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.

But in short form they are identical to a birth certificate. This is in the best interest of the child.

A child shouldn’t have to explain their adoption every time a birth certificate is required if they don’t want to. I’m not saying this so that adoptive parents can hide, but because one of my siblings is adopted and I know they don’t want to have that discussion with random people all the time when proving identity.

I actually agree with you that gamete donation (and adoption) should be regulated, that children should have access to their own information, and should be told if they are donor conceived. Again, lesbian couples already do this, by and large.

But it is impossible to regulate at the level of the birth certificate in an equitable and non-discriminatory way without universal DNA testing. You have yet to propose a way to do this that works in the real world.

I dont agree with putting father unknown either, unless there is a real danger to the mother or baby.

You need a man’s consent and identity docs to register him as the father, otherwise mothers could potentially name anyone as father on the birth certificate. For example a celebrity or a first crush.

If a father is unwilling or unable to attend and provide his identity documents, then the father has to be listed as ‘unknown’.

You can’t put barriers in the way of registering a child’s birth, like chasing up the father in a foreign country and forcing him to take a paternity test - that could take months, cost loads of money and he could still refuse.

The minimum should be the mother who gave birth (and the egg donor if used), so that you don’t have loads of unregistered children without birth certificates.

I’ve had babies in both ways, there is no way for the hospital to know, unless you tell them.

Which I did!

But what do you think happens, the fertility clinic puts out an announcement to all the hospitals “if Jane smith gives birth, she used egg donation, don’t let her tell you otherwise” 😂

even if you stay in the same town the hospital wouldn’t know, even less if you account for all the couples that go to Spain, Cyprus and Eastern Europe for IVF.

The loophole for foreign IVF should be closed so that there is a record of it on the mother’s medical documentation.

How exactly? Pregnancy test every returning woman of childbearing age at the airport? And then grill her to make sure it wasn’t plain old holiday sex?? 😂

I’m thinking of doing it via the clinics themselves.

Please dont compare adoptive parents to step.

A birth certificate is a factual record for the child. It should state biological parents and biological sex. Gender identity is a feeling and has no place on official documents. If the biological parents are not the care-taking parents then that is a separate document. Children are entitled to know (as far as possible) their genetic inheritance and that matters more than the feelings of the people taking parental responsibility. Putting non-parents (that is people who could not possibly have a genetic contribution, e.g. the female partner of the mother or the male partner of the father) onto a birth certificate is misleading and liable to cause both confusion and anger for the child.

So….the U.K. will pass laws to make it illegal to treat citizens or residents of the U.K.? Aside from the fact that such laws would have many unintended consequences, that is not how international law works.

The U.K. already voluntarily exited the most powerful institution they had available for making international accords.

Your assumption that donor egg births are easily trackable and distinguishable because they cannot be “DIY” shows a naïveté and general lack of knowledge about how fertility treatment works in practice.

I think you are better off admitting that although you personally would like it, gamete donation is not regulateable at the level of the birth certificate.

Although you might not care that your proposed regulations are discriminatory and in practice only apply to lesbians and require them to include donors and exclude their partners in the event of gamete donation, luckily, the state and courts do care.

Putting non-parents (that is people who could not possibly have a genetic contribution, e.g. the female partner of the mother or the male partner of the father) onto a birth certificate is misleading and liable to cause both confusion and anger for the child.

Please show me the evidence of this in lesbian families.

The children who experience “confusion and anger” are children who are born to straight couples whose parents hide their donor conception.

You keep going after the wrong people.

long term studies of planned lesbian families shoe overwhelmingly well adjusted children.

I find it fascinating that some people think that a birth certificate is the only acceptable way to record a child’s genetic heritage.

I also find it fascinating that some people who claim to have such a child-centred focus think it’s more important to know who the sperm donor is from day one, than to know who is the other parent who will care for that child should something tragic happen to the birth mother when the child is still an infant.

Nobody is saying that the child’s genetic heritage should not be available to them. But that’s for them, not in a document that all and sundry will see every time that person has to prove their identity.

So what you want is to switch the place of the legal document (which parents are responsible for the child) and the biological document? To what benefit?

Good morning, @WildUnchartedWaters

As you don’t know me, you have no basis from which to say this topic is “something that doesn’t concern” me. In fact, it does directly “concern” me (using the term to mean, as I assume you do as well, “have direct implication for my life and that of people in my care”).

No need to devote time “searching” for my prior comments. I find — in real life as in line — I usually learn more when reading/listening/thinking than when speaking/writing/tweeting.

The ad hominem comments on this thread are unhelpful to the discussion. The key question really does boil down to “what record of biology/conception/birth is important for a human to know as she progresses through life and what record should there be of the legal protection/requirements for individuals who take on the role of parents regardless of biological connection.

As others have said — but their views have been lost amidst the labyrinth of this thread — we are probably at a point in this country where either two documents are needed (birth record and parent record) or a single expanded birth certificate to allow the recording of who will assume responsibility to parent the child from birth onward (which might need to be adapted over time as, sadly, these circumstances can change).

Back to reading and thinking now….

@Inamuddle36 The key question really does boil down to “what record of biology/conception/birth is important for a human to know as she progresses through life and what record should there be of the legal protection/requirements for individuals who take on the role of parents regardless of biological connection.

I would say that in addition to this the question is what can society feasibly regulate, and what regulations can be put in place equitably to maximise benefit of the child while also not creating the consequences that can come with over regulation.

while the idea of the birth certificate bring a true record of genetic fact and adding a parental certificate for all children could be done, it requires universal DNA testing at registration.

if DNA testing at registration was implemented, inevitably some hetero couples with sufficient means would elect to go to another country to give birth and circumvent it completely.

would foreign born children then be tested when they are registered in the U.K.? This creates privacy and human rights issues for non-citizen or dual citizen children.

Almost all attempts to regulate gamete donation at the level of the birth certificate creates situations like this.

What is in the best interest of the child is to have the information formerly documented, donor identity known and available to them, and society needs to trust parents to give the information to their own children (which again, lesbians already pretty much universally do) This doesn’t mean that all parents will, lots of parents do things that are not in the best interest of their children, however they are conceived.

What I was referring to was you quoting my comment and saying I only ever respond with transphobic,.which was nonsense and uncalled for.

Your comment there was quite insightful as have been the majority of comments on this thread so I just didnt understand why you felt the need to behave in that way originally.

I want the birth certificate of a child to tell that child who its biological parents are. A certificate of parental responsibility might be added to reflect a non-genetic partner if that partner adopts the child with the biological mother/father (don't approve of surrogacy btw), just as one has a certificate of adoption which is separate from a birth certificate. The benefit of keeping the birth certificate to the biological information (and I know perfectly well biological fathers are sometimes missing or that a lie has been told when a child is born in a marriage) is for the child - for whom the birth certificate is a document of identity.

But again, you have not outlined how this will actually be done in a way that includes the 85% of donor conceived children born to straight couples.

what's the point? A birth certificate is a LEGAL document designating parental rights.
A paternity DNA test is a medical document that shows someone's genetic history.
A birth certificate is a legal document that a child will need every day of their life. A birth certificate designates who is legally responsible for a child's life.
IF YOU PUT A MAN'S NAME ON A LESBIAN FAMILY'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE GIVING HIM PARENTAL RIGHTS.

If you want some complete overhaul of the system, where the birth certificate becomes the biological document and the "certificate of parental responsibility" is the more important legal document, you need to tread very carefully so you don't give men legal rights they shouldn't have.

There's a great substack essay over on https://substack.com/@wheredidthetomboysgo about this.

This has it exactly backwards. The birth certificate proves the person exists as a unique person. Other people do not need to know the person’s genetic heritage to be assured of that person’s identity. The child needs to know their genetic heritage but this does not need to be in a public document available to all and sundry.

Literally nobody on the “genetics only” side of this discussion has addressed the question of how it helps the child to omit the name of the person who will take care of the child in the event something happens to the birth mother within days or months of the child’s birth.

including the responsible parents as well as the birth mother on the birth certificate, and having genetic heritage stored elsewhere IS the child-centred approach.

I’m unsure about this. Do non married couples have the birth certificate and the parental responsibility docs for children? So someone who is not on the bc can be on pr?

A separate parental responsibility document doesn’t exist. The concept has been made up by some posters in the thread to justify removing lesbian non-birth parents from birth certificates and adding male sperm donors instead.

The birth certificate is important as it is should be based on fact - I know that this is not necessarily fact as the father may not be the father, but it is for biological parents in my view which can't change. In the case of there being 3 people involved ie one woman's eggs and another woman carrying the baby then I think that this should be acknowledged.

I agree with this. While the birth certificate is the child's, it's not a private document just for their own personal reference, it's a public one that is required to prove their identity to the state and other organisations. They shouldn't need to have to disclose the complexities of their conception when registering at a new school or doctors, applying for a passport or driving licence, opening a bank account or applying for all sorts of other services that require you to prove your identity. Nor should anyone who feels like it get a copy of that information for ten pounds or so.

For those arguing for only the biological parents to be listed on the birth certificate, as reproductive technology gets more complicated, so does deciding exactly who that would be. Birth mother is fairly straightforward, but egg donation can be used in different ways, so you'd need to specify whether they were providing chromosomal or mitochondrial DNA.

My preferred solution would be to have a public and a private register, a bit like they do for electoral registration. That way, the public register would have the details of the birth mother, and where applicable the other parent of either sex who also has parental responsibility. This certificate could be shown whenever proof of identity is required, and be searchable in the same way birth certificates are now. At the point of registration, parents could also request additional details, such as donor information, to be added to the private register. The private register would be accessible to those with parental responsibility, and the child once they turn 18. If the birth certificate needs to be amended due to legal processes such as adoption, surrogacy etc, then the original details would be moved to the private record. That way the full picture of the child's origins can be available to them once they are old enough to understand what it all means, but for day to day use, the public record would be sufficient.

The facts that the birth certificate record today are the facts of parental responsibility- who is responsible for the child if anything happens. Womens rights campaigners have fought for a long time against the misogynist fathers' rights movement, people who desperately want men to have legal rights to children against the mother's consent. This is a legal area where we have to tread very carefully. As it is today, a mother has a right to not name any father and be the only guardian. The birth certificate having only one name (which is common) says nothing about biological reality, she's not the Virgin Mary- it only means she's the only one responsible. That's what birth certificates are for.

Birth certificates survive long after parental responsibility is no longer required. So it either wasn't about parental responsibility or wasn't only about parental responsibility. It is a document whose purpose has been added to over the years. Now the new purpose is trying to override the old completely. Making it lose all meaning, as is evident here since we clearly don't agree what this document does. Multiple docs are now required as multiple goals are trying to be achieved. This definitely needs clarifying instead of brushing under the carpet and adding yet more overloading meaning to it.