Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

Aside from the fact that this is again starting with the implicit assumption that a heterosexual nuclear family is the best way to raise a child, fertility treatment is not filled with “falsehoods.” The treatment had and the donor, if used, are documented.

Firstly, I was speaking about donor conceptions using clinics, sexual orientation is irrelevant.

The kind of falsehoods I am talking about are ones like a when woman and a man she has never met are making a baby together, helped by a clinic who chose them as a procreating couple. The falsehood is when the woman and her current partner say “we’re having a baby together” to help them feel less weird about what is being done. Or say “the word parent is nothing to do with biology because we are both equally the baby’s parents” or “the gamete is just one, tiny, irrelevant cell, providing one isn’t enough to qualify as a child’s parent”, or “the meanings of the word ‘mother’ and ‘parent’ are verbs, not nouns and that’s what they have always been in law”, etc. The kind of taboos I am talking about, are the ones like- exclusively referring to biological/genetic parents as ‘donors’ and saying it is offensive to refer to them as ‘fathers’, ‘mothers’ or ‘parents’ genetically - those kind of taboos where people feel they need to tread on eggshells around the people demanding that kind of language.

It’s what you want to think these families are saying.

It’s what activists say. “I am a real woman”, “TWAW”, “a unrelated woman is just as much a real mother as the woman who gave birth”, “two men who pay for a baby are equally good as parents for a child as it being raised by its mother” …These declarations often come with overt accusations or insinuations that a person with any qualms about it is transphobic, homophobic or sexist.

Neither of these things affect lesbian families. The first, because lesbian families doesn’t include men, and the second, because they don’t use surrogates. You regularly conflate all the issues, which muddles, rather than adds clarity, to your aims.

I do not see lesbian couples as some kind of special case with unique intrinsic rights to disparage the importance of biology, genealogy, or the unique relationship of biological birth-giving mothers to their child, or the truth, and so on.
When lesbians disparage these things with a view to getting what they want or convincing others to go along with it, I see them no differently to other transhumanist activists with similar aims and identical methods. For that reason, all people with ‘progressive’ aims to make biology and nature subject to equality and discrimination arguments and who demand technological interventions and linguistic changes of meanings to support it, can be discussed in the same breath since they are part of the same thing.

the birth certificate has always been about genetics is flawed. Lesbians didn’t just start rocking up at registry offices in 2009 and start listening themselves on birth certificates. The government changed the law to allow it, meaning they understood

I don’t know exactly how the law was changed, but the GRA was brought in changing the legal record on of biological reality, in 2004, not because of a change in ‘understanding’ of what the record was for in the UK, but because of strong arm tactics of activists using strategic litigation, discrimination arguments and winning in the ECHR first. This change in law was likely to be the same.

I mean a situation requiring medical intervention, infrastructure which, for example in the case of family creation, unnaturally allows biological parents to procreate without ever meeting eachother and perhaps never even finding out who one-another are, a situation requiring lots falsehoods and taboos

Aside from the fact that this is again starting with the implicit assumption that a heterosexual nuclear family is the best way to raise a child, fertility treatment is not filled with “falsehoods.” The treatment had and the donor, if used, are documented. No one is pretending it didn’t happen (except, of course, some straight couples).

we all know what a taboo is, but to make it really clear I’ll put the definition here:

a social or religious custom prohibiting or restricting a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing.

Fertility treatment is not, in any way, taboo. Most families who use it are open about having used it, and don’t experience social exclusion or derision. Its silly to pretend that fertility treatment is looked on this way by society when it’s not. It’s inflammatory but delusional statements like this that make your arguments appear to be the product of a conservative, traditional, patriarcal tradition rather than one of exclusively concern for children.

to make it seem that this is ‘no different at all’ to the simple and natural one. If there is no claim of it being “exactly the same”, “no different”, or “equal in every way”, and instead there is an openness, being frank about how it isn’t identical -

This is pure projection. It’s what you want to think these families are saying. I doubt you’ve hung out with a lesbian family in person. Families must be firm about our equal right to be a family because of people like you. Lesbian families are equally as good at being families, and deserve equal legal standing, but I don’t know any they claim they are “exactly the same” and “no different” from a straight family. If we wanted to be exactly the same, we wouldn’t be lesbians 😂

In that post I chose wording wide enough to include everyone from a man who insists he is a ‘real’ woman, right through to Kim Kardashian avoiding pregnancy by using a surrogate mother.

Neither of these things affect lesbian families. The first, because lesbian families doesn’t include men, and the second, because they don’t use surrogates. You regularly conflate all the issues, which muddles, rather than adds clarity, to your aims. The fast the people cannot change sex, the use of surrogates, and gamete donation are three completely separate issues and should be regulated as such.

I mean we can’t make laws in the UK that also change laws in all other countries? That’s like when Trump decided to build a wall between Mexico and America and said Mexico would pay for it.

We are discussing whether the UK requires a change to the existing birth certificate laws, so it’s pretty relevant what the UK currently does around this situation. You’re arguing that something should happen that already does and then saying “oh well it might not happen in other countries”.

Also, your argument that the birth certificate has always been about genetics is flawed. Lesbians didn’t just start rocking up at registry offices in 2009 and start listening themselves on birth certificates. The government changed the law to allow it, meaning they understood the purpose of a birth certificate is also to bestow parental responsibility to legal parents.

They are required to undergo counselling which explores their understanding and the law, the impact on the child, the child’s rights, and the importance of being honest with the child are all discussed in depth.

I really hope this is true and that practises like offering women a free round of IVF in exchange for donating their eggs have stopped. Also, I wonder, is this really true of all gamete harvesters/banks, in all countries? I am sceptical.

Also, experimentation on embryos? Are you meaning things like 3 parent embryos

Yes. Amongst other things.

To call these families a facsimile of “natural” is not just wrong it’s horrendously offensive.

In that post I chose wording wide enough to include everyone from a man who insists he is a ‘real’ woman, right through to Kim Kardashian avoiding pregnancy by using a surrogate mother. By facsimile of natural, I mean a situation requiring medical intervention, infrastructure which, for example in the case of family creation, unnaturally allows biological parents to procreate without ever meeting eachother and perhaps never even finding out who one-another are, a situation requiring lots falsehoods and taboos to make it seem that this is ‘no different at all’ to the simple and natural one. If there is no claim of it being “exactly the same”, “no different”, or “equal in every way”, and instead there is an openness, being frank about how it isn’t identical - in fact it is complicated and throws up its own issues and hurdles, but it is what it is - then that is not a facsimile. It is honest and truthful about it being different.

Tangled - people who donate gametes or use donated gametes are under no illusion of the potential consequences of that process. They are required to undergo counselling which explores their understanding and the law, the impact on the child, the child’s rights, and the importance of being honest with the child are all discussed in depth.

Also, experimentation on embryos? Are you meaning things like 3 parent embryos as a treatment for mitochondrial diseases? This is an absolutely life changing medical advancement that prevents hideous suffering for these children.

Also, to reiterate, children with two mothers (one birth mother and one non-gestational mother) are absolutely not any worse off than children of heterosexual parents. To call these families a facsimile of “natural” is not just wrong it’s horrendously offensive.

I think you vastly miscalculate the pride of sterile straight men

I am not an overly punitive sort and I believe that if these were the rules and the structures were in place, most people would be honest.

An aside.

A friend of mine, when she was getting an abortion, was so disturbed about how serious and ‘final’ the language and tone was, of everyone in the clinic. Every time they said stuff like ‘termination’ and so on, she really felt like they wanted her to be under no illusions about the fact that she was ending the potential life of her potential child, to make sure she was certain about it.

I feel that gamete extractors/banks should be exactly the same about the seriousness of what the donor is doing, how they are potentially creating their children they will never have any care or control over, no relationship with and that those potential children may feel rejected and abandoned because of it. But it’s just the opposite isn’t it? The seriousness is all glossed over - because they want to get those gametes- the demand for them is high.

Exactly, but just take a gander over to the infertility boards to see how much of fertility treatment for people living in the U.K. is not even done in the U.K.

Most fertility treatment is not NHS funded, which means it can be part of the NHS but could also not be. That also means a different system, and doesn’t account for people who would choose to be completely private.

I can see maybe having an optional donor slot without rights on birth certificates for people who want it, but there isn’t a way to enforce it.

who doesn’t want the donor listed just doesn’t take the paper

You cannot register a birth in the UK without the paper proving your maternity.

I am saying that the donors (if any) would be listed on it. You couldn’t not bring the paper.

someone who has only experienced one medical system

What do you mean?

I am talking about the UK specifically in all this.

This is just a really naive view of someone who has only experienced one medical system, sorry.

Also, with this system any straight couple or single woman who doesn’t want the donor listed just doesn’t take the paper or goes private. Again, pretty easy to protest the discriminatory practice in court.

Sorry, I should have bolded

It practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere.

it practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere.

It really doesn’t. Fertility clinics would only need your NHS number and to have some means of adding the data to your maternity record. I remember having to carry around a big bloody folder when I was pregnant, which the midwife snatched off me when the baby was born, and then I got a form to take to register the births to prove I was the mum. It would be part of that bundle of information with your scans, etc.

@TangledRoots your timeline is off since the first known sperm donations are from the 1880, and were widely used in secret by the 1940s.

That aside:

• Changes at the point of collection at egg and sperm banks, so that those donating sign an agreement to be identified on the birth certificates of any genetic offspring.

this seems unnecessary since U.K. donors already agree to identification, and also unregulateable for the reasons I describe in the next section.

• Changes at the fertility clinic, so that a record of the donor(s) used are put on the mother’s medical record and that information will be transferred on the proofs of maternity she takes to register the baby.

This proposal is scary and brave new world-ish. The idea seems innocent enough, but it practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere. Most fertility treatment is private, so it means requiring that private clinics report to the NHS and all private hospitals. Record sharing isn’t even that good within the NHS! Basically it requires a massive, electronic record keeping system of every child bearing women. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that could go wrong, it’s only a step away from let’s just chip people and scan them at medical treatment, like puppies. This would be a gateway to decreased privacy, increased government control, and possible human rights violations. It also doesn’t account for people who move to the U.K. while pregnant, leave the U.K. while pregnant, get treatment abroad, etc.

• Changes to the birth certificate to include a section to name genetic parents.

This would have to include legislation to change all the ways the birth certificate is currently used to specifically exclude the donors from having parental responsibility, but I suppose if you did that and managed to get that far (without violating people’s privacy via the massive electronic tracking system) there is nothing wrong with this.

Also:

• An end to experiments on embryos, interference with DNA, egg casings, etc.

• An end to surrogacy.

• Obviously, from the first points, an end to anonymity of gamete donors.

I'm a lesbian parent and I don't really support this, as it is clearly untrue in the absolute sense.

BUT: ANY man can go on the cert if he chooses, so as it stands I'm in support of it. Obviously there are also the automatic rights you get by being named parents on birth cert, which the non birthing parent really should have.

Regarding what I said here:

I would further propose some kind of halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption for parents who used donors and for this to be reflected in the birth certificate.

I wouldn’t want to commit to this, because I think, in the case of surrogacy, there should be a full adoption process.

This was a general post, not addressing you, and I was writing it while you were writing yours.

Clearly you must have skimmed over everything I have suggested.

“the birth certificate to be a genetic record, it is not currently that”

All births have been registered since the Civil Registration Act of 1837. The world’s first egg donor birth was in 1984. Up until that medical interference in reproduction, all registered births were a maternal genetic record.

Post 1984 there has been no discussion about how egg donation potentially changed the meaning of the word mother, or how this impacts the child’s identity or whether this should be reflected in the record on their birth certificate.

The world’s first sperm banks began around 1964, but obviously this doesn’t reflect when sperm donors were first used, because it’s possible to do it without the involvement of a clinic or bank. Also, prior to DNA testing, you couldn’t prove paternity, however because of social customs, you can take a guess that most fathers registered on birth certificates probably were a true paternal genetic record.

Since the vast majority of births do not involve donors and the father and mother really are the biological and genetic mother and father of the child registered, then for the majority of people, the birth certificate is and continues to be, a genetic record of who a child is.

I think it is unfair for those children whose parents used donors, to be disadvantaged by not having a genetic record of who they are on their birth certificate like those whose parents did not.

“what your propositions are”

I propose:

• Changes at the point of collection at egg and sperm banks, so that those donating sign an agreement to be identified on the birth certificates of any genetic offspring.
• Changes at the fertility clinic, so that a record of the donor(s) used are put on the mother’s medical record and that information will be transferred on the proofs of maternity she takes to register the baby.
• Changes to the birth certificate to include a section to name genetic parents.

• An end to experiments on embryos, interference with DNA, egg casings, etc.
• An end to surrogacy.
• Obviously, from the first points, an end to anonymity of gamete donors.

This isn’t the whole picture, but I see gamete donation as being roughly a halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption.

Natural biological parenthood needs no process to be awarded legal parental rights and responsibilities- they are a de facto thing.
Adoptive parenthood requires a number of tests and requirements to be awarded legal parental rights and responsibilities.

So I would further propose some kind of halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption for parents who used donors and for this to be reflected in the birth certificate.

I don’t disagree with any of the three points you listed, they are basic biological facts that no one on this thread is refuting.

You have again just listed a treatise of your personal beliefs with no practical translation to either current or proposed real world documentation practice.

it’s pointless to continue to engage with you.

Here are some facts:

1. Human beings are either male or female sexed and cannot change from one sex to the other.
2. Human beings reproduce sexually by uniting one gamete of either sex and cannot reproduce any other way.
3. Human beings can only gestate in the womb of the female and, after they are born, usually continue to be nourished by the milk from her breasts. This relationship between mother and baby is unique and hugely significant to the baby.

These facts about human beings are a source of frustration and disappointment to some people.

Some people who are frustrated and disappointed by any or all of these facts seek medical interventions and supportive social infrastructure, and agitate for changes in law, language, beliefs and culture to:

a) Enable them to live a facsimile of a life as close to what it would be if any or all of these facts were untrue.
b) Disguise (from themselves, and others) the fact that they are living a manufactured facsimile of a life rather than the natural one which they seek to copy.
c) Normalise, or even promote the facsimile as superior to what is copied, by downplaying the negatives and overstating the positives of the facsimile, or overstating the negatives and downplaying the positives of what is being copied.
d) Make criticisms of the manufactured facsimile taboo, whilst socially rewarding allies.

This is one set of romantic dishonesties which I believe need to have open and unflinching examination and discussion for the good of women and children’s rights.

The other side is infertility and the ethics of ‘treatments’ using other people’s bodies, how this impacts on women and children’s rights.

It’s the summary of what you have expressed in this thread. It might not be what you think you believe, but it is what your beliefs amount to in practice.

Your have written also written a lot about a fantasy land where the birth certificate is a genetic document, and have repeatedly declined to propose real world solutions.

Even though I know you don’t care about equality or being discriminatory, if I was in your position and wanted your ends, I’d have more intellectual rigour. If you demand that only sane sex couples list their sperm donors, it would be pretty easy to take that to court and get it over turned. The fact that heterosexual men don’t need to make it a clear cut case of discrimination. Propose a solution that would hold up in a modern, democratic, non-religious society. I have repeatedly asked you these kind of questions in order to get you to engage with the argument in the real world, but you don’t.

if you would like to provide a summary of what you believe, acknowledging that while you would like the birth certificate to be a genetic record, it is not currently that, and what your propositions are, I would happily engage with that.

You have incorrectly summarised my beliefs. You are wrong in your assumptions about my position, which is why you keep missing the point.

Refuting a point is not missing it.

we agree that removing a child from its birth mother is cruel and poses big child safeguarding issues, and little else.

You hold a conservative, traditional (and rather patriarcal) view of the nuclear family, believe that children get their primary identity from their genetic mother and father, and should be raised by only these two people if possible, and the birth certificate should reflect this by always listing a man and a woman.

I believe that the modern, heterosexual nuclear family is not the only way or even the best way to raise a child, that children get equal parts of their identity from genetics, nurturing style, their wider community and culture, and that it is in the best interest if the child that the birth certificate reflect, as it currently does, the parents. The people raising the child.