Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

[SapphosRock]

Great article from Kathleen Stock.

unherd.com/2023/07/lesbian-mothers-should-be-on-birth-certificates/

It is surprising to me that anyone who supports women's rights would oppose lesbian parents having equal rights to straight parents.

From the article:

Naming a second lesbian parent on a child’s birth certificate is a family-friendly move. Arguably, if you squint a bit, it’s even a socially conservative move — though agreeing probably depends on whether you take, as your baseline, a society where lesbians will have children anyway; or whether you think of it as a cultural aberration that could, with discouragement, be stopped. Either way, putting a second lesbian partner on a birth certificate officially defines and legitimises her parenting relation within the family, allowing the burdens and joys to be shared between two adults, and adding a second layer of protection for the child. Family stability is important for good childhood outcomes, and this measure seems to provide some.

to my family. so i know the value in exploring your genetic roots.

2. i am not able to stroll into a registry office and put my partners name on my sons birth certificate.it would be perjery. though this man has raised my son for 5 years and ia the father to our family, i am legally unable to put his bame on the birth certificate, because he is not the father. So why should a lesbian couple be permitted to make that legal fiction, but not us?

we have to go down adoption route for parental rights. Why does a lesbian couple get to sidestep this? why should they get more rights then my family? surely that would be discrimination against us? so if i had a girlfriend who had become a second parent to my son, we could ass ger to the borth cert, but because I am with a man, i cannot?

surely one rule needs to fit all :

either a mother can add any second person to the birth certificate regardless of actual biological parentage, or she can't. This rule should apply regarldless of heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

which then boils down to :

is birth certificate for recording factual biological details of child's parentage, or parental responsibility regardless of biology.
Which is it?

Because they make the child together. Surely that's obvious.

You are adding someone after the fact though. They're not.

Either way, putting a second lesbian partner on a birth certificate officially defines and legitimises her parenting relation within the family, allowing the burdens and joys to be shared between two adults, and adding a second layer of protection for the child. Family stability is important for good childhood outcomes, and this measure seems to provide some.
I agree with this
Although, have to say I'm a bit come onnnnn when it comes to surprise,naivety who knows that I've seen about lesbian rights being taken away in the news, ie taken off birth certificates or whatever.
If LGBT rights are attacked, what makes you think they'll stop.at the one letter you disagree with?!

Same could be said about sperm donors though and that somehow seems more readily accepted to be anonymous

This knee-jerk reaction of "biological facts only please" ignores the fact that birth certificates have NEVER been about biological facts but about the child's legal rights (inheritance for example).
The people who want to re-do birth certificates to be for "biological facts" need to answer if they are against fatherhood presumption too. Let's say a woman is raped, right? And she has a baby, she's married to a husband who she likes and wants to be the parent. Because they're married, the father is automatically on the birth certificate. No DNA test needed. Even if everyone knows that the rapist is the biological father.
I really thought better of "feminists" than subscribing to a fathers rights talking point. Motherhood and fatherhood being different and having asymmetrical laws around them are because of biological reality (giving birth is different from not) but also about removing mechanisms that cause harm to women (tying them legally to shitty men).

Leave it to adults to make simple things complicated 🙄

Someone conceived you. Your medical history relies on this. Your descendants medical history and future relationships relies on this information.
It needs to be captured somewhere i.e. a birth certificate - capturing what brought this being into life which one had large gamete (mother), which small (father), any other genetic contribution or genetic markers?.
The emotional links to parenting may or may not coincide with the same people who conceived you. Capture it elsewhere. Parenting certificate? Adoption certificate? I don't know, give it a good name.

Is this going to be another decade of a raging debate of phobia mud slinging before we all settle down for capturing truth and reality instead of feel good, pseudo-redefinitions which require you still have to tell the truth at some point and then bury it and hope no one needs to ask ever?

Why are we so ashamed of capturing reality as it is?
A loose grasp on reality isn't progress... it's just a repetition of all the old cultures which used to hide anything they didn't agree with.

A rapists child is tied to that shitty mam forever...
They absolutely need to know whatever stupid disease he has passed onto them. (The biological bit)
And they should definitely milk him for all he is worth. (The legal bit)
They don't need to call him "dad". (The emotional part).

You can't create just one fiction to combine all of this. The questions will still be raised and do need to be answered and the answers known.

The document belongs to the child, not the parent. They have a right - enshrined in law on the pretext that the rights of the child shall be paramount- to know their origins.

No, only donor conceived children have this right in the U.K., and and only if tiger legal parents choose to tell them. Most children do not have this right. Should they? Maybe. But it would require DNA testing of every legal father at the time of registration. Without establishing and advocating for those kind of regulation, acting like children have an established right to know the verified identity of their genetic parents is homophobic. Just by sheer numbers, gamete donation affects many more children born into straight relationships.

No, in this case but with a woman the “step mother” would still need to adopt. It’s completely different from a lesbian couple who conceived a child from the beginning, in a partnership, together.

but the homophobia really jumped out, didn’t it!

How is it homophobic?

I spelled it out clearly.

because you are advocating for regulations that only apply to homosexual adults, in the guise of the best interest of the child, despite the fact that the majority of affected children are born into straight relationships.

Gamete donation is majority used by straight couples. If you are truly concerned with every child having verified knowledge of their genetic parents, advocate for testing of all fathers (and mothers for egg donation?) at registration of the child, in addition to new documents for all children.

Otherwise, it’s homophobia.

That's what I'm advocating for. Has anyone on this thread said any different? In fact has anyone anywhere said any different? Because I haven't seen it. All the voices I have seen want everyone involved to be recorded - social and biological parents.

The whole story in Italy has been completely twisted in any event. There was one local authority (Padua) which allowed same sex birth certificates despite the fact that same sex marriage has not been legalised in Italy.

Claiming child maintenance from the father is separate from listing him on the birth certificate. You can do one without the other and him being on the cert gives him parental rights. You want to make that compulsory? If the father is a rapist or abusive?
I don't know why genetic diseases keep getting brought up when a birth certificate doesn't list medical history. You'd have to be in touch with the genetic parents and be in a position to ask that information of them, and them be willing to give it. You can't just find out the name of someone and get access to their medical records.

@Triplemove I agree with you. People on this thread are acting like they've never heard of lesbian parents being named on birth certificates before and now they know about it, we need to change everything about how birth certificates work, because the lesbian parents are problematic. It's always been the case that sometimes a man is listed on the BC who isn't biologically the father but there was no thread about how awful that is. Even on this thread, nobody is proposing any solution to that problem e.g. compulsory DNA testing at birth. Why not, if it's not lesbian parents that are the problem?

With donor conception, the donor is anonymous until the child is 16 and gets their name, and 18 when they get their contact details. The child already has the legal right to that information once they are an adult. What could change on the birth certificate other than "Father: Anonymous Donor" and what possible benefit would that have? It doesn't add anything that the child doesn't already have access to.
And for lesbian parents having to adopt their child, would you also want a father to have to do that too if he is not the biological father? Without compulsory DNA testing that would have to be a totally optional thing, as the dad could still go on the birth certificate without the adoption process. And that gives a disadvantage to lesbians that men don't have.

You should read the thread @flaffydaffy

Er....what?

What you are talking about here appears to be a sort of bigotry against straight people. ...

Yeah, I dont think we need the flippancy around rape.

I've read every single post on this thread. Do you want to be more specific?

I haven't RTFT to see if this has been said but lesbian friends have used the eggs of one of them and the other birthed the baby and therefore they are both the biological parents of their child. This should be recognised.

@Robinbuildsbears you mean apart from their eggs that they gave?

The birth certificate in my view should state biological parents - other documents might be used in addition to this but the birth certificate is a statement of fact. There are birth certificates where the father is not names - this is true historically and there are certificates where the named father is not the biological father - which was more likely years ago. Nevertheless it takes a male and female to create a child both in an ideal world should be on the birth certificate - if the male is unknown then that part of the certificate remains blank.

@flaffydaffy - I asked because we've already discussed a lot of your points at length

@Triplemove I agree with you. People on this thread are acting like they've never heard of lesbian parents being named on birth certificates before and now they know about it, we need to change everything about how birth certificates work, because the lesbian parents are problematic. It's always been the case that sometimes a man is listed on the BC who isn't biologically the father but there was no thread about how awful that is. Even on this thread, nobody is proposing any solution to that problem e.g. compulsory DNA testing at birth. Why not, if it's not lesbian parents that are the problem?

Meloni banning unmarried lesbians from being named on the birth certificate (the same as the U.K. only of course same sex marriage is legal here whereas it isn't there) has sparked a debate around the wider issues around birth certificates. They're issues which have been debated for years within the donor conception community. It's honestly quite refreshing to be having a wider discussion about this as generally people aren't that interested! It's unfortunate that some lesbian parents feel like they're in the firing line. It's absolutely true that the vast majority of DC children are born to het couples.

With donor conception, the donor is anonymous until the child is 16 and gets their name, and 18 when they get their contact details.The child already has the legal right to that information once they are an adult. What could change on the birth certificate other than "Father: Anonymous Donor" and what possible benefit would that have? It doesn't add anything that the child doesn't already have access to.

Not true. The child receives no information about their donor until they are 18 and then only if their mother (am using mother as all children have a mother listed on their BCs) has chosen to stay in the U.K. for fertility treatment. AND assuming their mother has chosen to tell them. There is no legal obligation. Both my donor conceived son and the donor conceived adult in this thread have said they would like to have that information recorded on their birth certificate.

And for lesbian parents having to adopt their child, would you also want a father to have to do that too if he is not the biological father? Without compulsory DNA testing that would have to be a totally optional thing, as the dad could still go on the birth certificate without the adoption process. And that gives a disadvantage to lesbians that men don't have.

If people are married/in a civil partnership, then both parents should be named on the birth certificate as they are now without adoption. I don't think that should change. If a lesbian couple are unmarried, they have to go through a fairly lengthy process which I think is fair enough. It's a massive deal to have parental responsibility!

Not all parents tell their children they used donor gametes and that is monstrous in my opinion and not in the best interests of the child. As is choosing to use anonymous gametes. Heterosexual couples can obviously do this more easily than lesbian couples where it's fairly obvious that someone else was involved in conception.

👏👏👏👏👏