Germaine Greer doesn't agree with David Furnish being named as 'mother' on birth certificate

[Athenaviolet]

And neither do I!

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/germaine-greer-slams-elton-john-5758530?ICID=FB_mirror_main

Is the word 'mother' just meaningless now?

I didn't even realise this was legally possible.

Not that I think that you are at all interested in the actual facts but I did point out that the default position in California is for the birth mother to be named on the birth certificate. The only way that same sex parents can be named on the birth certificate is to get a court order prior to the birth. You don;t just tip up at the registry office and put two random names down as you fancy it.

The court documentation gives all the relevant information which will be accessible to the child.

I thought your objection was that it doesn't allow the child to trace it genetic heritage?

Obviously not.

Interesting that you also haven't commented that David Furnish was not named as "mother" and that its a wilful misinterpretation.

Would the surrogate be a genetic parent?

It depends if they are her eggs or not. Most modern surrogacy arrangements tend to use eggs from another woman, so you'd have a "genetic" mother and a "birth" mother.

So, for the OP, who would be the mother on the birth certificate?

In UK law, I think the birth mother is the one who carried the child in her body, not the woman who donated the eggs. I have no idea what the law is in California.

Again, it depends. Like Kewcumber has said, the situation in the US is that you can get a court order before birth that would allow the people who are going to the raising the child to be named on the birth certificate. The situation in the UK is that the woman who gives birth to the child is named as the mother. The "intended" parents can then apply for a parental order so that they are recognised at the legal parents - this link e

Sorry didn't finish that - this link explains it - www.surrogacyuk.org/legalities

In the UK, a woman who conceives using a donor egg (therefore not genetically related to her child) is always the person named as the mother on the birth certificate. Is that misogyny?

Why would it be misogny?

*misogyny

X post. I was referring to situations other than surrogacy. Where the genetically unrelated birth mother intends to be the legal parent of the child.

Re misogyny I was referring to an earlier post by the OP. 20.24.

According to La Leche League men can breast feed.

Transgender man can be breastfeeding coach m.thestar.com/#/article/life/health_wellness/2014/04/25/transgender_man_can_be_breastfeeding_coach.html (Share from CM Browser)

Yes, it's not (AFAIK) to do with being transgender.

People bring that fact up an awful lot, but I have never followed how it's relevant, any more than the fact that some women can't.

The rules changed to allow any parent who has breast fed for a minimum of 9 months to be a coach.

Oh bugger this is the thread I've left!

'And it seems that men are not in fact named as mothers on those certificates, almondcakes. Germaine Greer was apparently using a real family (albeit a celebrity one) to get some media attention for your views on the fertility industry. Which I think is low - I hope those boys don't get teased at school as a result of this.'

Devora, I've said several times earlier in the thread that I didn't think it was true, and said that I thought it was unfair on Furnish.

I don't think Greer's views are the same as mine, and haven't claimed that throughout the thread. I think it would be interesting to know what her views are, and as she's just done a keynote speech at an academic conference in Ireland, and her topic was the deconstruction of Motherhood, I assume she explained them in detail there, but I don't know what she said.

I feel (perhaps wrongly) that you think we are in disagreement, but I don't think we are. We've just been discussing different areas within this topic. None of the specific cases I've mentioned specific legal implications for have involved adoption. They have been about - treatment of mothers in prison in Peru, surrogacy in the UK, surrogacy in Nepal and treatment of women who have been prevented from becoming mothers. You've been talking mostly about adoption.

I think its relevant jeanne because its part of the deconstruction of 'mother' or more widely 'woman'

I suppose its arguable a child could have up to four fundamentally different types of 'mother', the woman who donates her egg, the woman who births, the woman who adopts or a gender reassigned man who adopts. Argh, my head aches.