Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

But you have open said over and over that’s it’s not possible to regulate donor conception in straight people. Because of this you are ok with fathers who are only social fathers being listed. These cases account for 85% of donor conception. This number will likely go up if global sperm at quality continues to fall at its current rate.

It is stringent to require lesbians to name the donor on a birth certificate, not place the the second parent of the certificate at all, and then go through additional bureaucratic procedures to get parental responsibility when straight men in the identical situation only need to show up.

You say that you would like to hold straight men two identical standards, but then, in the next post, say it will be punitive to straight couples. So you don’t really want to.

I feel like you live in a fantasy where creating regulations that allow men to continue the status quo but puts additional burdens on women (who, remember, are already honest about their use of a donor!) and their children is a feminist act.

Thanks for that helpful insight 20 pages in. Did you read any or the excellent contributions?

no only biological parents should be on a birth certificate. That is the point of it. It's for the child not to appease any parent

I too find the phobic name calling just because you have a different view inappropriate - this is a discussion not an insult slinging punch-up and the danger is by using this type of language the discussion of the nuances gets missed.

Some people have argued for donors to not be openly documented on birth certificates.

It doesn’t make sense because the “minority” is now asking for the “majority “ to be held to a standard that doesn’t apply to them (the minority) at all!

Seriously, you are unduly hung up on the idea of minority versus majority. It is irrelevant to the arguments.

Being in a minority doesn’t mean people are oppressed or unfairly discriminated against or are entitled to special measures.

what you propose, over and over, is stringent regulations only on the minority.

I feel like you are on a different planet where words mean totally different things.

I haven’t called for ‘stringent regulations’ for anyone according to sexual orientation or otherwise, but I believe there must be maximum truth and transparency about biological parentage, which in effect would mean additional information on birth certificates about donor gametes. This would be irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Furthermore I do not believe that people who are not biologically related or have not given birth to the child should be registered on a child’s birth certificate, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.

These conditions would affect those who use donor gametes and those who wish to register biologically unrelated adults to the child’s birth certificate instead of the biological father, so in essence, couples with infertility, same-sex couples, polyamorous groups, and any other situation, for example a friend who wants to help a mother who has been abandoned by her partner.

First, just to clarify, I use your language but do not actually think that listing social parents on a birth certificate is “dishonest”

Second, it is absolutely the state’s job to entire that its laws and procedures are carried as equally as possible within its citizenship, without placing an undue burden on one group over another.

A state that doesn’t do this is a failed state.

Third, and back to the nonsensical analogy:

It would still only be a minority of those twins who would use their identical appearance and DNA dishonestly (so this is straight people, as they are the ones who can be dishonest) so it would not be right for the majority of twins to be held to a stricter standard just because a minority of non-twins ((so this is lesbians) who, in this hypothetical world would be a minority within a minority) thought it wasn’t fair because it was harder for them to be dishonest than twins.

It doesn’t make sense because the “minority” is now asking for the “majority “ to be held to a standard that doesn’t apply to them (the minority) at all!

what I have proposed, over and over, is equal rights. The same procedures for partnered parents, whether hetero or homosexual.

what you propose, over and over, is stringent regulations only on the minority.

The only thing that matters is that one group has a biological advantage which enables them to be dishonest, that the other group does not share. Minority/majority - it’s irrelevant.

It is not the job of the State to try to equalise all biologically related advantages and disadvantages for those who wish to be dishonest.

You really have this the wrong way around.

Okay. Imagine a world where it was more common to be a twin than not.

It would still only be a minority of those twins who would use their identical appearance and DNA dishonestly, so it would not be right for the majority of twins to be held to a stricter standard just because a minority of non-twins (who, in this hypothetical world would be a minority within a minority) thought it wasn’t fair because it was harder for them to be dishonest than twins.

It makes no difference to my argument whether twins or non-twins are in the minority.

Also, I am talking about how the majority of twins, should not be held to a stricter standard, just because a minority of twins are dishonest.

exactly— it’s the opposite. In your example, the minority’s rights are not changed despite their ability to be “dishonest. “

For birth certificates, you are proposing that the minority have different rights despite the majority’s ability to be “dishonest”

the analogous situation is requiring extra verification for identical twins when it comes to equal rights.

That must be a newish initiative @SapphosRock as I don't know my donor's name.

You are wrong in the summary of my argument.

I am comparing the act of registering an unrelated adult as a parent, on a child’s birth certificate, to a crime or other dishonesty, in my twin example.

Also, I am talking about how the majority of twins, should not be held to a stricter standard, just because a minority of twins are dishonest (and a minority of dishonest non-twins envy the advantage and extra opportunities to be dishonest that twins have).

Honesty and truth should be the standard and the assumption.

I didn't catch up on the full thread. I honestly do not understand why this is complicated.
The truth is not very often nice. Or full of pride.
It is also not always nicely captured in a few boxes.
A child should know (eventually) who brought it into existence and how!
It should also know who its parents are. The people with the emotional connection.
which may yet be different from those with parental responsibility legally. These may not be the same set and in some cultures is more than 2 people.
The birth certificate shouldn't just say any nice story we like... although I'm fully aware this is exactly the way it has always been used. I've never understood this. Even before it became an infertility or homosexuality related issue.

If we want to go way back - the history of the patriarchal oppression of women by men, including the demonisation of female sexuality, keeping women almost captive at home and denied a public life, was largely so men could guarantee that the children were his own. The word ‘cuckold’ relates to cuckoo, a bird which lays its eggs in another birds nest. This has been used to mock and ridicule men, who are supposed to feel humiliated by raising a child who is not their own.

There absolutely always has been the assumption that parents are biological parents, prior to the modern use of donors.

Identical twins have different fingerprints.

Ignoring that, everything you are implying here is ilegal. Identical twins are a minority of the population, who are held to the standard of the majority. They are not required any additional verification. It would discriminatory, for example, to always require individuals with an identical twin provide fingerprints in all situations in order to ensure that they were not lying.

First, you have compared lesbians simply registering their children with both parents to crimes. Second, the situation is exactly opposite. you are proposing that the minority be held to a stricter standard than the majority. It’s discrimination.

An unrelated example. Identical twins are able to dishonest things, taking advantage of the fact there are two of them with the same DNA, fingerprints, everything, they can stand in for one-another, provide false alibis, etc.

If people who were not twins suddenly wanted to perform the same acts of dishonesty as twins are able to, but claimed it ‘wasn’t fair’ that twins who wish to act dishonesty in this ways can, but non-twins can’t, it would be daft to bring about measures to inconvenience all twins, because a minority of twins act dishonesty and a minority of dishonest non-twins envy that advantage twins have.

Don’t be dishonest.

I am ‘on about’ people claiming that it was ‘never the intention that birth certificates should document biological parentage’ which is simply not true.

It wasn’t the intention, because DNA was not yet discovered, it could not have been the intention.

I think if you look at all of human history, you’ll find that as often as not birth registration was about legal parentage. For example, in the Bible, children are regularly registered to a dead brother when he died before having a chance to have kids.

Now you’ll probably say I’m not talking about the ancient civilisation, but the point is that the idea that the registered parents are the true verified genetic parents is a modern one, and you have it backwards. If you look at human history as a whole, children being cared for by and even legally registered to non genetic parents is a tale as old as human history itself.

They should do it. But I don’t believe in being punitive if they don’t.

Why would there be embarassment or shame?

It’s living memory.

I thought the same. I’ve heard enough from her to know it’s not a good faith argument anyway.

She isn’t concerned about the majority of donor kids, just the ones born to lesbians. Ergo, she doesn’t care about donor conceived kids, she cares about the sneaky sneaky lesbians.

Absolutely, except the ‘so what’ at the beginning of the second sentence was meant “So what!?!” - as in, why not, shit happens.

Dont forget transphobic