Kylee explains
Holy shit this is disgusting.
The Valley Girl accent and vocal fry don’t help, but the content is………..the word for it doesn’t exist. I need a mashup of horror and disgust and rage. The sanctimonious bloodless corporate-speak about renting women to gestate babies “to the specifications” of the smart shopper – it’s grotesque and foul.
“What this matching process entails is a gestational carrier through a vetted agency that has undergone a stringent medical review”
Note that “that.” It’s not who, it’s that. A “gestational carrier” (which has to be some kind of machine, right?) is a thing that has undergone a stringent review by skilled engineers.
“a stringent medical review by the Donor Concierge Internal Medical Records Review Team”
Notice that their respect for their own moneymaking scheme is so intense that it gets 7 capital letter words in one sentence, while the woman who is paid to be a “gestational carrier” gets zero and is a “that.”
Also “Donor Concierge.” Fucking hell. What a suppurating combination of yuppy moneybags preening and callous exploitation of actual human beings. Concierge!!!!! It couldn’t be more disgusting if that had been their goal.
“a vetted agency that has undergone a stringent medical review that is a team of nurses with over thirty years of experience, that’ll ensher that you are not only getting a gestational carrier candidate”
Let me just repeat that, shouting.
A GESTATIONAL CARRIER CANDIDATE
“a gestational carrier candidate that is meeting your specifications and ideal preferences”
She leans into that your specifications with all the unction of the dedicated panderer to the rich. This luxury bathroom comes fitted with all the luxury extras and luxuries and luxuriosities that are suited to your greedy desires and lusts. This is a fucking human being manufactured by another human being she’s talking about!
“but also is going to meet ASRM guidelines”
ASRM=American Society for Reproductive Medicine
“and is going to meet the medical qualifications for your reproductive clinic.”
Isn’t that awesome? It’s like buying a Mercedes, knowing that you can take it to any approved Mercedes clinic if anything goes wrong.
“Through the Donor Concierge Donor matching process, you will have not only access to a wealth of knowledge from the Case Management team and the Medical Review team”
What kind of knowledge? The “you” in this scenario is the one person who is at no kind of physical or medical risk whatsoever. The “gestational carrier” and the object she is “gestational carrying” are at all kinds of risk, psychological at a minimum, but the sperm donor? He’ll be fine no matter what. But he’s the one paying, so he gets all the oil.
“not only access to a wealth of knowledge from the Case Management team and the Medical Review team, but someone to help you along the way, holding your hand”
Your hand. Not that bitch who’s doing the work, but you, Mister Moneybags.
“holding your hand, making sure that you are not alone in this journey.”
You must be pampered at every turn, sir. The bitch gestational carrier just has to get on with it.
“You will be assigned a case manager to help assist you through your journey”
What journey? What journey?
“your journey with the Donor Concierge team. We look forward to helping you build your family”
We look forward to helping you buy luxury children via the bodies of desperate women.
“We look forward to helping you build your family and finding your dream surrogate.”
There aren’t enough vomit emojis in the world for this.
TBF, the use of “that” instead of “who” for people is getting more common.
So is “surrogacy.” More common doesn’t mean ok.
@Colin,
Well, yes, it’s long been used, and I’m sure if a bothered I could find examples of great writers using “that” for people, but I’m pretty sure neither Shakespeare nor Austin used “A GESTATIONAL CARRIER CANDIDATE” to refer to a woman.
Lots of things have long been used. “Nigger” has long been used. “Karen” has long been used. “Terf” has long been used. In a context where grotesque dangerous dehumanization is the issue, saying “that” instead of “who” is not neutral. I’m not saying she said it on purpose or with conscious malice, I’m saying everything she said is dehumanizing and grotesque and revolting.
There are plenty of reasons to be disgusted by this text, but I agree with What a Maroon that using “that” to refer to a person isn’t one of them. This has _always_ been normal usage, at least since Psalm 107 was written: “They that go down to the sea in ships”. I see that something called the New King James Version, where “New” seems to mean “Bowdlerized”, has changed this to “who”, but the version that King James approved had “that”, as I would if I were writing it today. W. H. Fowler said in Modern English Usage that “that” with a person as referent was normal, and nearly a century later I don’t believe that has changed, and I certainly don’t agree that it is dehumanizing.
Yes but “normal” isn’t the issue. However “normal” it is it’s still a style choice, and subject to criticism. We don’t say “I wore the jacket who was on the hook.” “Who” means people (and maybe people’s pets) and never things. “That” can mean both. In a context of gross dehumanization of women, I consider the style choice of “that” one more bit of dehumanization. You don’t; I do. If I were editing Kylee’s advertisement I would change it.
This is a Charlie Brooker satire, right?
Tweet already gone. Was there a backup?
I agree with Colin… but the tendency to use that in place of who is made easier and easier by the day with all surrogacy messaging I’ve seen. These agencies seem to take pride in omitting all reference to the woman as a person.
Because the woman isn’t a person, right? She is a gestational carrier, a front hole, a bonus hole, a uterus haver, an ovary owner…the list goes on and on and on. Remember, these aren’t transwomen carrying the babies: therefore, they are not worth regarding as a person. Only transwomen are to be called women.
As for “that”, I agree with Ophelia. Yes, it is common. I do it all the time. In my writing, I edit it out if it refers to a known person, and often with other living entities, depending on their status in the stories. Why? Because it does objectify. I don’t think it’s intentional on most people’s parts, it’s just a carelessness of thinking.
I thought that “that” refered to the “vetted agency” rather than the (eugh) “gestational carrier”. Regardless, I share your disgust.
Oh, you’re right, I missed that it could refer to the agency. Fair enough.
I’m sure I say “that” to refer to people – usually groups I think – too, it’s just that in this context it’s one more finger in the eyeball.
You can ignore my nitpick. “That” might refer to the agency in the sentence where you pointed it out. Later “a gestational carrier candidate that is meeting your specifications and ideal preferences” is unambiguous.
Apologies.
I watched as much of the video intended for suragacy customers as I could bear. The little smile as she discusses how thoroughly the gestational candidates’ (eugh again) medical history will be reviewed is revolting.
Sorry, yes, the rest of the description is dehumanizing.
No need for apologies!