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.

The gestational mother is also the biological mother. You mean genetically.

“the bond a baby has and the natural incentive to attach to the woman who bore it is undeniable.”

“There is no doubt the baby considers its gestational mother it’s true mother.”

“we would be remiss to discount the value of gestation as women, the value of gestation for the baby, and separating a baby from its physical mother does open the door for child safeguarding issues”

I pulled out these quotes from @Triplemove ’s post because these outline the core, fundamental issue.

All the arguments which falsely claim this mother-baby bond is not particularly significant, that it doesn’t really matter who the baby attaches to, as long as there’s a secure attachment, yadda yadda yadda, when posed by lesbians to assert their equality as a couple as parents, as mothers, to the child - a claim which probably brings peace and cosiness to their own homes and relationships,…. These claims about the insignificance of gestation in terms of the meaning of the word “mother” and in terms of the importance of the bond of the baby to its mother, are a gift to pro-surrogacy activists and men with a sexual paraphelia about imagining themselves to be mothers. This is a ‘gateway’.

I disagree.

Children/people have the right to a birth certificate which tells the truth about who they are.

There should be legislation which insists that people who donate eggs or sperm to clinics agree to be named on the birth certificates of any offspring - and I am strongly opposed to the indignity of a child having “donor #XA42KN376” written as their genetic mother or father, just because the donors don’t want to think too much about the significance of what they are doing when they throw their gametes to the four winds and the parents don’t want to think about the elephant in the room - the fifth wheel in their family narrative - either.

They should be a named person because that is significant for the child, about who they are. They are not just some lab-grown proteins or something, they have a genuine genetic heritage, genuine people and ancestry.

Obviously, parents could go abroad or do sperm donation informally and not disclose when registering the birth, but I don’t think the expectation of dishonesty and fraud should set the bar. I’m sure that if those were the rules, the majority would continue to follow them, because it is the right thing to do.

No, because as I pointed out in that exact post, planned lesbian families never take a baby from its gestational mother.

It’s not the gateway you want it to be. It’s not a gateway any more that a straight couple with a sperm donor or false paternity, which you have neglected to advocate for regulating, despite our numbering babies born to lesbians 23 to 1.

You’ve missed the point again.

Refuting a point is not missing it.

we agree that removing a child from its birth mother is cruel and poses big child safeguarding issues, and little else.

You hold a conservative, traditional (and rather patriarcal) view of the nuclear family, believe that children get their primary identity from their genetic mother and father, and should be raised by only these two people if possible, and the birth certificate should reflect this by always listing a man and a woman.

I believe that the modern, heterosexual nuclear family is not the only way or even the best way to raise a child, that children get equal parts of their identity from genetics, nurturing style, their wider community and culture, and that it is in the best interest if the child that the birth certificate reflect, as it currently does, the parents. The people raising the child.

You have incorrectly summarised my beliefs. You are wrong in your assumptions about my position, which is why you keep missing the point.

It’s the summary of what you have expressed in this thread. It might not be what you think you believe, but it is what your beliefs amount to in practice.

Your have written also written a lot about a fantasy land where the birth certificate is a genetic document, and have repeatedly declined to propose real world solutions.

Even though I know you don’t care about equality or being discriminatory, if I was in your position and wanted your ends, I’d have more intellectual rigour. If you demand that only sane sex couples list their sperm donors, it would be pretty easy to take that to court and get it over turned. The fact that heterosexual men don’t need to make it a clear cut case of discrimination. Propose a solution that would hold up in a modern, democratic, non-religious society. I have repeatedly asked you these kind of questions in order to get you to engage with the argument in the real world, but you don’t.

if you would like to provide a summary of what you believe, acknowledging that while you would like the birth certificate to be a genetic record, it is not currently that, and what your propositions are, I would happily engage with that.

Here are some facts:

1. Human beings are either male or female sexed and cannot change from one sex to the other.
2. Human beings reproduce sexually by uniting one gamete of either sex and cannot reproduce any other way.
3. Human beings can only gestate in the womb of the female and, after they are born, usually continue to be nourished by the milk from her breasts. This relationship between mother and baby is unique and hugely significant to the baby.

These facts about human beings are a source of frustration and disappointment to some people.

Some people who are frustrated and disappointed by any or all of these facts seek medical interventions and supportive social infrastructure, and agitate for changes in law, language, beliefs and culture to:

a) Enable them to live a facsimile of a life as close to what it would be if any or all of these facts were untrue.
b) Disguise (from themselves, and others) the fact that they are living a manufactured facsimile of a life rather than the natural one which they seek to copy.
c) Normalise, or even promote the facsimile as superior to what is copied, by downplaying the negatives and overstating the positives of the facsimile, or overstating the negatives and downplaying the positives of what is being copied.
d) Make criticisms of the manufactured facsimile taboo, whilst socially rewarding allies.

This is one set of romantic dishonesties which I believe need to have open and unflinching examination and discussion for the good of women and children’s rights.

The other side is infertility and the ethics of ‘treatments’ using other people’s bodies, how this impacts on women and children’s rights.

I don’t disagree with any of the three points you listed, they are basic biological facts that no one on this thread is refuting.

You have again just listed a treatise of your personal beliefs with no practical translation to either current or proposed real world documentation practice.

it’s pointless to continue to engage with you.

Clearly you must have skimmed over everything I have suggested.

“the birth certificate to be a genetic record, it is not currently that”

All births have been registered since the Civil Registration Act of 1837. The world’s first egg donor birth was in 1984. Up until that medical interference in reproduction, all registered births were a maternal genetic record.

Post 1984 there has been no discussion about how egg donation potentially changed the meaning of the word mother, or how this impacts the child’s identity or whether this should be reflected in the record on their birth certificate.

The world’s first sperm banks began around 1964, but obviously this doesn’t reflect when sperm donors were first used, because it’s possible to do it without the involvement of a clinic or bank. Also, prior to DNA testing, you couldn’t prove paternity, however because of social customs, you can take a guess that most fathers registered on birth certificates probably were a true paternal genetic record.

Since the vast majority of births do not involve donors and the father and mother really are the biological and genetic mother and father of the child registered, then for the majority of people, the birth certificate is and continues to be, a genetic record of who a child is.

I think it is unfair for those children whose parents used donors, to be disadvantaged by not having a genetic record of who they are on their birth certificate like those whose parents did not.

“what your propositions are”

I propose:

• Changes at the point of collection at egg and sperm banks, so that those donating sign an agreement to be identified on the birth certificates of any genetic offspring.
• Changes at the fertility clinic, so that a record of the donor(s) used are put on the mother’s medical record and that information will be transferred on the proofs of maternity she takes to register the baby.
• Changes to the birth certificate to include a section to name genetic parents.

Also:

• An end to experiments on embryos, interference with DNA, egg casings, etc.
• An end to surrogacy.
• Obviously, from the first points, an end to anonymity of gamete donors.

This isn’t the whole picture, but I see gamete donation as being roughly a halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption.

Natural biological parenthood needs no process to be awarded legal parental rights and responsibilities- they are a de facto thing.
Adoptive parenthood requires a number of tests and requirements to be awarded legal parental rights and responsibilities.

So I would further propose some kind of halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption for parents who used donors and for this to be reflected in the birth certificate.

This was a general post, not addressing you, and I was writing it while you were writing yours.

Regarding what I said here:

I would further propose some kind of halfway house between natural parenthood and adoption for parents who used donors and for this to be reflected in the birth certificate.

I wouldn’t want to commit to this, because I think, in the case of surrogacy, there should be a full adoption process.

I'm a lesbian parent and I don't really support this, as it is clearly untrue in the absolute sense.

BUT: ANY man can go on the cert if he chooses, so as it stands I'm in support of it. Obviously there are also the automatic rights you get by being named parents on birth cert, which the non birthing parent really should have.

@TangledRoots your timeline is off since the first known sperm donations are from the 1880, and were widely used in secret by the 1940s.

That aside:

• Changes at the point of collection at egg and sperm banks, so that those donating sign an agreement to be identified on the birth certificates of any genetic offspring.

this seems unnecessary since U.K. donors already agree to identification, and also unregulateable for the reasons I describe in the next section.

• Changes at the fertility clinic, so that a record of the donor(s) used are put on the mother’s medical record and that information will be transferred on the proofs of maternity she takes to register the baby.

This proposal is scary and brave new world-ish. The idea seems innocent enough, but it practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere. Most fertility treatment is private, so it means requiring that private clinics report to the NHS and all private hospitals. Record sharing isn’t even that good within the NHS! Basically it requires a massive, electronic record keeping system of every child bearing women. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that could go wrong, it’s only a step away from let’s just chip people and scan them at medical treatment, like puppies. This would be a gateway to decreased privacy, increased government control, and possible human rights violations. It also doesn’t account for people who move to the U.K. while pregnant, leave the U.K. while pregnant, get treatment abroad, etc.

• Changes to the birth certificate to include a section to name genetic parents.

This would have to include legislation to change all the ways the birth certificate is currently used to specifically exclude the donors from having parental responsibility, but I suppose if you did that and managed to get that far (without violating people’s privacy via the massive electronic tracking system) there is nothing wrong with this.

Also:

• An end to experiments on embryos, interference with DNA, egg casings, etc.

I agree with this.

• An end to surrogacy.

I definitely disagree with commercial surrogacy. All paid surrogacy should be banned. I think surrogacy in a purely altruistic manner is probably ok (nothing paid at all except medical expenses) For example, people who carry for a close family member and maintain a close bond with the child. I know one of these. Portugal has this and has only had two recorded surrogacies.

• Obviously, from the first points, an end to anonymity of gamete donors.

I agree with this in theory. In practice, at the end of the day it will be up to parents to be honest with their children.

it practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere.

It really doesn’t. Fertility clinics would only need your NHS number and to have some means of adding the data to your maternity record. I remember having to carry around a big bloody folder when I was pregnant, which the midwife snatched off me when the baby was born, and then I got a form to take to register the births to prove I was the mum. It would be part of that bundle of information with your scans, etc.

Sorry, I should have bolded

It practically requires an electronic medical record that follows you everywhere.

This is just a really naive view of someone who has only experienced one medical system, sorry.

Also, with this system any straight couple or single woman who doesn’t want the donor listed just doesn’t take the paper or goes private. Again, pretty easy to protest the discriminatory practice in court.

someone who has only experienced one medical system

What do you mean?

I am talking about the UK specifically in all this.

who doesn’t want the donor listed just doesn’t take the paper

You cannot register a birth in the UK without the paper proving your maternity.

I am saying that the donors (if any) would be listed on it. You couldn’t not bring the paper.

Exactly, but just take a gander over to the infertility boards to see how much of fertility treatment for people living in the U.K. is not even done in the U.K.

Most fertility treatment is not NHS funded, which means it can be part of the NHS but could also not be. That also means a different system, and doesn’t account for people who would choose to be completely private.

I can see maybe having an optional donor slot without rights on birth certificates for people who want it, but there isn’t a way to enforce it.

An aside.

A friend of mine, when she was getting an abortion, was so disturbed about how serious and ‘final’ the language and tone was, of everyone in the clinic. Every time they said stuff like ‘termination’ and so on, she really felt like they wanted her to be under no illusions about the fact that she was ending the potential life of her potential child, to make sure she was certain about it.

I feel that gamete extractors/banks should be exactly the same about the seriousness of what the donor is doing, how they are potentially creating their children they will never have any care or control over, no relationship with and that those potential children may feel rejected and abandoned because of it. But it’s just the opposite isn’t it? The seriousness is all glossed over - because they want to get those gametes- the demand for them is high.

I am not an overly punitive sort and I believe that if these were the rules and the structures were in place, most people would be honest.

I think you vastly miscalculate the pride of sterile straight men