People are furious that LBC asked if Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black’s surrogate’s ‘exclusion’ was ‘sinister’
(Getty and Twitter/LBC)
A radio station has apologised after provoking outrage by asking if there was “something sinister” behind Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black not revealing their surrogate’s identity.
Daley, a former Olympic diver, announced yesterday that he was having a baby with his husband Black, an Oscar-winning screenwriter.
The two began baby shopping today.
(Twitter/DLanceBlack)
The pair, who are believed to be having the child via surrogate, received a horrific backlash to their announcement.
One commenter told the married couple, aged 23 and 43, that “someone has to stop this. One day your day will come.
(Instagram)
“Leave innocent children out of it. By the way, who out of you two gay guys is carrying the child? Disgusting.”
(Getty)
Another said: “I’m sorry but I do not agree with same sex marriage couples having kids it ain’t normal a child should be born a man and women [sic] relationship end of they need there heads dipping into ice cold water”.
Today, LBC wrote to its 260,000 Twitter followers: “Tom Daley and his husband are having a baby.
“Is there something sinister about the woman’s exclusion in this scenario?”
(Twitter/LBC)
After PinkNews got in touch, LBC deleted the tweet.
An LBC spokesperson then told PinkNews: “We unreservedly apologise for what was a badly worded debate today, which does not reflect our values and should not have been worded in this way.
“We apologise for any offence caused, that was not our intention.”
Surrogacy has become one of the most popular choices for same-sex couples looking to start a family, but is also utilised by straight couples.
(Getty)
People were furious with the tweet.
One respondent wrote: “Oh piss off LBC. The only thing sinister is that you would suggest it might be.”
(Twitter/tvtenterhooks)
Another said: “Something sinister? Ffs “.
(Twitter/sonofbrown17)
Along the same lines, another person wrote: “Sinister? Seriously?”
(Twitter/irishvolf)
Some suggested that instead of there being “sinister” motives present, the woman simply might want to remain anonymous.
“Maybe the woman does not want the publicity?” wrote one person.
(Twitter/Sheppard250)
“Maybe they are respectful of her privacy,” said another.
(Twitter/Phil902000)
One wrote: “Isn’t surrogacy female empowerment? Common sense would indicate this exclusion was mutually agreed!”
(Twitter/a13xxt)
And at least three people responded simply: “No”.
(Twitter)
