“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.
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.