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.

I am not interested in being punitive. I simply do not believe that biologically unrelated people should be on birth certificates.

I think that should be the same irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents, however, I don’t think paternity testing should be made routine, just to make it as ‘equally hard to lie’ for heterosexuals as it is for same sex couples.

How will this be achieved EXACTLY?

because hetero couples will not voluntarily do it. And you said no to universal DNA testing at registration.

Single woman having babies has been socially acceptable in the Uk since the 1970.

And adoptive parents have been advised to tell their child that they are adopted since the 1960s. They cannot conceal it from a school aged child even if they wished to as its its on the child’s adoption certificate and the place of birth is on the child’s passport. Children need birth certificates for school allocations, sports clubs applications , rail cards etc .

So no it’s really not the recent past .

😴😴

😳😳 are you aware of what you just wrote?

I am ‘on about’ people claiming that it was ‘never the intention that birth certificates should document biological parentage’ which is simply not true.

This is a language creep. A meaning creep. A falsehood.

It sounds all very sensible at first, but it is a deliberate tactic, changing the meaning and intention of things, to make it seem a completely natural and inconsequential, to make a big leap from the original intention of something. ‘Father on the birth certificate only ever meant “random adult who attends the registration with the mum” [which is not true] therefore, it’s no biggie to make it now mean “any random adult of either sex who attends the registration with the mum”. It is a biggie to suddenly have biologically unrelated people on birth certificates, this is a big diversion from the original intention.

It’s similar to the argument ‘the word woman was never meant to describe someone with XX chromosomes, it was always just used to means someone who looks feminine’. Clearly not true, but a lot of mileage resulted from it and lots of negative consequences, because it was not more robustly challenged from the outset.

Dont forget transphobic

Absolutely, except the ‘so what’ at the beginning of the second sentence was meant “So what!?!” - as in, why not, shit happens.

I thought the same. I’ve heard enough from her to know it’s not a good faith argument anyway.

She isn’t concerned about the majority of donor kids, just the ones born to lesbians. Ergo, she doesn’t care about donor conceived kids, she cares about the sneaky sneaky lesbians.

It’s living memory.

Why would there be embarassment or shame?

They should do it. But I don’t believe in being punitive if they don’t.

I am ‘on about’ people claiming that it was ‘never the intention that birth certificates should document biological parentage’ which is simply not true.

It wasn’t the intention, because DNA was not yet discovered, it could not have been the intention.

I think if you look at all of human history, you’ll find that as often as not birth registration was about legal parentage. For example, in the Bible, children are regularly registered to a dead brother when he died before having a chance to have kids.

Now you’ll probably say I’m not talking about the ancient civilisation, but the point is that the idea that the registered parents are the true verified genetic parents is a modern one, and you have it backwards. If you look at human history as a whole, children being cared for by and even legally registered to non genetic parents is a tale as old as human history itself.

An unrelated example. Identical twins are able to dishonest things, taking advantage of the fact there are two of them with the same DNA, fingerprints, everything, they can stand in for one-another, provide false alibis, etc.

If people who were not twins suddenly wanted to perform the same acts of dishonesty as twins are able to, but claimed it ‘wasn’t fair’ that twins who wish to act dishonesty in this ways can, but non-twins can’t, it would be daft to bring about measures to inconvenience all twins, because a minority of twins act dishonesty and a minority of dishonest non-twins envy that advantage twins have.

Don’t be dishonest.

Identical twins have different fingerprints.

Ignoring that, everything you are implying here is ilegal. Identical twins are a minority of the population, who are held to the standard of the majority. They are not required any additional verification. It would discriminatory, for example, to always require individuals with an identical twin provide fingerprints in all situations in order to ensure that they were not lying.

First, you have compared lesbians simply registering their children with both parents to crimes. Second, the situation is exactly opposite. you are proposing that the minority be held to a stricter standard than the majority. It’s discrimination.

If we want to go way back - the history of the patriarchal oppression of women by men, including the demonisation of female sexuality, keeping women almost captive at home and denied a public life, was largely so men could guarantee that the children were his own. The word ‘cuckold’ relates to cuckoo, a bird which lays its eggs in another birds nest. This has been used to mock and ridicule men, who are supposed to feel humiliated by raising a child who is not their own.

There absolutely always has been the assumption that parents are biological parents, prior to the modern use of donors.

I didn't catch up on the full thread. I honestly do not understand why this is complicated.
The truth is not very often nice. Or full of pride.
It is also not always nicely captured in a few boxes.
A child should know (eventually) who brought it into existence and how!
It should also know who its parents are. The people with the emotional connection.
which may yet be different from those with parental responsibility legally. These may not be the same set and in some cultures is more than 2 people.
The birth certificate shouldn't just say any nice story we like... although I'm fully aware this is exactly the way it has always been used. I've never understood this. Even before it became an infertility or homosexuality related issue.

You are wrong in the summary of my argument.

I am comparing the act of registering an unrelated adult as a parent, on a child’s birth certificate, to a crime or other dishonesty, in my twin example.

Also, I am talking about how the majority of twins, should not be held to a stricter standard, just because a minority of twins are dishonest (and a minority of dishonest non-twins envy the advantage and extra opportunities to be dishonest that twins have).

Honesty and truth should be the standard and the assumption.

That must be a newish initiative @SapphosRock as I don't know my donor's name.

Also, I am talking about how the majority of twins, should not be held to a stricter standard, just because a minority of twins are dishonest.

exactly— it’s the opposite. In your example, the minority’s rights are not changed despite their ability to be “dishonest. “

For birth certificates, you are proposing that the minority have different rights despite the majority’s ability to be “dishonest”

the analogous situation is requiring extra verification for identical twins when it comes to equal rights.

You really have this the wrong way around.

Okay. Imagine a world where it was more common to be a twin than not.

It would still only be a minority of those twins who would use their identical appearance and DNA dishonestly, so it would not be right for the majority of twins to be held to a stricter standard just because a minority of non-twins (who, in this hypothetical world would be a minority within a minority) thought it wasn’t fair because it was harder for them to be dishonest than twins.

It makes no difference to my argument whether twins or non-twins are in the minority.

The only thing that matters is that one group has a biological advantage which enables them to be dishonest, that the other group does not share. Minority/majority - it’s irrelevant.

It is not the job of the State to try to equalise all biologically related advantages and disadvantages for those who wish to be dishonest.

All the lesbians I know have used this sperm bank or Cryos.

As you can see there is plenty of info about the donors

www.europeanspermbank.com/

First, just to clarify, I use your language but do not actually think that listing social parents on a birth certificate is “dishonest”

Second, it is absolutely the state’s job to entire that its laws and procedures are carried as equally as possible within its citizenship, without placing an undue burden on one group over another.

A state that doesn’t do this is a failed state.

Third, and back to the nonsensical analogy:

It would still only be a minority of those twins who would use their identical appearance and DNA dishonestly (so this is straight people, as they are the ones who can be dishonest) so it would not be right for the majority of twins to be held to a stricter standard just because a minority of non-twins ((so this is lesbians) who, in this hypothetical world would be a minority within a minority) thought it wasn’t fair because it was harder for them to be dishonest than twins.

It doesn’t make sense because the “minority” is now asking for the “majority “ to be held to a standard that doesn’t apply to them (the minority) at all!

what I have proposed, over and over, is equal rights. The same procedures for partnered parents, whether hetero or homosexual.

what you propose, over and over, is stringent regulations only on the minority.

what you propose, over and over, is stringent regulations only on the minority.

I feel like you are on a different planet where words mean totally different things.

I haven’t called for ‘stringent regulations’ for anyone according to sexual orientation or otherwise, but I believe there must be maximum truth and transparency about biological parentage, which in effect would mean additional information on birth certificates about donor gametes. This would be irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Furthermore I do not believe that people who are not biologically related or have not given birth to the child should be registered on a child’s birth certificate, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.

These conditions would affect those who use donor gametes and those who wish to register biologically unrelated adults to the child’s birth certificate instead of the biological father, so in essence, couples with infertility, same-sex couples, polyamorous groups, and any other situation, for example a friend who wants to help a mother who has been abandoned by her partner.