DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

Signalbox OK but you’re posting about unmarried straight couples’ rights to birth certification. That is a different legal situation compared to married straight couples’ rights to birth certification which is what I was talking about.

I was saying that a married man is automatically (unless legally challenged), the Dad on the BC of the baby that his wife has. Regardless of if they used a sperm donor. Regardless if his wife is having an affair and everyone in the world knows that the OM is the dad.

The married man’s right to do that is the analogy I was using for the married wife of the mum who gave birth in Italy. My point is why is she not allowed to go on the child’s BC
, if a married man is allowed to. It’s lesbophobia.

The argument seems to boil down to should a BC reflect who your genetic parents are or who the parents raising you are.

Both are essential.

A system which records both is the answer.

This really does read as someone who is applying a trans lense to lesbians’ rights. Women are not claiming biological falsehood when they seek for both their status to be recognised as parents. (Although you do know it’s not uncommon for one woman to produce the egg and the other woman to carry right?)

In U.K. law parenthood is a legal and cultural status more than it is a biological one. Centring this doesn’t mean children can’t be informed of their biological origins, but it does mean that the person who fulfils the second parental role from conception onwards is recognised as important and having all of the legal rights and responsibilities as a parent.

Sperm donors aren’t parents and don’t go anywhere near a birth certificate. Anyone who is arguing against a second woman taking the other parent slot is arguing for a child to be given less information, not more.

Genetic testing is expensive, and invasive. There are huge privacy issues.

But it requires zero genetic testing for any of us to know that two people of the same sex cannot be the biological parents of a child. If these people are women, and one is the biological mother, we all know that there is a biological father, and the other woman is bot the biological parent.

In general, most women know who the father of a child is, and tell the truth. Falsifying documents, of all kinds, is illegal. And a disservice to the child who has a right to an accurate record.

The fact that it is possible to lie, or a mistake could be made, does not justify requiring people to pretend they are unaware that two large gametes cannot create a baby.

In cases where doubt arises at the identity of a father, genetic testing can happen and often does if there are legal implications. Would you seriously suggest this is necessary where the legal parents are a same-sex couple?

I think a system which trusts women to name the father, and gives them the option to not name the father, should be maintained.

The mother has a moral responsibility to both the child and the state to tell the truth.

Where it's a donor that should be stated which allows the child to follow this up for information after 18.

Deadringer the article says that in Italy now lesbian wives are not allowed to both be on the BC. Only the one who gives birth.

I haven’t read the full thread, apologies.

My understanding is that this measure is being taken particularly against surrogacy , which the Italian Government is very much against. The birth certificate for same sex couples was being abused, as it is in many places, by listing two men as the parents, ( one in the place of the ‘mother’., ‘ traditionally female ‘ as they rather sweetly say). The focus on disadvantaging lesbian parents is just the usual tactic of focussing on a woman’s problem which will gain sympathy from most people, and piggy backing Mens Rights onto it.

Tbh this is a simple issue for me. Birth certificates should list the biological parents. That is a real material fact that is of significance for all kinds of important reasons.

When someone besides a biological parent is a guardian, or what is an essentially an adoptive parent, there are various ways that can be shown, including in some places creating anew certificate while maintaining the old one.

But it is not "erasing" lesbians that documents that record material conditions actually do that. It's not erasing lesbians to be unwilling to pretend that two women cannot produce a biological child. (If they could, that would be a heterosexual relationship! So would really erase lesbians.)

This kind of claim that social and legal recognition of biological reality is unjust, unkind, or bigoted is a hugely dangerous.

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.

If the birth certificate is a genetic record, then that should apply to all newborn babies, with actual genetic testing even for married couples, and with egg or sperm donors named.

If it's a record of who the child's parents are, then that's a different matter. But it shouldn't be one rule for a woman parenting with a man and a different rule for one with a woman.

It is very important to children to know who their biological parents are.

We like pretend it's not, because it raises some tricky issues for the adults who've used donors. But it is.

This is why adopted children should now always be told they are adopted and given appropriate information about their biological parents.

It's also true for people who discover they have been lied to about their parentge, or where information has been denied to them. There are studies and reports from children of sperm donors who've talked about how not knowing their genetic history has impacted them.

We like to pretend that it's only who raises you that matters, and although that may be the most important thing, it's not the only important thing.

Children have a right to know their genetic heritage. The birth certificate should record this.

It could also additionally record the names of the people who will be raising you.

If married couples are using sperm donation that should be recorded on the birth certificate. With the name of the husband as 'father raising the child' or something.
This could also work for gay couples.

Bottom line though: it is about children's rights, not what makes the adults feel good.

Can same sex couples marry in Italy? If so the birth mother and her spouse should be listed as the parents, as has always been done with heterosexual married couples. If they are not married I suppose it complicates things depending on italian law, but the most important thing imo is that the birth mother is on the birth certificate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/4/data.pdf

https://www.trethowans.com/insights/mother-jailed-for-lying-on-birth-certificate/#:~:text=Deliberately%20giving%20false%20details%20on,an%20amendment%20to%20the%20register.

"Deliberately giving false details on a birth certificate is a criminal offence under the Perjury Act 1911 and is punishable by imprisonment. If however, a genuine mistake has been made, it is possible to seek an amendment to the register. In this particular case, if the mother had made a genuine mistake as to the identity of the natural father and it later transpired that her partner was not the baby’s father, she could apply to have his name removed from the certificate by providing evidence by way of an approved DNA test or court order. He would also then lose parental responsibility."

McConnell legal case judge's comments may be relevant:
https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1616733253494259714
Cots group also wrote about related issues:childrenoftransitioners.org/2023/04/10/paperwork/

Agree with posters above BC is for the child to know who gave birth to them and who they are genetically related to- it's a basic human need. Those with parental responsibility can be recorded too but the BC is for the child.

I'm not talking about assumptions though. I'm talking about a situation where a woman KNOWS that the person she is registering as the child's father is not in fact the child's biological father. To do this is to lie on a legal document and is illegal.

Or put it all on the same document? That seems to make the most sense.

No, a birth certificate is a reflection and record of the precise circumstances surrounding the birth of a child. Even if you are adopted, your original birth certificate remains intact, and, at least, will name your biological mother - even if the father remains un-named or un-known.

I think children need to know who both their biological parents are. Birth certificates should be factual. A separate document to record the people with parental responsibility could be drawn up for non bio
parents who have responsibility

Too soon, record of biological parents then a certificate of registered parents or a less clunky name with non biological parents registered with parental authority

It's not beyond the wit of governments to be able to produce a birth certificate (factual record of known biological p

Most adopted children where I am do not have the original birth certificate.

Even now, I can apply for mine, but if either parent put a block on it I have no rights to it. Not until a year after the person who blocked it dies. How would I know when they died if I don’t know who they are??

all that to say, I have issues with what it seems italy doing with this.

That’s exactly what they say. So for a lesbian couple in the UK (who are married and conceived at a clinic) their child’s birth certificate has a space for ‘mother’ and a space for ‘parent’. Then they have additional documentation about the sperm donor.

outside of sperm donation via IVF, you can't just pick who you want the father to be can you? If you know that the man you are married to isn't the biological father of your child and you put his name on the birth certificate regardless that would be falsifying a legal document

Yes you absolutely can Signalbox unless the husband formally objects at the time of birth registration, or later it is challenged and if the assumption of the child of the marriage is formally legally disproved involving DNA tests and a judge. BCs not genetic documents.

I think this is awful. I really don't see why certificates can't be issued with "birth mother" and "other parent" categories. However, I think this is also part of a crackdown on surrogacy which is illegal but has been a bit of a grey area until recently.