What about the birth mothers?

[WallaceinAnderland]

Thinking about the recent news around the Scottish GRR. Is it right that a person can legally change their sex on their birth certificate? Does the woman who gave birth to that baby not have a say in this? After all, she birthed the child and registered that birth. This is a fact, is it not?

YANBU a birth certificate is an accurate record held by the state which should not be tampered with

YABU a birth certificate belongs to the baby and is nothing to the with the mother or the state

Why, though?

Birth certs have never been very much about accuracy up to now - they're a legal document, not a biological record.

The birth certificate belongs to the state, though it should belong to the child, and possibly the mother. Before 1975 adopted people had no access to their birth certificate. In other countries, including most states in the USA, adopted adults still cannot access their birth certificate. Trans issues are only one aspect of the question of who a birth certificate belongs to.

Birth certs have never been very much about accuracy up to now - they're a legal document

You don't see any issues with that statement?!?

Any inaccuracies on birth certs historically were to do with the limits of human knowledge in practical terms (we can't force a woman to reveal the identity of the father, for example).

But this is swapping demonstrably true information for demonstrably false. In that case, there is no point in them. They will hinder rather than help record keeping.

Ok...can I change the year I was born in on it because I'm in my forties but actually feel like I'm 21?

Better to age yourself up so you can qualify for a pension 😄

No, that's not the case.

Historically, if a married woman had a baby, it was presumed to be her husband's and he'd go on the birth cert., even if all parties involved knew perfectly well it wasn't his biological child.

For the last few years, same-sex couples can both go on the birth cert. I'm down as the second named parent on my own DD's birth cert and it must be blindly obvious to anyone looking at that document that this is a statement of legal parenthood rather than biological parenthood, because the first named parent is another woman.

I think there may well be arguments to be had about what we do with birth certificates, but there's no argument to be made that they should be accurate records of biological kinship. They have never been intended to fulfil that role.

Historically, if a married woman had a baby, it was presumed to be her husband's and he'd go on the birth cert., even if all parties involved knew perfectly well it wasn't his biological child.

But that's down to the same reason as I gave earlier, the limits of human knowledge or what will be admitted.

It's not the same as this, which is information that will be known to be false, at a glance.

They have never been intended to fulfil that role.

No, they're a legal document. Knowingly falsifying legal documents is the type of thing that usually carries a penalty.

I havent checked this, but this seems the most sensible

Birth certificate is a legal document with the details of your biology - it should not be changed in my view. I think you should be able to lodge a change if you need, but as an addendum and not a removal of any information

I personally struggle when 2 people of the same sex have a child and both are registered on the birth certificate - clearly the biology does not follow

I dont know how this is done currently, but there was a post here earlier about two women with a child and the op stated they were both on the birth cert - www.mumsnet.com/talk/lgbt_parents/4729291-dw-minimising-my-role -

Yes we are married. Both have parental responsibility. Both our names are on the birth certificate.

Honestly, it's not. Yes, sometimes people genuinely didn't know who that father was, or wouldn't admit, but there are plenty of cases where all parties have been perfectly well aware who dad was, and even so, the name on the birth cert wasn't dad.

Just as it is quite obvious I am not my daughter's birth mother, despite being on her birth cert.

Indeed, a woman who gives birth to a child not biologically hers will be 'mother' on the birth cert, and there's absolutely no requirement to state who the biological mother is.

None of this is about 'falsifying' anything. It is simply to do with the function and purpose of a birth certificate. Much as you might want that function to be stating biological facts, it simply isn't.

Give them the complexity of modern legal parenting and biological parenthood, I would change birth certificates to be

legal parent 1
legal parent 2 (if any)

Mother (biological female who gave birth)
Genetic mother (if different)
Genetic father (if different)

Reason being that children should hold all the above information about themselves.

Cross post. The thread you linked isn't mine, but I'm in the same situation. The way it works is that the mum who gives birth goes down as 'mother' and her partner goes down as 'second parent'. You can do this either if you're already married, or if you've had treatment at a UK registered fertility clinic. I forget when the law changed - 2012 or so?

But it's long been the case that birth certificates record the woman giving birth as the 'mother' whether or not she has a biological relationship to the baby (ie., mothers conceiving with donor eggs or donor embryos).

In the case of sperm donors/egg donors who you can’t legally identify until 18, then the relevant ID can be put here to enable contact.

"the mum who gives birth goes down as 'mother' and her partner goes down as 'second parent"

Oh that makes perfect sense

but.....how would this work...
mum has baby with 1 man, but is in relationship with new man
does new partner go in as second parent?

(i'm not suggesting you are the expert on all things certifications)

Honestly, it's not. Yes, sometimes people genuinely didn't know who that father was, or wouldn't admit, but there are plenty of cases where all parties have been perfectly well aware who dad was, and even so, the name on the birth cert wasn't dad.

Thats not quite my point. A stranger/the state would have no choice in this situation but to take the mothers word for it, that's the limit of human knowledge I'm referencing m.

Unless of course they DNA tested, which they may do if it was contested.

With sex, it's obvious to all if the information it's false. That knowledge is immediately available.

None of this is about 'falsifying' anything.

Of course it is, if the birth cert states that someone is a sex that they're not. That's exactly what falsifying is.

I would love to be certificates-expert.

My understanding is it depends on the timeline. If a single woman gets pregnant by one man then gets into a relationship with someone else before she gives birth, she can put down whatever she fancies (so long as the bloke in question comes with her, and agrees), or she can leave it blank. (I am not passing any judgment on the ethics of any of this, btw.)

If she's married to man 1 when she gives birth, in theory, he's the presumptive father, not man 2, and he can go register the birth himself (and choose to put himself down).

Regardless of whether or not you think birth certificates should knowingly have lies recorded on them, they don't just affect the person they describe. If your birth certificate says your father is Joe Bloggs, but really John Smith is your biological father, that doesn't affect anyone else (unless you are hoping for inheritance from Joe Bloggs and his bio DC object, I suppose).

But birth certificates are used as a form of ID. If I'm 27 but have my birth certificate changed to say I was born in 2018, how are you going to stop me joining your local school's reception class? I've got official proof I'm eligible. Like, it seems, much to do with '#be kind, they just want to pee, how does it affect you anyway' narrative, this doesn't just affect the individual who wants the change. It potentially affects all and any of us. I don't want an adult in my kids class and I don't want a bepenised rapist in a women's prison. It's not all about what a lone individual might want, their wants affect others, and those others have a right to expect an official document to be true.

YABU to consider this a document the mother has any day over, subsequent to registering the birth of the child. A birth certificate is for the state and the child, not a mother. Her medical notes will contain reference to her giving birth.

YANBU to think a factual document should be falsified subsequently.

A person can be both male and female because their sex may be male and their gender female for example

Not true. A transwoman may be feminine-presenting but will always be male, not female. A transman may be masculine-presenting but will always be female. Ask Buck Angel. Sex is fixed, gender presentation is not.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how birth certificates work. I can't explain it any better really.

It's not 'falsifying' to put information that isn't biologically accurate on a birth certificate. It is a normal, if unusual, aspect of how birth certificates are allowed to work, because they record a legal situation and not a biological one.

It's not 'falsifying' to put information that isn't biologically accurate on a birth certificate

But we know that information to be false. Everyone does. So why would we give the green light to this on a legal document?

In other situations you've referenced, it would be better or course, if this info was more accurate, but there is no way of ensuring this beyond mass DNA testing, which would be a logistical nightmare. So not ideal, but not the same situation at all.

If we allow people to change true information for false on a birth cert, where do we draw the line? What's the point of having it if it's just clearly fiction?

Why wouldn't we give the green light? I don't particularly care either way, but I don't see that you can argue we should suddenly change the way we treat information on birth certs.

I don't see why it would be better if other info were 'more accurate,' either. And no, mass DNA testing is not necessary to demonstrate that two women can't both be biological parents to the same child. Sorry, but it's not.

Legal statements are not fiction, just because they are not statements of biological facts. I am my child's parent. That is a legal statement, not a biological fact.

If you feel strongly about people not changing their stated sex on birth certs that's absolutely your right, but you cannot make a watertight argument about it by confusing biological and legal documentation.

Birth certificates should be based on facts.

I personally don't agree with changing birth certificates. I hated my name so I changed it but it still my previous name on my birth certificate, I just have a separate piece of paper that says I changed my name to x. I don't in any way shape or form think that the 'mother' has any say in what happens here though. My mum birthed me but she doesn't get a say in what my name is just as she just doesn't get a say as to whether I identify as male or female.

but I don't see that you can argue we should suddenly change the way we treat information on birth certs.

This IS a change to the way we treat info on birth certs though.

We have never before swapped information we know/can demonstrate to be true for information we know/can demonstrate to be false.

And what else should that apply to? If we can do it for sex, why not do it for year of birth?

That makes sense - I can see the case for saying retrospective changes shouldn't be introduced.

I don't see why it would be better if other info were 'more accurate,' either

If you can't see why it's better that the info on a birth certificate is accurate, I take it you're not familiar with Stefonknee here?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

If we can all have what we prefer on our birth certificates, instead of reality, Stefoknee could legitimately be joining the other 6 year olds at school. Don't assume this hasn't occurred to Stefoknee or others.