KJK and the neo-nazis video

[niandraladesand]

Just wondering if anyone here has seen this yet and what you think of it

I think you'll find it was red velvet swastika cupcakes. (Bloody lemon drizzle always trying to steal the limelight).

So why say they shouldn’t be a second parent on a BC (not mother, second parent, where sperm is from a donor so not denying anyone the right to be on there as father)? She says it’s about the child. Children have the right to find out details about their donor already at 18 and the alternative would be that the father section would be blank. Lots of BCs are blank because mother doesn’t know who is father or he is an abuser or rapist whom she doesn’t want in her child’s life and who might harm the child. BCs are not and never have been a genetic record because there is no guarantee that either parent on there is genetically related to the child (could be donated egg, donated sperm or both). So why target lesbians?

I'm dancin' on my own (Dancin' on my own)
I make the moves up as I go (Moves up as I go)
And that's what they don't know, mm-mm
That's what they don't know, mm-mm

But I keep cruisin'
Can't stop, won't stop groovin'
It's like I got this music in my mind
Sayin', "It's gonna be all right wing fascist evil groove thang"

Sometimes you just need songs and cake and to tell people to fuck off, our work here is done - I was having a laugh at you lot and bicycle ruined it

I think you will find that the wider UK public are now thinking on the issue with regards to birth certificates and just what the fuck they are meant for and what they need to be in the future.

I suspect that her view is that of the majority. You accusations are purely coming from your own prejudices and your own narrow view.

There are ways for this issue to be addressed, however, and your view that all lesbians support only the original birth certificate recording this and not alternative means to do this is rather ridiculous.

But crack on, do tell us more.

It is a very crude understanding here to say that lesbians are being targeted.

I agree, the father space should be left completely blank in this case. There should be other ways to record those with parental rights for that child. Not the birth certificate. Please show us the historic records that state that it was NOT supposed to be a genetic record of a child? Just because lazy governments never then formulated an accurate process to record changes while leaving the original record accurate to the child's name at birth, sex and genetic parents doesn't make someone 'homophobic' to express the view that that is what it should be taken back to.

And I think in the future, it might well be recorded about whether a child is the result of a 'donor' situation, or a surrogate or whatever is the truth of that child' birth. There really seems to be a need to all this to be addressed and the conversation is just getting started.

😁

Did someone blow the simplistic monomaniac conch again? Can you women please just leave that bloody thing alone. I really can’t be doing with their constant assembling here

<grumpy>

Because it's a topic under public discussion at the moment. Perhaps in your eagerness to pin shit on KJK, you didn't know that?

There are lots of people who agree that non-parents shouldn't be on birth certificates. But if it has implications for legal parent/child relationships being affected, then it's an issue. Which is apparently the case in Italy with lesbians where this has originated.

Birth certificates in general come under discussion, because lots of men want to falsify their own in order to validate their feelings. And quite a few trans people want to falsify their children's, for the same reason.

Two conch shells better?

I personally find this "BCs are not and never have been a genetic record because there is no guarantee that either parent on there is genetically related to the child" to be a rather remarkable take of the purpose of a birth certificate.

So .... because some people lied on it, it was 'never intended to be a genetic record'..... I really do look forward to the evidence that being a genetic record was not the original intention. Because it seems that history is being rewritten with a modern framing again. This time to further vilify anyone who disagrees that the original birth record should have ever shown anything but accuracy about the true parents of the child. Even if an adoption certificate was then issued etc.

Please do substantiate your claim because there must be lots of evidence that I have not seen yet.

One for each nostril.

Well quite. If that wasn't the intention, what was. What's the point of it?

Validation and living your truth. Those were the obsessions of that age. It

There is a very interesting discussion happening on Twitter at the moment. It does come back to the fundamental point of what a BC is for. It has two purposes - to denote parental responsibility and genetic origin. For many children, it does the former and not the latter.

Well there’s the fact that BC have been around since before anyone knew what genetics was so the genetic argument is a modern one actually. And it has always been known that whoever is on the birth certificate is not necessarily the father.

Obviously they were a bit of a blunt tool in the early days but that was before genetic testing, mass use of donor gametes and the rise of surrogacy.

That's actually almost beautiful in it's batshittery. So someone's belief is 'just inside their own head' and that makes it somehow not true? Amazing. Wait til I tell you what trans activists think about sex and gender

Aren't people's thoughts and beliefs by definition in their own heads? 😕

Just because 'genetics' were not 'discovered' doesn't mean that wasn't what the certificates were based on.

What shit is that? Do you really think that is convincing?

Oh.... look... genetics wasn't discovered YET people had sex and were generally in societal arrangements that meant the father was the sexual partner..... but no..... birth certificates weren't there to register the genetic parents!!!

Of COURSE, it was not always the truth. But it was as close to the truth as the mother of the child acknowledged, and in most cases it was the truth. Or it was what the mother wanted to be the truth without genetic testing.

Good grief that is a desperate attempt.

It was sometimes a lie.... so that negates the intention completely.

Yeah but not before the days when people realised that someone’s husband isn’t necessarily the father. The legal presumption of husband as father was based on the fact that otherwise the child would be illegitimate. There was definitely awareness of the fact that someone who was not factually the father could be on the BC.
And how would you deal with egg donation? The woman who provided the egg would be the genetic mother but has no right to be registered as the mother. How would the registrar even know if the mother has conceived through donor egg? It’s not like it’s published in the newspapers. And are you proposing that sperm donors must now be registered as fathers (even though their records are already kept and accessible to the child)? Because I don’t think many men would donate sperm if so.
Equally, why should a blank space be tolerated on a BC? That would be genetically impossible too.
And in the case of lesbian mothers, often the second parent IS related to the child because she has provided the egg (the other woman carrying the baby). So why should a woman in that situation not be entitled to be on the BC if she actually is genetically related? Surely to exclude her would be to deny the child his/her genetic makeup?

Well no, the pater est presumption was developed to protect children because it was well known that a woman’s husband was not necessarily the bio father of her child. The law specifically provided that a particular man be named as the father based on his marriage to the mother, NOT because he actually was the biological father.

No. You are framing the truth to suit your own political aim here.

Egg donation? I believe that it should be noted that the egg was donated somewhere on the form. It doesn't need to have the donor listed, but it could if the mother wished to do so. It should indicate that there was an egg donation though. That is an accurate record of that child's birth. These facts should not be ever hidden from the child. The child can then go and seek details about the egg donor.

The registration of the birth of that child has become more complex and the documentation needs to represent that. If the document is not for the child and the record of that child's birth, then do explain what a 'birth certificate' is for as opposed to any other recognised certification of parental rights?

There are thousands of donor conceived children born to single mothers by choice who have a blank space under father.

The gif search function really is all about the search terms you type in

Why can donor conceived children not have two certificates like adopted children? There's no reason why they couldn't have a 'social' one which reflects parental responsibility and another one which reflects genetic origins.

Women cannot name a man as their child's father if they're not married to him so women who do not wish to identify the father can still do that.