LinkedIn & Surrogacy Poaching (during Black History Month)

Two things happened to me this week, and the timing was instructive.

One organization reached out because they’re interested in my thinking; specifically around caregiver protections, structural support, and what advocacy for care labor might actually require if it’s meant to be ethical and sustainable.

Around the same time, a surrogacy agency cold-messaged me on LinkedIn.

Not an ad.

Not a blast.

A direct message. Deliberate. Personalized.

The contrast was clarifying; there’s a difference between being invited into a conversation and being recruited into a pipeline.

One begins with questions.

The other begins with assumptions.

Before responding, I asked for clarification *and I looove clarity✨*— not because I was confused-  I just suspected nonsense immediately.

But also also …I knew ‘good and gotdamn well’ she’s wasn’t asking me, a Black professional, to supply her with bodies to extract from, for free, during Black History Month.

I still asked questions though, because discernment isn’t the same thing as reacting, and I really like knowing that I’m right. 

Specifically, I asked whether they were looking for:

• referrals of potential surrogates,
  
  

• introductions to intended parents, or
  
  

• a formal professional partnership.
  

  Only one of these answers was acceptable, and they chose wrong. The response confirmed what was already apparent.

The assumption wasn’t that I had relevant expertise.

It was that my proximity; my work, my visibility, my network , could be leveraged to move bodies more efficiently into a for-profit system.

That assumption wasn’t shocking. It was familiar—rrreeeeal American.

And before anyone rushes in with the usual defenses; family building, choice, opportunity- SAAAAAVE IIIIIIT! I’m not unclear about what surrogacy is. I’m clear about what it has become: an industry that relies on euphemism, strategic distance, and the careful avoidance of the word labor.

Cold outreach like that only works if the person on the receiving end doesn’t understand the history they’re standing in.

Black women, in particular, have long been positioned as infrastructure in this country,  trusted to hold systems together, rarely trusted to define the terms. Encouraged to give. Discouraged from being protected. That didn’t disappear. It was simply rebranded.

What made the message notable wasn’t the outreach itself, but the presumption behind it.

The presumption that I’d be flattered.

Or curious.

Or willing to act as a bridge between capital and other people’s bodies.

The presumption that my work exists to make pipelines smoother.

And like, absolutely tf not. 

What’s also worth naming is how platforms like LinkedIn increasingly enable this kind of boundary-less behavior. When everything is framed as “connection,” consent quietly evaporates. Predatory outreach gets to pass as professionalism, and refusal gets misread as attitude.

I didn’t ask to be approached.

I didn’t signal interest.

And I don’t owe politeness to something that fundamentally misunderstands my presence.

What made the week useful, though, was the contrast. 

Some organizations are interested in frameworks, protections, and structural change. They want language, analysis, and accountability.

Others are interested in extraction, and they’re comfortable mistaking access for alignment.

Seeing those approaches side by side is clarifying.

It tells you exactly who sees you as a thinker, and who sees you as a resource.