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.

Biological Reality, definitely.

Children could maybe have an alternative ‘Parental Certificate’.

We need to fight back against pretending.

Yes...

Currently on another thread, this same discussion has been used by the OP to further vilify Kellie Jay Keen as further proof that Kellie Jay Keen is what the OP has constantly stated - homophobic or even a hater of lesbians.

Yes, they also should have to adopt.

Just because it's possible for some women/couples to lie about who the father is, doesn't mean that we should make it ok for non factual data to be recorded. I 100% believe that homosexual parents should be entitled to full legal rights as parents. But all children are entitled to have accurate data about their biology. Making it possible for homosexual parents to adopt but not be on the record as a biological parent when they are not one, isn't them losing out on a right. But it is ensuring that the children maintain theirs.

Before we had DNA testing there was really no reliable way to show if the person named as father was actually the biological father. Which is why we get the saying ' happy is the father who knows his own child'. No we can all do DNA testing and find our relatives. The birth cert should show biological reality , with actual biological father and mother named,any other arrangements added in a separate field. Children need to know where they came from, so to speak. So many people these days do their family tree for precisely that reason.

But birth certificates aren't just about rights. It's good for tracking down ancestors and medical history. only the biological parents should go on one.

I think a birth certificate is ,and should continue to be ,precisely that, a certificate of a child’s birth, recording information relevant to the child, ie the sex, name, date of birth,place of birth and I believe time of birth if it is a multiple birth. It also records the parental names. Mother, father if known or chosen to be recorded.

I really do think that this should remain as it is, and for most people it will continue to be the only document recording their birth that they need in their future life, I do however see that with the more complex family arrangements that now exist, a need is arising which means that parental origin and responsibilities should also be recorded in an organised and consistent way . So perhaps there needs to be an additional certificate of parental registration which allows for more complicated parental involvement and responsibility ( not always the same thing) to be acknowledged and recorded officially.

So children who have more complex parental histories would be simultaneously recorded with two properly registered documents, ideally of equal status and legality , one a birth certificate (recording their birth) and the second a parental certificate (recording their genetic / social history and the adults involved) . As with birth certificates related to adoption the second certificate could be access restricted until the child reaches majority if that is what the parents chose, or if they prefer, it could be open access, and that decision would be their ultimate choice.

When was the law changed, to not having to have the ' father ' present at the registry office in order for him to be named on the birth certificate? When did that happen?

AFAIC, only the two people responsible for conceiving the child should be named as the parents.
Birth certificates are not there for the benefit of the parent/co- parent, they are there for the benefit of the child. If you can't be honest with your child about it's origins, then you need to ask yourself a few questions about who is the priority in your house.

It is also insulting to suggest the non-biological mother is nothing to do with the baby unless she adopts him/her.
I was my babies' mother before they were even conceived. I planned for them, yearned for them, I selected the sperm donor, I did everything I could to care for their biological mother and support our family unit, they literally would not be the people they are without me, and I would not be who I am without them. I don't detract at all from the incredible thing that my wife did in growing and birthing our babies, but I am not some legalistic add-on, or step parent taking on 'someone else's' children, and this is not about validating me and my feelings, this is about one half of their adult family unit, this is about their security. I would willingly adopt them, but I shouldn't have to, they are mine as much as I am theirs, through and through, to our core. I am on their birth certificate as a register of the fact we knowingly brought them into the world within our civil partnership, which makes me a parent from their inception, with a sort of responsibility and connection that is lifelong. Not being on their birth certificate is a terrifying prospect. What if something happened to their other mother? When one of our babies was born, my wife had a terrible bleed. She began to lose consciousness and an emergency team tried to stem the bleeding. All the while I held our son close to me to keep him warm, watching in horror. At the moment, I am legally and in every way next of kin. Because we were in a civil partnership, and because of current birth certificate laws, I did not even have to worry about where he would legally go should the worst have happened to her. Going forward, for my kids to have a secure life, it is important to me that they see that society recognises that I am their parent and will protect that. I am here for them always and unrefutably. I am frightened that this is being destabilised because fears about gender identity are causing people to pull back progress and delegitimise families like mine.

Completely agree - it's got fuck all to do with the sexuality of the parents. I wasn't actually aware of this debate, and will post about it on the DC groups I'm in to see if we are getting our voices heard, because frankly, we're the only people who matter.

A birth certificate should be about the needs of a child, for both legal purposes, and for knowing their heritage, something that the majority of humans care deeply about. What the parents want shouldn't come into it, whatever their sex or sexuality.

What if the “woman” who gives birth is a transman and wishes to be noted as the “father”?
i agree with those who suggest we need two documents: one recording biological reality and one regarding social reality (ie who commits to raise the child and in what role?)

All I'm hearing in your block of text is "me me me". This is about the rights of the child, not the feelings of the adults around them.

A birth certificate should be a factual document, if it can be changed or have unrelated people on it then it becomes worthless. If anyone, male or female, who is not a blood relative wants parental rights then they should adopt the child and get an adoption certificate.

It’s quite clear from your post that you adore your children, but I’m puzzled at how you consider that without your external input they “literally wouldn’t be the people they are today”.
None of that overturns biological reality.

All I'm hearing in your block of text is "me me me". This is about the rights of the child, not the feelings of the adults around them.

@mumarooni I agree with you that you have parental involvement from the outset as one of the adults who planned to conceive a child. Same as my dad ("social father" in the DC lexicon). The debate here needs to be about biological parentage and legal parental responsibility, which are two separate things, both important.

It has already been tested in court. A female who gives birth will be recorded as the mother in the UK.

They are not step parents. That is hugely offensive.

That was a really mean, unnecessary comment. Fwiw I agree with her post but even if I didnt you are being spiteful.

@Inamuddle36 a recent court case in the UK established that being a transman doesn't affect the recording of the woman who gave birth as the mother on the birth certificate.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/16/trans-man-loses-uk-legal-battle-to-register-as-his-childs-father

Lesbian parents aren’t step parents though - they are parents, just not by biology. No objection to a bio section and a parenting section thought

An incredible post. Thank you for being so raw and honest and sharing that with us.
Ignore the spiteful posters. You sound like a wonderful parent.

the talk of birth certificates on the KJK is a Nazi thread made me go and look at those of my DC

Nothing to add save that 'Father' is listed first and then 'Mother' underneath. Plus ca change eh?

And on the subject of the mother being able to name the father on the BC, you can only do this if you're married, so you take your marriage certificate off the the register office with you when you register the birth.

if you're not married, the man who is being named as the father needs to come along to the register office in person

And that may be all that is needed at the moment. Another section.

Yes, I suspect that the OP had not read much of that thread before jumping in to vilify KJK and must have missed all the points being discussed. Just joined in to further demonise someone their mates have a sin page up and running for. I wonder if this has been added....