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.

it is a practical document from the moment they are born to confirm whose family they are in, who has what sort of access and responsibility for them.

If this is true, why is it that mothers who gave birth in homes, knowing they would be giving up their baby for adoption, still registered the child’s birth and are therefore named as it’s mother on their birth certificate, to then soon after have the family who adopts their child register their adoption?

What a pointless bit of admin. They could simply hold off registering the child’s birth until a family are found and these new biologically unrelated people could register the birth, be named as it’s parents, get parental responsibility, etc, all rolled into one.

@HorribleNecktie

”if the certificate is a record of who has parental responsibility at birth”

That is not what a birth certificate is for.

A birth certificate is an identity document. A unique record of who a unique person, a new citizen of the nation, is. Their name, their date and place of birth, the woman whose womb they grew from (just in case there is another ‘Stephen Jones’ born on the 15th August that year in Tooting - so they don’t get confused with him), and it’s is not essential, but the child’s father may also be recorded to further identify that person.

The fact that the parents use this identity document, belonging to the child, to prove that they are the parents, doesn’t mean that this is the purpose of the child having the identity document.

According to this both women can be on the birth certificate since 2009 if a sperm donor is used (rightsofwomen,org.uk)

If you are the civil partner or wife of the birth mother
Child conceived after 6 April 2009
If your civil partner or wife conceived a child after 6 April 2009 through artificial insemination (at a clinic or at home), you and your civil partner/ wife will be the child’s legal parents and will both have parental responsibility. This is true whether the sperm donor is known or unknown. You should ensure both of your names are registered on the child’s birth certificate, for the sake of clarity.
If your wife or civil partner conceived a child after 6 April 2009 through sexual intercourse with a man, you will not automatically have any rights to the child.
Child conceived before 6 April 2009
If your wife or civil partner conceived a child before 6 April 2009 you will not automatically have any rights to the child.

@mumarooni I think our opinions are pretty much diametrically opposed when you say this:

I do not agree with your earlier comment that children are best raised by biologically linked adults, in fact I refute that completely.

I don’t think there is any possible way to reconcile our views.

To me, your view is the gateway view, which ushers in the Brave New [transhumanist] World, where all meaning and connection through biological relationships is disparaged.

I am not in favour of removing birth mothers from birth certificates in cases of adoption from birth.
It doesn't need to be hedged as a choice between respecting the importance of birthing a child and recognising the importance of being registered as a non-biological parent on the birth certificate. I am sorry, my last post probably made it seem too much that way, like one over the other and you have helpfully made me clarify that.

We need to keep asking what are the most useful things, for the child, to have recorded at birth? Who grew you is important. Who raised you is also important. Who is your next of kin is also important.

I don't think the distinction between an ID document and a practical record of responsibility is so clear either. This is who you are, is another way of saying, these are the people you are related to. Being related means more than biologically related. Eg. Being a parent is a type of relationship that is non necessarily about biology.

Anyhow, your argument about recognising birth mothers says nothing about removing me, so again, thankfully we agree. Until somebody can articulate why my children are better off without me on their birth certificate, hopefully our family can sleep soundly!

Right so what your actually frightened about is what I am a gateway to. But what I actually am is a porridge making, maths homework practicing, bath time singing, lost my keys, normal sort of mother. Redirect your fear to the children who are being harmed (in bio and non bio families).

I don't think the distinction between an ID document and a practical record of responsibility is so clear either. This is who you are, is another way of saying, these are the people you are related to.

The way I see it, is that everything has been rushed ahead with, without proper consideration.

Before egg donation was possible, it was simply a given that mother= genetic, birth-giving relationship person. Before clinics enabled gamete donation (or before the infrastructure enabled the black market in sperm donors) there was no anonymity where a mother would not have met the genetic parents of the child she gives birth to.

These technological developments altered the linguistic definition of who a person born actually is and how they can be identified, from a biological definition, without much thought or awareness about the impact of that.

I believe something urgent needs to be done to ensure those people created by these methods are not disadvantaged and have a proper record of who they are. It’s overdue. The current situation has been driven by the wishes of the adults.

I am leaning towards there needing to be a second document, currently an adoption certificate is the only thing for it, or a additional section of the birth certificate, which would identify who has parental responsibility if it is not the biological parents, as it should automatically be.

If your wife or civil partner conceived a child after 6 April 2009 through sexual intercourse with a man, you will not automatically have any rights to the child.

Doesn’t this discriminate against bisexual women?

Why are you so scared of adoption certificates?

and anyway, what are you a gateway to? Following your arguments that biological parents are best and that the truth of identity is genetics, where could that lead? All sorts of ugly places if you use a bit of imagination.

To be honest the gateway thing has made me cross, because it is frightening, you've touched a nerve. A decade ago, I felt safe as a married lesbian, and then as a mother in a two-mum family, I felt backed by society. Now I feel I am being reassessed as a 'gateway'. To be honest it is scary, especially when I see hate speech directed towards those I am apparently a gateway towards (and I do see it, including on here). And it is frustrating because I work closely with vulnerable children at work and there are so many bigger fish to fry if you care about child welfare - like socioeconomics, male violence, international poverty. And so many bigger fish to fry if you care about women's/mother's rights. Like proper social care and support, flexible working, proper parental leave etc. Do not be frightened of me being a parent. In the scheme of the real fights to be fought, for women's safety and for children's welfare, we are probably allies. We need to be.

what your actually frightened about is what I am a gateway to.

Also, this misses the point. I disagree with biologically unrelated people being registered as a child’s parent on their birth certificate both in an of itself, because it is a falsehood, but also because it is a gateway for further falsehood, further divorce from biological reality.

I disagree with people being able to have the wrong sex registered on the birth certificate, I disagree with a mother being registered as a father on a birth certificate, I disagree with boyfriend’s, friends, acquaintances, biological unrelated people generally, being registered as a child’s parent on their birth certificate.

How? If a bisexual woman is married or civil partnered to a woman and is the second parent it is the same as if they are a lesbian married or civil partnered and the second parent.

if a bisexual woman is married or civil partnered to a man and have a baby “the old fashioned way” then they’d be the mother.

The woman’s bisexuality doesn’t really come in to it? Unless you think that because a bisexual woman is bisexual she’d have sex with a random man who she isn’t married to so her and her wife/female civil partner can raise a baby? Which is also something a lesbian could do…as sexual orientation/attraction doesn’t mean you’re unable to have sex outside of that. It just probably wouldn’t be very pleasant.

You seem to have some strange views about sexuality, it makes a lot of your arguments seem like they’re coming from ignorance at best and prejudice at worst.

I am frightened of adoption certificates because, apparently, I am seen as a gateway to a transhuman world and therefore rely upon people social attitudes towards homosexuality/alternative parenting forms to be granted adoption. I am more frightened about adoption certificates since this thread.

right I'm signing off. I don't think we are going to convince eachother. I will hug my kids extra tight tonight.

Thank you!

To be honest the gateway thing has made me cross, because it is frightening, you've touched a nerve.

I completely understand. However, women are often used as the friendly face, often unwittingly, to push male interests which people are otherwise rightly wary of. For example, the urine and faeces fetishist and pedophile Ian Dunn, used the appealing narrative of the rights of lesbian mothers to keep their own children after a divorce, to advance male sexual entitlement at the expense of women and children. The toddler rapist Jamie Rennie, used the appealing narrative of lesbian mothers feeling scared to collect their kids from school, to remove protections of children from premature sexualisation at school.

You’ve missed the point. If a woman is in a civil partnership/marriage with a woman and gets pregnant through sexual intercourse with a man, rather than using a sperm donation method, then she and her civil partner/spouse may get different automatic parental rights.

I am pointing this out because the ‘equality’ arguments about parental responsibility documented on birth certificates is inconsistent.

I want to add that this is why impacts of exactly what changes are being asked for need to be properly thought through, instead of thinking ‘oh women, nice, safe, mums, nice safe, all good, all good’.

“You’ve missed the point. If a woman is in a civil partnership/marriage with a woman and gets pregnant through sexual intercourse with a man, rather than using a sperm donation method, then she and her civil partner/spouse may get different automatic parental rights.”

I don’t think I have missed the point. I understand the law as it stands, and it likely is an attempt to regulate sperm donation and prevent issues with paternity. As donors agree that they will not have or seek parental rights but to ensure this it has to be done through official channels. Not sure how I feel about it personally, never having had to think about it as it wouldn’t apply to me as I wouldn’t be having sex with a man to have a baby so as things stand my wife would be listed as the second parent automatically.

Your point was this was discrimination against bisexual women, I asked why/how? The potential problem with this law applies regardless of an individual woman’s sexuality, as sexuality does not automatically define behaviour. A bisexual woman married to a man does not become heterosexual for example.

To be honest I think the ‘equality’ arguments around biological processes and phenomena are illogical, delusional and dangerous. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of it’s application around sexual orientation and parental responsibility.

I understand, I suppose it boils down to:

What is best for hypothetical child A

a) Their birth certificate lists their birth mother (whose womb they came from). It also lists their second parent who will raise them if there is one (this could be a person of any gender) and who is legally allowed to make decisions for them if their birth mother is unable to.

b) Their birth certificate lists their birth mother and the man who provided the sperm. This could be a known person or just “sperm donor number 123647”. Their second parent (if present) is then unable to make decisions for them if their birth mother is unable to, however as the law stands currently their sperm donor could. In the case of an anonymous donor this would mean tracking them down, in the case of a dangerous or abusive man this could put the child at risk.

Obviously you could completely change the law so that parental rights were not automatically granted to those named on a birth certificate, or change the birth certificate to allow an extra section for parental rights. But you’d have to reissue all birth certificates to ensure this was clear for every child under the age of 16/18.

That doesn’t hugely bother me, as long as the new process didn’t place undue burden on non-traditional families (should be the same as it is to currently register a birth) but also can’t really see why that option is any better than the current system (a) where a child can then access information about their donor when they reach adulthood.

The children of lesbians know that they can’t have biologically come from two women, perhaps a system is needed to ensure the children of a man and a woman who used a donor or know that paternity doesn’t match the bc have access to accurate biological history as those parents could hide those facts easily if they were so inclined?

I think there should be biological truth recorded.
So on these cases there would be the carrying mother, the egg donor source and the sperm source. I know a lesbian couple where one is carrying the other's egg - this would work here because otherwise how would you pick which gets "mother" on the certificate? The one who carried the baby and gave birth or the one who is biologically related?

This is one of those sneaky little falsehoods:

you could completely change the law so that parental rights were not automatically granted to those named on a birth certificate

The parents automatically have parental responsibility by virtue of making a baby together - it’s biology, and the birth certificate simply keeps a record of that (as well as other identifying details about who the baby is, most importantly, their name).

The registrar isn’t handing out parental responsibility, the certificate doesn’t bestow parental responsibility.

The registrar records who are the parents and that document can be used to legally prove the fact of their parenthood.

The change in law was the one to allow people who aren’t the assumed biological parents to be recorded as parents.