From what I’ve noticed is a few of the KJK haters seem take the ‘children’s rights’ position of things like adoption, surrogacy, sperm/egg donation very personally and insist on it being a ‘woman’s rights’ issue only- akin to abortion rights - a woman’s right to choose, etc.
However, if you think of children having rights, such as the right to know who their biological parents are, and the right to be able to seek them out and meet them at some point, it doesn’t sit well with people who want men to donate their sperm (ie- become biological fathers), women to donate their eggs (become biological
mothers) or rent their wombs and bodies as surrogate mothers. The reason being, the donors and surrogate mothers would never agree to it, if they thought their biological children would ever come looking for them.
So there is tension there. If you have made a pact with your child’s father to never reveal who he is, as a non-negotiable condition for him to father your child, then you have conspired to betray your child before they are born (much like surrogacy) - if you see it from a child’s right perspective.
Discussion of this aspect of children’s rights is tacitly verboten in certain feminist circles, a vague slippery slope argument that ‘if you give children rights relating to their parents, then that leads to rights of the foetus, which leads to anti-abortion’ or, you are anti-lesbian or homophobic about lesbian mothers.
KJK is of the children’s rights bent on this issue - in the way she couches certain arguments - she once, a while back, said words to the effect that women who identify as men and do not want to be known by their own children as mother (instead wanting to be called father), shouldn’t be allowed to have children, since their are cruelly denying their child of a mother.