl 5yo

12. Interview Script – example Q.
Parenting experiences
- Could you please tell me about your family configuration and how you
came about being a parent?
- How has being out or not affected your life?Your child’s life?Your partner’s
life?
Managing discrimination and oppression
- Have you experienced direct discrimination or prejudice because of your
family configuration?
- To your knowledge, has your child experienced direct discrimination or
prejudice?
Social support
- Do you maintain close contact or friendship with other families like yours?
How did you get to meet these families?
- Are you associated with any network such as an LGBT organization or
family association?

13. Results
4 MainThemes emerged from the analysis:
1) Discrimination experiences (and anticipation)
2) Institutional oppression
3) Intrafamiliar sources of protection
4) Extrafamiliar sources of protection

14. I) Discrimination experiences
• “When my partner was being taken to the delivery room, it
was very difficult to convince them that I was her partner.
They constantly asked for the father (…) it was a wake up
call.”
• “I tried to open a bank account for my daughter (…) and they
asked for the father. (…) So I had to say ‘no, she doesn’t have a
father. Here’s her ID, she doesn’t.‘But it can’t be!”
• “There were situations when Manuel had to go to the doctor,
and my partner had to leave work to take him.And she can’t
ask for a justification for work, or if she does, they won’t
accept it.”

15. 2) Institutional oppression
• “It’s like we have a sword hanging over our heads if
something happens to me… you know, it is… it is
very… very complicated.That is very complicated to
manage every day…”
• “Both Susana and I are teachers, we work with the
community (…). So between 9am and 5pm I can be
around children… and after 5pm we are no longer
qualified, we can’t adopt a child”.

16. 3) Intra-familiar sources of protection
• “How do children learn that that is their mother and
that is their father? For a child it is as natural to have
4 grandparents (…) And if I tell them that this is their
mother and that is their mother, they accept it.”
• “There is no discovery here, it is what it is.We have
always called things by its name.”
• “It is our normal”

17. 4) Extra-familiar sources of protection
• “I think that the path to having problems is exactly to treat
the family, the family composition, as if it were a problem (…)
always putting the cards on the table. No ghosts.”
• “I don’t think we ever made any secret conversation about
our family at the school, and it was important that the school
knew, and knew how to deal with the topic.”
• “I like to talk about the exchange of experiences (…) also
because we want to prepare her and we want to know what
to expect.”

18. Compensatory processes to contend with social oppression
Intrafamiliar
dynamics
Extrafamiliar
processes
Same-sex
parenting
Child
development
Same-sex
parenting
Child
development
Protective factors:
- Openness about family
- Management of family “secret”
- Anticipation of discrimination
Risk factors:
- Internalized stigma
- Discrimination experiencies
- Difficulties associated with
conception
- Acceptance from family of
origin

19. Conclusion
“What kind of problems do these children and families
have due to discrimination and oppression?”
INSTEAD
“How do these children and families remain
healthy and stable despite the discrimination
and oppression they face?”

20. Thank you for your attention!
pcosta@ispa.pt