Thank you for your post *nothingcomestonothing. *You said:
The only benefit is that the BC states biological reality. You could argue that that is more to benefit the state than the individual child maybe. This being the sex and gender board, I think we're all keenly aware of the potential consequences of allowing feelings to replace biology on legal documents.
How does the state benefit from naming a man who may be not at all involved (or might be but the government DGAF about that) as a parent? I’m not sure how effectively putting sole parental responsibility on the woman who gives birth benefits the state, that mum or the child? How does it work practically when two parents intend to be in the picture and why is it better for the state to only acknowledge one? I mean, any benefit other than gratifying the lesbophobic impulses of the legislators?
I’d also strongly argue that being a mother married to another mother bringing up a child together isn’t ‘a feeling’. It’s not a delusion to escape misogyny nor a means to deny one’s own same-sex attraction due to homophobia, nor is it a sex fetishisation of misogyny. Lesbian parenting has nothing to do with gender ideology unless people are conflating same-sex relationships with same-gender relationships, which is not helpful or accurate.
But you can say that about a step father who does all those things, has raised the child as his own from birth and would always be thier dad if he and the mum divorced. That step father isn't and shouldn't be on the BC, but should and is able in the UK to adopt the DC and take on parental rights and responsibilities. If Italy allowed same sex couples to do the same, I think that would be better than knowingly putting non birth parents on a BC
If the stepdad was there from birth (and married to the mum at the birth time) then yes, he would be on the BC.
If the non-stepdad dad is on the BC instead of the stepdad, then that’s because (the stepdad wasn’t married to the mum) and the genetic dad and the mum put the dads name there, or she put dad name in there and neither dad nor current stepdad she was married to at the time objected (though I am not too sure about the legality of that one), or because the mum was married to the dad at the time of the birth and not the stepdad (saying nothing about who in reality is the child’s dad). I do hope we’re all agreed that BCs shouldn’t be retrospectively changed.
I’m confused why you’d argue that a stepdad should need to adopt his wife or partners’ previous kids though? That seems like a patriarchal idea coming from legitimising existing kids via a new marriage and new male protection. It also presumably acts to give the adults freedom to give everyone in the new stepfamily the same surname.
I can imagine that in some situations that the adoption then name change to a new surname, possibly the stepdad’s, or a new stepfamily double-barrel, for example might be very healing or very important for a child. But it’s not a given and it might be more complex and in some situations might be more about asserting something or denying something that could later be very difficult for the child’s sense of origins and identity, even if the adults prefer the changed of name and if the child was happy with it on childhood, which can’t be assumed.
All of which is worthy of discussion on a feminism board but for me, not in the way you’re posing it here as a ‘should’.
Parental rights and responsibilities of fatherhood are also not legally the same as BC rights and they can exist independently of what’s on the BC, so we also have to be careful not to conflate these in this discussion.
So I think we’re back to, why can’t the female partner married to the other mum of the baby at birth, go on the BC in Italy, when the stepdad that you mention would be allowed to do this?
I disagree with you that lesbian partners should be regarded as egg donors if that’s what you’re saying? (Would you argue that any woman who gives her egg to her spouse for making a baby is a donor then, including if the spouse happens to be male? Presumably you also believe that women who give their egg to a surrogate and then take the baby and bring it up should be considered egg donors too?
I’m glad we agree that The Italian government's ideology behind this absolutely is lesbophobic But I will agree to disagree with you that campaigning for same sex adoption is a better solution overall than campaigning for the right to lie on a legal document. I just don’t think genetic truth always has a safe place on BCs, for children or for women.