DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

[DustyLee123]

Can’t do links. Story about removing one mother from the certs where there’s two female names .

Personally I think the person who has birthed a child should be recorded as the mother. If the birth mother and the genetic mother are different people then the birth mother should still be listed as the mother on a BC.

I was more intrigued by the reference to “genetic” but I see what you mean now.

I agree. A birth certificate is intended to list one or both biological parents, not people who are adoptive parents (that's a separate issue). A child has the right to know who its biological parents are, if possible. If a child is born to a woman who is in partnership with another woman that child is the product of its mother and whoever the father was, and that is the information that should be on the birth certificate, not the name of its mother's female partner. I know that sometimes the man named on a birth cert is not/may not be the father, but that is a different issue, because it is possible he could be the father - another woman cannot be a second biological mother nor should it be implied that she is. Children need the truth, not a lie that props up their parents' relationship.

Why though?

So a child knows its background? Certainly it has to be recorded somewhere, but maybe their own medical record is enough.

Why does a legal state document that e.g. you have to show when registering for school or getting a passport need the genetic info? Surely it just needs the legal parents?

I agree in the main. When I look at my children and see their genetic similarities to me, I think ‘isn’t it amazing to be a parent’. When I look at them and feel the bodily aches and twinges from pregnancy and giving birth to them, giving those memories of them growing inside me or me breastfeeding them, I think ‘isn’t it amazing to be a mother’. I have the stretch marks to prove this. Men and fathers have nothing equivalent to this. Motherhood involves a lot more that just the provision of gametes, which is essentially all fatherhood is, which is why I lean towards the pregnancy and birth as most important as defining who a mother is.

Having said that, I don’t think there should even be this issue though. It’s a step too far, interfering with nature in that way. We really need to stop and think about it as a society asap.

A birth certificate is a legal document that should state the names of both biological parents, or, if one isn’t known, the name of the only known biological parent. It shouldn’t be used to validate the desires of a non-biological parent such as here the mother’s lover.

If the mother’s lover wants parental responsibility and rights over schooling etc, she can adopt the child. Simple.

Saying that they are both mothers and should both be treated exactly the same in law from the moment is birth is nonsense, and an insult to the mother who risks her life and health to carry the baby.

I'm very much a mother.
But I didn't give birth to my AC.

So I would say there's a lot more to being a mother than gestating and giving birth. The day in day out caring by a female parent is also mothering.

If the mother’s lover wants parental responsibility and rights over schooling etc, she can adopt the child. Simple.
Not really simple if same-sex couples can't adopt.

For practical purposes, it has to be the woman who has the medical documentation to prove that this baby came from her womb, who registers the birth and is put on the certificate as the baby’s mother.

Philosophical discussions about what is the meaning of mother, is it a verb or a noun? Etc, are not really relevant.

Para 1: Why does the BC have to be biological parent rather than legal one? Bio can be recorded in medical notes. Also what about when a donor egg is used?

Para2: If the baby has been entered into as a joint enterprise, then simpler o just record at the birth. It shows it was a joint enterprise and not a later thought.

Para3: But a father gets put on BC and is treated equally in eyes of law (except when other is breastfeeding). It also isn't an insult if the birth mother desires it.

Does it?

Yes to the first part (registering) but not necessarily the second (being named as a legal parent if there was a prior surrogacy agreement in place.)

Though I agree genetics should be recorded in the baby's medical notes.

’prior surrogacy arrangement’ can gtf for a number of reasons. Too many for this thread.

Then they need to win the argument in Italy

cultural objection to same sex adoption is not a reason to lie on someones birth certificate

of so why should men be able to say there female on their birth certificates 🤷🏿‍♂️

we either believe in truth or we don’t

a birth certificate should be a true and accurate representation of what happens at the time of your birth

other wise children don’t know who they are related to

mothers open themselves up to hellish custody battles

and men raise and pay for children whom are not there’s

I'm inclined to agree with you wrt surrogacy (especially commercial), but it is legal so if discussing birth certificates in this context then it has to be considered.

I just think we need to take a step back and consider why we have birth certificates. Think about it I think it is more for legal reasons than any other.

In the U.K. (IIRC) the hospital/midwifery service passes on basic details re: live births to the registrar so when a new parent goes to the registry office in person it’s more about confirming the details they already have on record (and to issue you the documentation) than it is about you giving them any new info.

This is how the registrar knows if a new baby hasn’t been registered within the allowed time frame (is it 6 weeks? I forget!) which is a red alert for safeguarding reasons.

IIRC the original reason for birth certificates was a rudimentary safeguarding one - it’s much easier to
get away with abducting/selling/murdering a baby if the authorities aren’t aware that the baby exists.

Hence historically the state being far more interested in recording the man who was taking on the legal responsibility for the child’s physical and fiscal wellbeing than in the man who had provided the small mobile gametes to fertilise the mother’s egg

(although I do concede that, at least in public, most people maintained the polite fiction that the legally responsible man and the biologically responsible man were always one and the same… and now modern day DNA genealogy websites are causing all sorts of havoc by accidentally exposing the infidelity of grand and great grand parents all over the world!)

Well…. They are called ‘birth’ certificates, are they not?

There are only two essential people at a birth, aren’t there?

A record of a birth is essentially a record of that event.

cultural objection to same sex adoption is not a reason to lie on someones birth certificate

of so why should men be able to say there female on their birth certificates

It's not a lie. The other female partner is included as she has parental responsibility. Nobody is pretending she fathered a child!

Your second point is not really relevant here. Surrogacy is illegal in Italy. Same-sex adoption is not allowed. I think allowing two parents on the birth certificate whatever their sex is beneficial to everyone.

A record of a birth is essentially a record of that event.
It's a record of the birth not the conception!

At the end of the day, we are not like coral or something, where we just squirt out gametes and hope for the best.

Mammals give birth to live young and feed them with milk from mammary glands when they are born. We then look after them until they can look after themselves.

The mother-baby relationship is everything.

Fathers and everyone else are a nice extra, but they are not essential (apart from providing gametes at conception).

It’s not a lie on the birth certificate to list the woman’s partner as a parent, she is not listed as the mother, for what reasons should she not be listed as a parent when she will be a parent to the child? It is very clear who gave birth as they will be listed as the mother. What possible advantages are there to making women apply for adoption in this situation?

This process (of being registered as the legal parent) also protects women and children from being left with no financial support if the woman’s partner changes her mind or splits from her and then refuses to adopt the child.

@Ketzele I replied in anger before. Being accused of homophobia when it is untrue is as frustrating for me as the constant accusations of transphobia, when that isn’t true either.

I understand and share your fear of a backlash against lesbians. My daughter is a young butch lesbian and I am proud that she has grown into a woman who is comfortable with her female body. She is openly a butch lesbian who (as far as I am aware) has never given a moment’s thought to the false idea that she might be “trans” whatever that means nowadays.

What is true, is that any legal changes that have been made and are attributed to the LGBT+ grouping are more likely to come under scrutiny and your rights, like women’s rights, may well be eroded. If they are eroded unnecessarily, that is obviously a bad thing, but new laws are always tested out and can change.

I do not believe the women here are generally homophobic and I do not think homophobia is what is driving this discussion on this board. I should have said that more tactfully, but because of the overuse of accusations of transphobia, it’s very easy to become defensive.

Rather than accusing us of homophobia, your argument needs to convince us that having one or both parents listed because they are legally acting as parents, rather than being biological parents is in the child’s interest, or at the very least, does not cause any harm.

There have been many alternative suggestions made, about adding additional information, rather than exchanging one set of information (biological mother and supposed biological father) for different information (biological father and his male partner, for example) without examining whether that benefits the child or whether it may be detrimental. To describe that as homophobic and without nuance is to insult the women discussing it.

Of course.

That’s what I am saying.

Who are the only two essential people at the birth?

The mother and the baby.

A woman can give birth alone in a cave somewhere. These are the only two essential people at the birth.

Mothers who give birth in caves are definitely a minority! Most people need a bc to "exist" within society, apply for school, passports etc. It's a legal document not a genetic history.

I also think it's misleading to equate this with changing sex markers on birth certificates (which I disagree with btw) A birth certificate should include accurate information about sex, dob, name etc plus details of the people who have parental responsibility- including the birth mother.

If it was just a record of an event then medical staff could register it most of the time.

I don't think that is the purpose at all.

I think the purpose is to register the existence of a new person within the state and who is responsible for that person.

That registration leads on to those responsible being eligible for child benefits; the child itself being eligible for free NHS care, being automatically issued with an NI number entitling them to work, being able to prove eligibility or otherwise for a passport and other benefits. It can also prove eligibility for inheritance under intestacy rules.

None of the practical uses of a birth registration are either about the actual birth, or genetics.