Germaine Greer doesn't agree with David Furnish being named as 'mother' on birth certificate

Jeanne but if your second sentence is true isn't keeping terms which distinguish the sex of the parents perpetuating the gendered differences?

I don't necessarily agree there should be a unisex "child raiser " but beyond the issue of breastfeeding is there a need to distinguish the roles?

Having said that if Furnish really has said he is the mother it's bloody ridiculous.

Me and my DS talk about when he was an egg. I had a really strong sense, when he was born, of him being with me forever, like I'd known him all my life. See this is me in romantic delusion mode, not really adding owt to the Elton and David discussion. But with the talk about eggs... My little girl is 2 and her eggs are (all being straightforward) already there, lying in the bed, next to me. Marvellous. I feel quite attached to my eggs, having hatched a couple

lass - in absolute terms yes, but only in that breast milk is quite good for babies. It's a weak reason.

In relative terms (ie., in the society we're coping with today), yes, strong reason, because women are face different, and negative, expectations for parenting.

Egg -most definitely not a blank canvas. You actually get more 'genetic information' from your mother....
Basically in every cell of your body (more or less) you have mitochondria ... 'the powerhouse(s) of the cell' they generate the energy your cells can use for everything your body does - and they contain their own DNA. And you only get your mitochondrial DNA from the egg (not from the sperm) so from your mother....all your mitochondria originated from those in the egg.
(we can trace male evolution and origins on the paternal line by looking at Y chromosomes - but we can trace both sexes and their maternal origins by looking at their mitochondrial DNA)

After a child is born (to the "birthing parent" ?) is there any reason for having the terms mother and father at all?

Agree with devora.

I feel annoyed on several levels.

One is the idea that a man who looks after children should imagine what he is doing is so inconsistent with his gender, that he sees it as being a 'mother'. I know plenty of brilliant, loving male parents and it's insulting to imply that there is something lacking, or different, in their capacity to parent.

I also feel angry for the reasons outs and orlando give, that this ignores the biological and social context in which many (not all, as they acknowledge) women are mothers - which includes physical issues like breastfeeding and social ones like discrimination.

And I don't think an egg is a blank canvas. Not because of genetics (surely any newborn is a fairly blank canvas?), but because it ignores how difficult and dangerous it is for women to donate eggs.

But there is a privilege of being a biological parent - that of passing down one's genetic heritage to a child. It might not be the same as actively parenting that child on a day to day basis - it might indeed be a hell of a lot easier to just provide the dna than the cuddles and guidance and discipline and love that social parents provide. But to a child, it's incredibly important. As a child who was denied knowledge of my dead biological mother because my stepmother was jealous of her existence I know just how important that lack of a genetic heritage is. I have no problem whatsoever with children being brought up in single parent, same sex parent or polygamous families - love comes in all sorts of different forms. But I do have a problem with children being brought up without knowing about the DNA that helped to form them - it's why adoptive parents nowadays are encouraged to tell a child about their origins, and why adults who were adopted have a right to know details of their biological parents - I do worry that private surrogacy arrangements can sometimes be structured to give the adults who want the child their rights to a child, but not to give the child their rights to their genetic history

An egg is clearly not a blank canvas and a man clearly cannot be a mother. An adoptive mother can stand in the shoes of a mother by virtue of being a female parent. An adoptive father can stand in the shoes of the father by virtue of being a male parent. It makes sense to say a gay couple are two dads even though that's biologically impossible. It doesn't make sense to say one of them is the mother. Biologically it's untrue and socially it's meaningless. They are both male parents therefore both fathers.

Dunno but I definitely read it that way. Reading it again, it's not punctuated / phrased very well is it!

Sir Elton and his husband have sons Zachary, four, and Elijah, two, together - both born to the same surrogate mother, who the singer says they love "like a sister",

Thanks galaxy I see your point. It could be either? If it doesn't refer to the children I wonder what their relationship is/will be to the surrogate. Aunt?

No, UK adoption certs. Arsenic

As if genealogy wasn't hard enough...

Surely if abusive parents get access because of the belief in the fundamental right of the child to know its parents, then a record of genetic history is important by extension?

The article in the Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095268/Germaine-Greer-slams-Elton-John-husband-David-Furnish-named-mother-birth-certificates-two-sons.html) has an interesting comment from Germaine . Probably a thread on its own.
'The whole discourse has been distorted from the beginning by the fertility industry. I've been thinking about this lately, and I've got a suspicion, which I need to investigate properly, that we got legalised abortion precisely because the fertility industry needed it.
'It wasn't us. It certainly wasn't us. We could have marched until our feet fell off and they wouldn't have bothered to give us access to abortion. They were the ones who wanted to be able to terminate pregnancies and manipulate the products of conception at will.'

I love her. She is the Queen of the Overton Window. I have a feeling that she may not be full of fact on this one, though.

I would take with a pinch of salt any assertions by Germaine Greer without checking them out.

For me, David Furnish is a dad and thinking of men calling themselves mothers sets my teeth on edge. Maybe it does have radically disruptive potential, but not like this...

But I have to say, OP, that your second post did also set my teeth on edge rather. Because it does seem to be privileging biological parenthood.

Adopted children do get issued with a new short birth certificate, because they can't be expected to travel through life with a birth certificate that 'outs' them and gives a different name from the one they now use. But I can't remember if there is anything on it that indicates there is another, original birth certificate. There is also a separate adoption certificate.

Lass I took that to mean that david & elton love her like a sister

I think that a person's birth cert should be a factual record of the child's biological make up. Mother is an integral part of that information. And should not be messed with.

I don't much about this case - I am assuming from what has been said that David furness has no genetic link to this child at all?
I think we do need to look to the future, I think a birth certificate or some record needs to be maintained as a register of genetic heritage as much as possible -(obviously women in the past can lie or be unsure etc...)
If we have a system where 'anyone' can claim parentage - imagine problems with infertility a surrogate and anonymous donor egg and sperm /embryo used - none of the child's real biological parents are on the certificate....no record kept.
Now imagine a baby was snatched or a tragic accident or murder etc - the only way to truly identify them or whatever remains are found are through their DNA - but we have no record of their genetic identity...
Or as the OP said - even with one genetic parent the child/adult goes on to develop (possibly a novel) disease caused by a mutation - we can't study that, warn anyone, screen anyone. (Thinking of things like eg Tay Sachs found predominantly in one sector of society and where screening can take place to reduce the incidence)
I think we do need two certificates...a private and public one - actually like a birth certificate and an adoption certificate.

An egg is just a blank canvas.

I'm still wondering what this means

Well it clearly isn't a blank canvas. It has half the genetic material for the child. Which is why the "blank canvas" of my son's face has my, his maternal grandmother's and maternal great - grandfather's nose on it. (And he has our flare up, scream and shout about it and forget it 5 minutes later tempers as opposed to his father's fester and hold a grudge temper)

Was anyone else a bit surprised at the "they love the surrogate mother like a sister" comment?

What does that mean in the context of 2 very young children who have no experience of having a sister?

I also wonder if this story is cobblers.

I love lurcio's 2 part birth certificate. Birth certificates need to keep pace with reproductive technologies so that no man is listed as 'mother'.

We have a surrogate baby in my extended family, OutsSelf, so members of my family have recently been through this process!

Are you talking about the US system Puffins?

Always impressed by your knowledge of form filling, Almond

Just to reiterate, this isn't the child's birth certificate. That will have the child's birth mother's name on it.

From examples of adoption certificates I've looked at online, it doesn't have 'Mother' 'Father' boxes, as there are on a birth certificate. It just has the name/s of the adopters. Which makes me wonder what the truth of this story is. Furnish patently cannot be the child's biological mother, so can't be registered on a birth certificate in that capacity.

In the UK, social parents of a surrogate baby fill in a parental order. There is no section to fill in for mother other than the details of the surrogate mother. The two social parents are applicant one and applicant two.

Short and Long versions of B/certs were introduced for a similar reason - to conceal illegitimacy. The system could be adapted.