DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

You are wrong. It isn't fraud. It is entirely legitimate and within the legal framework of the concept of marriage that if a woman is married to a man then that man is automatically the legal father of her children no matter who the genetic father is. It is automatically part of the framework for how the birth if a baby to an unmarried woman is registered that whichever male she takes with her to the registration appointment is registered as the father. The only time any genetic tests are involved is if a man who is being pursued for child maintenance wants to disown their link to a child. No woman is expected or asked to make any legal declaration as to who the genetic father of her child is, this is not part of the process, so no fraud takes place if the person whose name goes on the certificate as father is not genetically linked. You can't call this bullshit just because you'd like something else to be true.

This is all a load of BS. If a birth certificate is suspected as being inaccurate there is a process to reveal the inaccuracy and change it. No one is supposed to be knowingly falsifying it, any more than they are meant to knowingly falsify other documents.

The fact that sometimes people get away with fraud does not mean that fraud is ok and how it's supposed to work.

That is good news! Thanks for sharing

Anyway, good news on this front :

https://gomag.com/article/lesbian-moms-win-legal-breakthrough-in-italys-high-court/

The reason that this is fundamentally homophobic is simply that none of this concern happens when the mother is heterosexual. A woman can name any male to be on the birth certificate as the father without providing genetic proof. I don't know the specifics of Italian law but in the uk if the woman is married, the man she is married to gets listed as the father even if the mum was shagging 10 different blokes a day at thr time of conception and she has no idea who the father is. Even if she knows exactlywho the father is, she can take a different man along to the registration appointment and get him listed as the father, with no proof ever required. It would be impossible to start requiring such proof without first abolishing personal bodily autonomy under a fascist state because quite rightly no one can be compelled to take a paternity dna test against their will and it's an unreasonable intrusion into a woman's personal privacy to force her to reveal the details of every man she shagged around conception time for the purpose of tracking them down and forcing such tests. This being so, it is totally fictional to assert that any birth certificate gives accurate information about any child's biological father. All birth certificates merely record who the social 2nd parent is going to be, which in some uncountable number may also be the genetic father but the birth certificate cannot possibly attest to that either way. That being so, there is no reason other than homophobia for female 2nd parents not to be listed when that is the choice of the mother. The named birthing mother on a birth certificate can always obviously be 100% known and can always be recorded, even if the genetic mother is someone else. But if you don't agree that the rules for how a 2nd parent may be named should be the same whatever the sex of that person, that is blatant homophobia.

Charming, aren't you? 😊

So you entirely discount the woman whose womb grows the baby in that situation?

What if the woman who didn't give birth gave the other woman her eggs to use?

What if the gestational mother used the non gestational mother's egg?

Yes. A child's genes are important, their sense of history. It takes a woman and a man to create that child. Both should be named in the birth certificate ideally.
It's a birth certificate, not a who will prove to be the best parent certificate.

I definitely agree with that. What would your view on reciprocal IVF be though : the genetic mother's egg is implanted in her partner, who carries and births the baby. I think the answer would be to record both.

And then he will need to turn up at the registry office and sign up for parental responsibility due not be married to the mum (fat chance! We would have to start using bailiffs to round the absent chaps up and drag them to court).

Mother - because on a birth certificate ‘mother’ means ‘the human whose body this baby came out of’ (and not the woman whose egg was used and not necessarily the woman who intends to raise the child in the mothering role). Some very rich gay men choose to have surrogacy babies in countries that don’t have this rule in order to not have any mother listed at all (which I disagree with and would not like to see happen in the UK).

If the transman is the partner of the mother then they are currently able to follow the same rules as lesbian parents (which do have some limitations, eg the baby must’ve been conceived at a registered clinic) or if they have a GRC, they can follow the same rules as unmarried men who needed donor sperm due to male factor infertility or the traditional ‘married to the mum at the time at the time of the birth’ rule.

Tangential question: should a transman who gives birth to a child be listed on birth certificate as the “mother” or as the “father”??

As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.

Well no, not all the men - she will obviously need a DNA test to get the actual man who provided the sperm that made the baby

As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.
Of course you fucking wouldn't. Or would you?!
It affects us all, I'm.baffled to how some seem willing to give up rights for others when some of those same people would be happy to give up yours in a heartbeat.

So if a child is conceived in a one night stand, it has no right to have a relationship with the father? Why, because it would tie the mother to some kind of interaction with him, and she might not like that?

In any case, the father in this scenario can request to be added to the bc, and the mother does not have a right to just refuse because that's what she prefers, you are quite mistaken that such a choice is a woman's right.

The option to not name the father exists mainly because some women don't know. And while there is some capacity today to investigate, until quite recently in those scenarios it was almost impossible to discover who the father was. It's pragmatic, not a principle.

It's not about the parents. It should be about the children. Posie is always, always thinking about the children.

she’s not speaking from being informed here about what the effect on women (whether LGB or S, married, civil partnered or single or LTR) or children’s rights would be if only biological parents on BC.
This.
It comes down to women.
It affects lesbian women.
Easy target.
One right taken away from LGBT people.
Trans rights in the news, now lesbian rights being taken away in some countries.
As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.
Of course you fucking wouldn't. Or would you?!
It affects us all, I'm.baffled to how some seem willing to give up rights for others when some of those same people would be happy to give up yours in a heartbeat.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. In fact, I think it's very unlikely. Did you read the article? It's not really an artificial womb, it's an incubator for premature babies - that developed inside their mothers.

If this ever happens we will likely end up with a shit load of bag-gestated babies who grow up to become adults with personality disorders.

Only the babies made go order for wealthy commissioning ‘parents’ of course - us proles will carry on carrying our own and doing the actual labouring part of labour…

If being shipped off to boarding school fucked up the posh kids of the 20th century imagine how fucked up the bag-gestated babies of the 23rd century could be?

Now Imagine a Tory cabinet made up of the bag-gestated !

*shudder

So maximum transparency is vital.

I think it is important for children conceived by donor parents to be able to easily trace, not just their own genetic heritage, but also to easily trace any genetic half-siblings they may have and to know how many. It’s also important for avoiding unwitting incest.

I was imagining a code so that the donor could easily be traced later when the child is 18 plus. So not genetic father = David Smith (donor) but more like genetic father = DONOR numberXXX, clinic ZZZZ.
So it’s clearly recorded that the genetic father (or mother) was a donor and the info is provided on how to identify them if the child wants to when they reach adulthood.

The thing is, the key piece of information a child/adult needs is whether their legal parents are also their genetic parents.

DNA genealogy is making it ever easier to trace someone if you know there's someone to trace.

What I was imagining was a section called "genetic parents" under which "anonymous sperm donor" or "anonymous egg donor" and perhaps the clinic name would be listed for clinic donor conceptions.

For natural conceptions, you just have "as above" (the legal parents). For lesbian couples, or known donors you compete accordingly.

I was imagining a code so that the donor could easily be traced later when the child is 18 plus. So not genetic father = David Smith (donor) but more like genetic father = DONOR numberXXX, clinic ZZZZ.
So it’s clearly recorded that the genetic father (or mother) was a donor and the info is provided on how to identify them if the child wants to when they reach adulthood. I don’t think anonymous donation should be allowed - and actually it isn’t in the UK anymore.
And having spaces for genetic parents as well as legal parents doesn’t automatically mean it would be necessary or possible to name the genetic father if the mother is not sure who he is or if he wants nothing to do with the child. But then if you ask the father for maintenance and he accepts he could be recorded as the genetic father. Or if a DNA test is done. This is exactly how the system works currently anyway. You can leave the father off if you’re not married but he can request to be added, and if he does get added he is given parental responsibility. If you have a system where all info is recorded then it would obviously be the legal parents who have parental responsibility, always, and the rules on how that works don’t necessarily need to change. So Donors through a clinic don’t get parental responsibility, married spouse of the mother (gestational? genetic assuming no donor? People have different opinions on this) would automatically be given legal parent status.
They are currently some big holes in how the system works anyway. Say there is a married heterosexual couple and the wife has an affair and gets pregnant. Then the husband accepts the baby as his own BUT the biological father goes to court to request a DNA test then access to his child. I believe currently this would have to go through family court but the biological father could end up named on the birth certificate and given parental responsibility. I’m not sure what would happen to the husband’s parental status in this situation (as he would assumed to be the biological father and named on the BC, then replaced on the BC by the actual biological father).

I agree that children should know but not necessarily from their birth certificate.

I see. Yes. I think it’s awful. Such a betrayal.