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 .

It is very important to children to know who their biological parents are.

We like pretend it's not, because it raises some tricky issues for the adults who've used donors. But it is.

This is why adopted children should now always be told they are adopted and given appropriate information about their biological parents.

It's also true for people who discover they have been lied to about their parentge, or where information has been denied to them. There are studies and reports from children of sperm donors who've talked about how not knowing their genetic history has impacted them.

We like to pretend that it's only who raises you that matters, and although that may be the most important thing, it's not the only important thing.

Children have a right to know their genetic heritage. The birth certificate should record this.

It could also additionally record the names of the people who will be raising you.

If married couples are using sperm donation that should be recorded on the birth certificate. With the name of the husband as 'father raising the child' or something.
This could also work for gay couples.

Bottom line though: it is about children's rights, not what makes the adults feel good.

If the birth certificate is a genetic record, then that should apply to all newborn babies, with actual genetic testing even for married couples, and with egg or sperm donors named.

If it's a record of who the child's parents are, then that's a different matter. But it shouldn't be one rule for a woman parenting with a man and a different rule for one with a woman.

Thank you for your post *nothingcomestonothing. *You said:

The only benefit is that the BC states biological reality. You could argue that that is more to benefit the state than the individual child maybe. This being the sex and gender board, I think we're all keenly aware of the potential consequences of allowing feelings to replace biology on legal documents.

How does the state benefit from naming a man who may be not at all involved (or might be but the government DGAF about that) as a parent? I’m not sure how effectively putting sole parental responsibility on the woman who gives birth benefits the state, that mum or the child? How does it work practically when two parents intend to be in the picture and why is it better for the state to only acknowledge one? I mean, any benefit other than gratifying the lesbophobic impulses of the legislators?

I’d also strongly argue that being a mother married to another mother bringing up a child together isn’t ‘a feeling’. It’s not a delusion to escape misogyny nor a means to deny one’s own same-sex attraction due to homophobia, nor is it a sex fetishisation of misogyny. Lesbian parenting has nothing to do with gender ideology unless people are conflating same-sex relationships with same-gender relationships, which is not helpful or accurate.

But you can say that about a step father who does all those things, has raised the child as his own from birth and would always be thier dad if he and the mum divorced. That step father isn't and shouldn't be on the BC, but should and is able in the UK to adopt the DC and take on parental rights and responsibilities. If Italy allowed same sex couples to do the same, I think that would be better than knowingly putting non birth parents on a BC

If the stepdad was there from birth (and married to the mum at the birth time) then yes, he would be on the BC.
If the non-stepdad dad is on the BC instead of the stepdad, then that’s because (the stepdad wasn’t married to the mum) and the genetic dad and the mum put the dads name there, or she put dad name in there and neither dad nor current stepdad she was married to at the time objected (though I am not too sure about the legality of that one), or because the mum was married to the dad at the time of the birth and not the stepdad (saying nothing about who in reality is the child’s dad). I do hope we’re all agreed that BCs shouldn’t be retrospectively changed.

I’m confused why you’d argue that a stepdad should need to adopt his wife or partners’ previous kids though? That seems like a patriarchal idea coming from legitimising existing kids via a new marriage and new male protection. It also presumably acts to give the adults freedom to give everyone in the new stepfamily the same surname.

I can imagine that in some situations that the adoption then name change to a new surname, possibly the stepdad’s, or a new stepfamily double-barrel, for example might be very healing or very important for a child. But it’s not a given and it might be more complex and in some situations might be more about asserting something or denying something that could later be very difficult for the child’s sense of origins and identity, even if the adults prefer the changed of name and if the child was happy with it on childhood, which can’t be assumed.

All of which is worthy of discussion on a feminism board but for me, not in the way you’re posing it here as a ‘should’.

Parental rights and responsibilities of fatherhood are also not legally the same as BC rights and they can exist independently of what’s on the BC, so we also have to be careful not to conflate these in this discussion.
So I think we’re back to, why can’t the female partner married to the other mum of the baby at birth, go on the BC in Italy, when the stepdad that you mention would be allowed to do this?

I disagree with you that lesbian partners should be regarded as egg donors if that’s what you’re saying? (Would you argue that any woman who gives her egg to her spouse for making a baby is a donor then, including if the spouse happens to be male? Presumably you also believe that women who give their egg to a surrogate and then take the baby and bring it up should be considered egg donors too?

I’m glad we agree that The Italian government's ideology behind this absolutely is lesbophobic But I will agree to disagree with you that campaigning for same sex adoption is a better solution overall than campaigning for the right to lie on a legal document. I just don’t think genetic truth always has a safe place on BCs, for children or for women.

Tbh this is a simple issue for me. Birth certificates should list the biological parents. That is a real material fact that is of significance for all kinds of important reasons.

When someone besides a biological parent is a guardian, or what is an essentially an adoptive parent, there are various ways that can be shown, including in some places creating anew certificate while maintaining the old one.

But it is not "erasing" lesbians that documents that record material conditions actually do that. It's not erasing lesbians to be unwilling to pretend that two women cannot produce a biological child. (If they could, that would be a heterosexual relationship! So would really erase lesbians.)

This kind of claim that social and legal recognition of biological reality is unjust, unkind, or bigoted is a hugely dangerous.

I haven’t read the full thread, apologies.

My understanding is that this measure is being taken particularly against surrogacy , which the Italian Government is very much against. The birth certificate for same sex couples was being abused, as it is in many places, by listing two men as the parents, ( one in the place of the ‘mother’., ‘ traditionally female ‘ as they rather sweetly say). The focus on disadvantaging lesbian parents is just the usual tactic of focussing on a woman’s problem which will gain sympathy from most people, and piggy backing Mens Rights onto it.

Deadringer the article says that in Italy now lesbian wives are not allowed to both be on the BC. Only the one who gives birth.

I think a system which trusts women to name the father, and gives them the option to not name the father, should be maintained.

The mother has a moral responsibility to both the child and the state to tell the truth.

Where it's a donor that should be stated which allows the child to follow this up for information after 18.

Genetic testing is expensive, and invasive. There are huge privacy issues.

But it requires zero genetic testing for any of us to know that two people of the same sex cannot be the biological parents of a child. If these people are women, and one is the biological mother, we all know that there is a biological father, and the other woman is bot the biological parent.

In general, most women know who the father of a child is, and tell the truth. Falsifying documents, of all kinds, is illegal. And a disservice to the child who has a right to an accurate record.

The fact that it is possible to lie, or a mistake could be made, does not justify requiring people to pretend they are unaware that two large gametes cannot create a baby.

In cases where doubt arises at the identity of a father, genetic testing can happen and often does if there are legal implications. Would you seriously suggest this is necessary where the legal parents are a same-sex couple?

This really does read as someone who is applying a trans lense to lesbians’ rights. Women are not claiming biological falsehood when they seek for both their status to be recognised as parents. (Although you do know it’s not uncommon for one woman to produce the egg and the other woman to carry right?)

In U.K. law parenthood is a legal and cultural status more than it is a biological one. Centring this doesn’t mean children can’t be informed of their biological origins, but it does mean that the person who fulfils the second parental role from conception onwards is recognised as important and having all of the legal rights and responsibilities as a parent.

Sperm donors aren’t parents and don’t go anywhere near a birth certificate. Anyone who is arguing against a second woman taking the other parent slot is arguing for a child to be given less information, not more.

The argument seems to boil down to should a BC reflect who your genetic parents are or who the parents raising you are.

Both are essential.

A system which records both is the answer.

Signalbox OK but you’re posting about unmarried straight couples’ rights to birth certification. That is a different legal situation compared to married straight couples’ rights to birth certification which is what I was talking about.

I was saying that a married man is automatically (unless legally challenged), the Dad on the BC of the baby that his wife has. Regardless of if they used a sperm donor. Regardless if his wife is having an affair and everyone in the world knows that the OM is the dad.

The married man’s right to do that is the analogy I was using for the married wife of the mum who gave birth in Italy. My point is why is she not allowed to go on the child’s BC
, if a married man is allowed to. It’s lesbophobia.

I would suggest to you it's very much the other way around. The "trans lens" as you call it developed from, and gains much of it's legitimacy because people have already accepted what I suppose you would call the "lesbian lens."That is, the kind of thinking that sees putting material reality second to, or often simply subverted to, the desire for legal and social equity where it is seen to impact identitarian groups. Regardless of how that affects third parties.

Sperm donors are biological fathers and should absolutely be on birth certificates. Not to do so is a way to dissociate the man from the fact that he is a father, in exactly the same way people here claim that surrogacy arrangements avoid the use of "mother" for gestational carrier.

I understand that people don't want these things to be connected, because they believe in the law generally validating their sense of being a mother, but not in the validating a gay male couple to both be parents, or validating a male to be a mother. But we all know that what we want reality to be doesn't make it so.

Every child is created by a man and woman.

A child has a right to know from the moment they can understand, they were created by a man and a woman, and to be given appropriate available information about these people and how this occured.

It's not the right of anyone to lie on a legal document.

With a great many legal documents, it is assumed that people are telling the truth, and not investigated. That does not mean they are saying it is ok to fill in wherever you want. If they ask me, when I get a driver's licence, if I need to wear corrective lenses, the fact that they take my word for it does not imply I have no obligation to answer truthfully.

If some other man comes along to challenge the birth certificate and say he is the father, or the named father says he isn't, that is investigated. It's possible to correct errors that were mistakes, and it's theoretically culpable to lie.

I agree with this. I’m bisexual. A lot of couples, usually same sex couples and some heterosexual couples included, overlook the child’s rights to know who their biological parents are. The birth certificate is a historical and legal record and it needs to be factual, not playing into the whims of adults.

they should add a section on birth certificates regarding PR and who has this, with the birth parent details remaining intact

I care about the children’s rights, the right for them to know not just where they come from, but who they came from. If you don’t want to be a known donor, don’t donate. It’s simple really.

My experience is the exact opposite: that it’s more common for straight couples to overlook the role of sperm or egg donors than lesbian couples to.

Lesbian couples buy children’s books about how their child came to be and talk openly about it as the fact they likely used a sperm donor is a fact that can’t be hidden. For heterosexual couples who need to use a donor it’s often talked about like a secret, especially if it’s a sperm donor.

I agree birth certificates could include all the information.

So you take the complete opposite view to UK law then. Would you also argue that the woman who gave birth and is more likely to breastfeed shouldn’t be entitled to maternity leave out of interest?

I guess the state benefits from knowing who the father is for purposes of child support, inheritance, preventing half siblings from inadvertently procreating. Who the bio parents are matters for all those things, rather than who the raising the child parents are. And children do have a right to inherit even from a completely uninvolved parent, and to be financially supported by the same parents while a child (hollow laugh on that one in practice).

I wasn't saying a stepdad needs to adopt a partners DC, certainly not for 'male protection'. But a man raising a child as his own who isn't the bio father can do that to ensure security for the child. Like your previous example of taking the child to school or giving consent for medical treatment, practical stuff that the parents raising the child need, and which aren't to do with biology. I think a step dad who partnered the mum after the child was conceived shouldn't be on the BC, that's just as untrue as naming two same sex parents as birth parents in my view. And yes I do think that a woman who birthed a baby in a surrogacy arrangement should be named on the BC, for the same reason.

As I said, I think that gay families are being screwed over here, they started families under one system and are now being forced out of legal recognition of those families with no alternative eg adoption or court orders in place. That's unfair and is punishing people who were abiding by the law at the time. But legal fictions is how we got the GRA when we should have got gay marriage. Legal fudging leads to unintended consequences. As a PP said, 'as the kick back of the populace against the TQ smash and grab raids starts, there go LGB rights with them. Thanks for that TQ.'

I get wanting your parental relationship to be reflected on the paperwork - I'm an adopter. I'm not on my DCs BC, but I'm their mother. So are the same sex parents raising their children they didn't give birth to.

“Signalbox OK but you’re posting about unmarried straight couples’ rights to birth certification. That is a different legal situation compared to married straight couples’ rights to birth certification which is what I was talking about.”

No I’m not posting about unmarried straight couples. Marriage status is irrelevant. I’m talking about knowingly giving incorrect information when registering a birth. If you knowingly record incorrect information on a birth certificate you are breaking the law. This applies to both married and unmarried people.

I was saying that a married man is automatically (unless legally challenged), the Dad on the BC of the baby that his wife has.

But births are not registered automatically. You have to go and register them. You have to say who the father is. If at this point you know your spouse is not the biological father but you state that he is you are lying aren’t you? On a legal document.

That was to @Drenton

They can address the issues around PR for non convential parents with either a PR section or a separate PR which could work the same way as a birth certificate. For most children they would just have their normal bike tbh certificate, but for other births, particularly lesbian parents, the non biological mother can be added with the proof of agreement from the clinic that she would have PR or if they have done it unofficially, she can refer to her marriage certificate to the biological mother, plus a statement from the donor if they have done it unofficially saying he doesn’t want contact, so the donor doesn’t necessarily have PR but remains on the BC for the child’s benefit. Same goes non biological straight parents where the woman conceived with a donor and it’s not her legal husband.

*PR documents

• normal birth certificates

just correcting typos

But isn’t the birth certificate intended not to show who is going to raise the child (this can change during the course of a child’s life!) but to be a legal record of who the child’s biological parents are (this can’t change).