Though there are currently no statistics offering a global overview of online hate speech, both social networking platforms and organisations that combat hate speech have recognised that prevention strategies are needed to address this negative online phenomenon. While most cases of online hate speech target individuals on the basis of ethnicity and nationality, incitements to hatred on the basis of religion, class, gender and sexual orientation are increasing. This paper reports the findings of the ‘Italian Hate Map’ project, which used a lexicon-based method of semantic content analysis to extract 2,659,879 Tweets (from 879,428 Twitter profiles) over a period of 7 months; 412,716 of these Tweets contained negative terms directed at one of the six target groups. In the geolocalized Tweets, women were the most insulted group, having received 71,006 hateful Tweets (60.4% of the negative geolocalized tweets), followed by immigrants (12,281 tweets, 10.4%), gay and lesbian persons (12,140 tweets, 10.3%), Muslims (7,465 tweets, 6.4%), Jews (7,465 tweets, 6.4%) and disabled persons (7,230 tweets, 6.1%). The findings provide a real-time snapshot of community behaviours and attitudes against social, ethnic, sexual and gender minority groups that can be used to inform intolerance prevention campaigns on both local and national levels.

To study the nature and quality of relationships between gay father families and their surrogates and egg donors and parental disclosure of children's origins. Cross-sectional study. Family homes. Parents in 40 gay father families with 3-9-year-old children born through surrogacy. Administration of a semistructured interview. Relationships between parents, children, surrogates, and egg donors and parental disclosure of children's origins were examined using a semistructured interview. The majority of fathers were content with the level of contact they had with the surrogate, with those who were discontent wanting more contact. Fathers were more likely to maintain relationships with surrogates than egg donors, and almost all families had started the process of talking to their children about their origins, with the level of detail and children's understanding increasing with the age of the child. In gay father surrogacy families with young children, relationships between parents, children, surrogates, and egg donors are generally positive.

Forty Italian gay father families formed by surrogacy were compared with 40 Italian lesbian mother families formed by donor insemination, all with a child aged 3 to 9 years. Standardized interview, observational, and questionnaire measures of parenting quality, parent-child relationships, stigmatization, and children's adjustment were administered to parents, children, teachers, and a child psychiatrist. The only differences across family types indicated higher levels of stigmatization as reported by gay fathers. Externalizing and internalizing problems in both groups scored within the normal range. When family structure and processes were entered together as predictors of child adjustment, a hierarchical linear model analysis showed that factors associated with children's externalizing problems were the child's male gender, high stigmatization, and negative parenting; children's internalizing problems were higher in lesbian mother families and were predicted by stigmatization. Of note, neither gay fathers nor lesbian mothers tended to underestimate their children's adjustment problems relative to teachers. Finally, for children of gay fathers, comparison between teacher SDQ ratings and teacher SDQ normative data on Italian children in a similar age range showed that teachers reported children of gay fathers to show significantly fewer internalizing problems than the normative sample. No differences in children's externalizing problems emerged. A bootstrapping simulation confirmed all results, except the effect of stigmatization on child internalizing problems. Findings suggest that the practice of surrogacy by gay men has no adverse effects on child health outcomes. Implications for our theoretical understanding of child socialization and development, and law and social policy, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Why do men decide to have a child by surrogacy as a single parent? Reasons included feeling that it was the right time (i.e. having ‘worked through’ concerns about single parenthood; career and financial stability; a fear of getting older; no longer wanting to wait for the ‘right’ relationship), external encouragement, a desire to reproduce and a fear of separation/divorce. Because no research has been conducted on single fathers who used surrogacy, their characteristics, motivations and experiences are unknown. This study used a cross-sectional design as part of a larger, multi-method, multi-informant investigation of single father families created by surrogacy. Multiple strategies were used to recruit participants (i.e. from an association of gay parents, Facebook groups of single parents and snowballing) between November 2016 and April 2017. Data were obtained from 33 Italian single fathers (Mean_age = 47.33 years, SD = 4.63), most of whom self-identified as gay (n = 24, 72.7%). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in family homes (n = 20, 60.6%) or over Skype (n = 13, 39.4%). Each interview lasted approximately 40 min and was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic and qualitative content analysis, with the aid of the software package MAXQDA. Where appropriate, a two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to compare the gay and heterosexual fathers, and illustrative quotations were reported. Although all of the single men had experienced mature relationships, about one-third of the fathers (n = 10, 30.3%) had never thought of having a child and the majority of the heterosexual men (n = 7, 77.8%, P = 0.05) had tried to conceive in previous relationships. The gay and heterosexual men differed in their preferred path to parenthood (P = 0.01), with the former (n = 17, 70.8%) having always preferred surrogacy and the latter (n = 6, 66.7%) having considered or attempted conception via casual sex with women. Irrespective of their sexual orientation, most of the fathers chose surrogacy because they wanted a genetic relation to their child (n = 28, 84.8%) and because they felt that surrogacy would be more secure compared to adoption, upon their return to Italy due to Italian laws (n = 26, 78.7%). The majority (n = 20, 60.6%) were satisfied with their decision to ‘go it alone’, although nearly all (n = 16, 80%) would have preferred to have a child within the context of a relationship. After their child's birth, the majority received support from both their parents/siblings (n = 21, 63.7%) and friends (n = 24, 72.7%). The risk of socially desirable responding should be taken into account when interpreting the findings, given the ethical concerns surrounding single fatherhood and surrogacy. Furthermore, fathers with a negative surrogacy experience were less likely to participate in this research. The small sample and participant characteristics of older age, an Italian nationality, a mainly gay sexual orientation and high income may limit the generalizability of the findings. This study is the first to provide insight into the reproductive experience of single men seeking surrogacy. The findings warn practitioners and policy-makers against making assumptions about people with access to fertility treatments on the basis of marital status, gender or sexual orientation. None.