Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

756 replies

SapphosRock · 21/07/2023 11:16

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.

OP posts:
Triplemove · 22/07/2023 13:56

do not believe that people who use complicated methods to obtain a child should have the same right to simple documentation as those who conceive without the added complexity of donor parentage. It’s complex. The documents should show it. Why shouldn’t it?

Because straight couples can easily hide their use of donors, it puts a discriminatory onus on homosexual couples despite the issue actually affecting far more children born to heterosexual couples.

it’s all or nothing, for everyone.

Triplemove · 22/07/2023 13:58

Brk · 22/07/2023 13:55

It may seem insulting to you.

To me, as a mother who actually gave birth, it is incredibly insulting to dismiss the physical sacrifices such as pregnancy vomiting, genital tearing, stress incontinence, post-childbirth womb infection, and pure pain I went through, by suggesting that a lesbian who has never been pregnant should be recorded on a birth certificate as a mother. She is not one.

This kind of lobbying is just another example of the anti-woman movement promoted across the world at the moment. You can recognise it by the way it dismisses women’s experiences and biological realities. Most importantly, it also tells mothers that we are no longer allowed opinions about matters concerning our bodies and that someone else’s feelings are far more important than our own.

Are you also insulted by adoptive mothers being listed as such?

Rudderneck · 22/07/2023 14:27

DonorMum · 22/07/2023 12:33

The recording of parents is precisely to record who is responsible for the child. And unless and until certain posters are willing to advocate for listing sperm donors instead of the mothers’ husbands in the case of straight couples, your homophobia slip is showing.

I am advocating for both being listed to bring heterosexual married couples into alignment with lesbians ie the mother and the social parent (father) is listed with additional information about the sperm/egg donor.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood what has happened in Italy @Triplemove. I've been going by news reports. Can you explain what I've got wrong or direct me to a reliable account please?

And I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by lesbians being held to a higher standard. It is a fact that the majority of children are conceived via PIV sex. I don't see the point in getting them all DNA tested. But every woman who has had fertility treatment in the U.K. is recorded by the HFEA.

Why would you think posters don't think the sperm donor, rather than the mother's husband, should be recorded?

It's obviously easier to fudge in such a case, and it's very unfortunate that people have been led to think this is ok or told that it should be ok.

I think it's mainly a function of the fact that fertility treatments and how they are handled legally where there are donors has largely developed outside the framework of children's rights. It's very much in the state that adoption was 80 years ago. It's only much more recently that we've looked at adoption laws and procedures rigorously from the position of children's rights rather than what the adoptive parents would prefer. And that includes secrecy about the fact that children are adopted - no matter how much adoptive parents might want that, it's no longer considered acceptable. And there are arguably more reasons that it might have advantages for the child in adoption, where the scenario is almost always a sad accident, as opposed to a situation deliberately created by parents.

I think gamete donors should not be encouraged to think they are not parents to a child because the process was done in a different way. Even if they never have anything to do with said child.

BodgerLovesMashedPotato · 22/07/2023 14:30

Triplemove · 22/07/2023 13:53

It makes it easy to point out the blatant discrimination and homophobia.

If a heterosexual man has the right to use a donor to have a child with his partner without acknowledging the donor, a homosexual woman should have an equal right to do so.

If neither have this right because a child’s right to know their verified genetic parentage supersedes all, then all children must be DNA tested at registration.

This
I'm not a lesbian parent, am a heterosexual one but even I can see that it discriminates against lesbian parents, it's not equal rights is it if hetero couples don't have to declare donors.

bobbicunliffe · 22/07/2023 14:31

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

The one who gives birth is legally the parent, regardless of DNA. This is a useful thing because in my country (which has basically the same law) this has worked very well as a backstop against illegal surrogacy arrangements. It means the woman who was pregnant and gave birth has some legal rights.

Floppyelf · 22/07/2023 14:48

SapphosRock · 21/07/2023 11:52

It is incredibly insulting to suggest that when a lesbian couple have a child together one of them is a step parent.

A step parent has no parental rights.

Its not insulting, its bigoted and deeply
seated bigotry at that. Due to some lgbt issues, some think that the pendelum has swung.

WildUnchartedWaters · 22/07/2023 17:20

bobbicunliffe · 22/07/2023 14:31

The one who gives birth is legally the parent, regardless of DNA. This is a useful thing because in my country (which has basically the same law) this has worked very well as a backstop against illegal surrogacy arrangements. It means the woman who was pregnant and gave birth has some legal rights.

Waste of time. Shes been told several.times yet continues to argue her strange point.

WildUnchartedWaters · 22/07/2023 17:20

Floppyelf · 22/07/2023 14:48

Its not insulting, its bigoted and deeply
seated bigotry at that. Due to some lgbt issues, some think that the pendelum has swung.

Nor did the step parent create and want.tne child.

Massively bigoted.

WildUnchartedWaters · 22/07/2023 17:21

@Brk dont be so fucking offensive.

Being pregnant and having a child doesnt make you more of a mother than an adoptive or parent who used a surrogate.

SapphosRock · 22/07/2023 17:27

I think gamete donors should not be encouraged to think they are not parents to a child because the process was done in a different way. Even if they never have anything to do with said child.

Why? A sperm donor is not a parent, he is a sperm donor.

Children can easily understand that a kind man donated his sperm so his/her parents could have a baby but the kind man is not their parent.

Much more confusing for children to tell them they have a biological parent who wants nothing to do with them.

OP posts:
QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 17:56

Brk · 22/07/2023 13:55

It may seem insulting to you.

To me, as a mother who actually gave birth, it is incredibly insulting to dismiss the physical sacrifices such as pregnancy vomiting, genital tearing, stress incontinence, post-childbirth womb infection, and pure pain I went through, by suggesting that a lesbian who has never been pregnant should be recorded on a birth certificate as a mother. She is not one.

This kind of lobbying is just another example of the anti-woman movement promoted across the world at the moment. You can recognise it by the way it dismisses women’s experiences and biological realities. Most importantly, it also tells mothers that we are no longer allowed opinions about matters concerning our bodies and that someone else’s feelings are far more important than our own.

The birth mother will still be recorded as mother but the wife/partner will be recorded as the other parent I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) - I honestly don't understand your issue with this?

bellinisurge · 22/07/2023 18:31

What is the situation when a heterosexual married couple use a sperm donor? It should be the same as that.

SapphosRock · 22/07/2023 19:06

bellinisurge · 22/07/2023 18:31

What is the situation when a heterosexual married couple use a sperm donor? It should be the same as that.

The man who brings the child up is named as the father on the birth certificate.

And of course the same should happen for lesbian couples (and thankfully in the UK it does).

OP posts:
twelly · 22/07/2023 19:26

WildUnchartedWaters · 22/07/2023 12:42

You dont think ghe person who gave her egg and raised the child should replace the donor?

No as sperm is still needed to fertilise the egg - perhaps having a way the third person on the certificate but not instead of is the answer

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 19:41

twelly · 22/07/2023 19:26

No as sperm is still needed to fertilise the egg - perhaps having a way the third person on the certificate but not instead of is the answer

From what I've read they would go down as a 'parent' not as the father. I don't think anyone is saying the female partner would replace a father and everyone knows you need sperm to fertilise an egg so it's not rewriting biology it's simply acknowledging the other female as a parent.

Hannahsbananas · 22/07/2023 19:45

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 19:41

From what I've read they would go down as a 'parent' not as the father. I don't think anyone is saying the female partner would replace a father and everyone knows you need sperm to fertilise an egg so it's not rewriting biology it's simply acknowledging the other female as a parent.

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

ChokkaQuokka · 22/07/2023 22:18

WildUnchartedWaters · 22/07/2023 13:16

Like the eggs know the woman's a lesbian 🤣

I know, right? 🙄
none of this bothered certain posters until they found out lesbians were doing it.

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 22:22

Hannahsbananas · 22/07/2023 19:45

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

I'm not saying they shouldn't include the donor but they don't for heterosexual couples so how is it different? In fact, a lot of the time the egg is from the other parent so theoretically they are including the biological parents just not the father.

I think around 5% of birth certificates don't have the father listed, is that rewriting biological history?

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 22:25

Hannahsbananas · 22/07/2023 19:45

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

And actually because I'm unmarried if my exDP hadn't attended the registration I wouldn't have been allowed to have him on the birth certificate - no one would think I am the virgin mary because of it.

Rudderneck · 22/07/2023 22:29

SapphosRock · 22/07/2023 17:27

I think gamete donors should not be encouraged to think they are not parents to a child because the process was done in a different way. Even if they never have anything to do with said child.

Why? A sperm donor is not a parent, he is a sperm donor.

Children can easily understand that a kind man donated his sperm so his/her parents could have a baby but the kind man is not their parent.

Much more confusing for children to tell them they have a biological parent who wants nothing to do with them.

What do you think a biological parent is? Do you think adopted children don't have biological parents, just a sperm donor and a gestational carrier?

That is exactly the situation in this scenario, the child has a biological parent who does not want/expect to be part of the child's life, and the law has been constructed to allow for that.

Society has decided that is ok, in these scenarios - if it is there should be no reason to hide it with language.

Rudderneck · 22/07/2023 22:30

ChokkaQuokka · 22/07/2023 22:18

I know, right? 🙄
none of this bothered certain posters until they found out lesbians were doing it.

Reproductive tech has always been very ethically controversial. It's a huge topic in medical ethics.

ChokkaQuokka · 22/07/2023 23:00

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 22/07/2023 17:56

The birth mother will still be recorded as mother but the wife/partner will be recorded as the other parent I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) - I honestly don't understand your issue with this?

If @Brk had read the thread, Brk would have seen posts, including from me, mentioning that birth mothers can be and are identified as such in birth certificates with two women listed as parents. My children’s birth certificates list my wife as the birth mother. I’m just “mother” (or parent, I’ll have to check.) So Brk’s trumped up fears about evil lesbians devaluing reproductive labor are the opposite of the truth.

to be fair this is in Australia and the exact details could differ in the UK, but there is no reason to conclude that recording both mothers on the certificate devalues or denies reproductive labor. You jumped to that conclusion for your own reasons.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 00:22

Triplemove · 22/07/2023 13:56

do not believe that people who use complicated methods to obtain a child should have the same right to simple documentation as those who conceive without the added complexity of donor parentage. It’s complex. The documents should show it. Why shouldn’t it?

Because straight couples can easily hide their use of donors, it puts a discriminatory onus on homosexual couples despite the issue actually affecting far more children born to heterosexual couples.

it’s all or nothing, for everyone.

Two things. Firstly, this whole discussion should be child centred. This discussion, in my opinion, is about naturally conceived children and children conceived through unnatural medical intervention and how they both should have the same rights - the right to know the truth about their biological parents, to have relationships with them if possible, to be able to trace their genealogy and the right to have an accurate recording of who they themselves are on their birth certificate- whose womb they came from and whose genes they carry - their genetic mother and father.

Secondly, since it is pretty new to use donors and unfortunately, the ethics surrounding donor gametes to create human beings has not been considered up until this point in the rush to meet and exploit adult demand and scientific curiosity, it means that these things need to be sorted out asap. Because if not now, then when?

The birth certificate should continue to have the mother who gave birth, without question, this is key for identifying who an individual is, but where a donor egg has been used, I believe there should be an additional section of the birth certificate to clarify this, for the sake of the child, and to have the name of the genetic mother, (although this woman would not be the ‘legal mother’) written there. This would be the same for all mothers who have used donor eggs, of all sexualities.

I don’t believe people who are neither genetically related or who have not given birth to the child should be on the child’s birth certificate. In the case of using donor sperm, then that person should be named in this new optional ‘donor’ section, I am imagining, as the genetic father.

Now, because the nature of a heterosexual couple conceiving a child naturally means that a woman can deceive a man about his paternity or a man can lie about paternity, it means there is a loophole for heterosexuals, when registering a birth, which enables couples to deceive or lie about the paternity of the child if they choose to, without compulsory paternity DNA testing, for registering births. I don’t believe that there should be compulsory testing. People should continue to be trusted to be truthful.

The fact that nature and biology enables heterosexuals to deceive about paternity when registering a birth, if they choose, this should not be framed as a ‘right’ for heterosexuals to fabricate and deceive on a birth certificate, which lesbians should also have an ‘equal right’ to. The goal is for the truth and accuracy of the child’s identity. The child’s rights are paramount.

WildUnchartedWaters · 23/07/2023 01:14

Hannahsbananas · 22/07/2023 19:45

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

Adoption certs are rewriting biology too. Same issue with that?

WildUnchartedWaters · 23/07/2023 01:15

@Triplemove thanks for explaining that and sorry for being flippant. I find peoples responses very frustrating and it caused me to jump too quickly, I'm sorry.