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.

As far as I can see, there’s no way for two people (or indeed, any single person) to have a child that isn’t fraught with potential difficulties - as I understand it from the many parents I know, parenthood is complicated and often challenging (though obviously ultimately rewarding and entirely worthwhile for many people).

I don’t get the impression that the same sex couples I know who are parents face any greater difficulties than the opposite sex couples.

The type of difficulties I’m talking about are the ones about creating the baby and needing to get opposite sex gametes, meaning that there will be a gamete gooseberry whether you want to sweep it under the rug and deny your child access to half their genetic family, or you choose openness and face up to the reality of that person and have a friendly relationship with them, which is in the best interests of the child.

What if the donor or the donors family don’t want a relationship or responsibility for the child? It’s very different to accept that an adult may contact you and want to meet you/get to know you compared to a child who requires care and support turning up?

That then becomes a rejection which isn’t actually necessary for the child to experience, that’s quite damaging?

Or what if the donor disagrees with parenting decisions made by those with PR, he could then take the family to court and petition for rights/custody. Even if he doesn’t “win” that’s an intrusive and invasive court process that would likely be detrimental for the child.

What if the donor or the donors family don’t want a relationship or responsibility for the child? It’s very different to accept that an adult may contact you and want to meet you/get to know you compared to a child who requires care and support turning up?

This is no different from naturally conceived children.

Or what if the donor disagrees with parenting decisions made by those with PR, he could then take the family to court and petition for rights/custody. Even if he doesn’t “win” that’s an intrusive and invasive court process that would likely be detrimental for the child.

I would imagine that the donor giving up their rights so quickly as a donor - signing them away before conception, would work against them when it came to custody and they would need an extremely high threshold for parental abuse/neglect to be allowed to challenge the parents. Again, there being some risk of this happening is no different from naturally conceived children.

But it IS different from naturally conceived children because the child in that situation would already have loving parents and would not have to experience that rejection. You’re argument is that it is always better for children to have a relationship with their biological family - but that’s not a guarantee, and a rejection would be nothing but harmful, definitely not better.

It feels as if you’re actually quite idealistic in respect of how donors and their families (some families which would have developed after the initial donation occurred) would react to a child turning up (not an adult child).

*your sorry not you’re

What makes you think children don’t feel rejected by their donor? Two loving adoptive parents can’t take away the feeling of rejection at being relinquished.

Adoption is vastly different. Most adoptions in the UK are not of newborn babies and occur as a result of harm from the birth family environment (abuse or neglect). Our social security systems and access to safe abortion care mean that voluntary surrenders of babies for adoption are vanishingly rare, and most babies removed at birth spend time in foster care before moving on to adoption which is in itself an additional trauma.

Babies born from donors in a planned way, raised by their legal parents from birth and provided with a safe and loving home develop secure attachments to their family and don’t experience rejection by their donor as long as it is part of their narrative that there is a donor and that this is different from a parent.

Completely different from adoption.

Unless you think babies and children have some kind of “genetic memory” of being a sperm/egg and therefore feel a loss if the provider of that gamete isn’t present which is fine if you believe that but there’s no evidence to support it.

A child asks ‘who is my dad’?
The parent says ‘he is a donor, we’ve never met him’
Followed by a discussion on how such a thing is possible and the child turns it all over in their mind (like a child who has been adopted).
They come back ‘can I meet my dad?’
Big discussion about why that’s not possible, child turns that all over in their mind (like a child who has been adopted).
Feelings of frustration, powerlessness, anger, betrayal - and yes - rejection.

But that isn’t what happens, you start when the child is a baby/toddler with picture books explaining how families all look different, some have a mum and dad, some have two mums, or two dads, some have step-parents, some children are raised by grandparents etc…

Then you introduce the idea of donation (there are books for this aimed at young children).

If the child asks to meet their donor, then you can explain that they can do so when they are an adult.

I’ve attached some books designed to support parents who use donor sperm to explain this to children. These books are inclusive of both male and female couples and same-sex female couples

https://www.cryosinternational.com/en-gb/dk-shop/private/blog/childrens-books-about-donor-conception/

Then there’s loads of options for books about different families, these are often inclusive of adoption or special guardianship too

This is one of many:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-About-Families-First-Book/dp/147494907X/ref=asc_df_147494907X/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310871971371&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6727330974611572922&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046769&hvtargid=pla-564364350688&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

Of course best practise with adoption, donors, etc, is always to tell the child as early as possible and keep them informed, however it doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

The facts are that their parents took the ‘gimme ya gametes and eff off’ approach to procreation, because that’s what suited them, and their dad to the ‘squirt and forget’ approach. It’s a pretty crappy thing when the callousness dawns upon them, no matter how many nicely illustrated story books, which try to normalise and obfuscate it, are read to them.

The reason all this additional explanation is required is to dampen the blow, but the blow is still there, though sold to them in a gaslighting kind of way like it’s a good thing they should be grateful for.

I agree with @stargirl1701. As our definition of the family changes, the official documents need to keep up.

They don’t have a “dad” they have a donor. A dad implies some active role - more than just a genetic link. I’d argue father also implies that.

A donor doesn’t “reject” their child, they donate their sperm to allow other people to create a family. Again family, parent, mother, father these are all words that encompass far more than just a genetic link. It’s why you often hear absent or abusive fathers referred to as “sperm donor”. They have not evidenced fatherhood they’ve just donated sperm (and in those case have actually rejected or harmed their child).

In a situation where you ask a friend to be your sperm donor, “Uncle James” who lives down the road doesn’t become your baby’s father, and it’s much harder to explain THAT situation to a child than when it’s just an anonymous donor.

The situation in the UK is actually the opposite of “squirt and forget”. Donors accept that they can be contacted, but they also accept that might never happen as it’s up to the child to instigate it. It is incredibly selfless to know you have offspring in the world but know you won’t be able to contact them or know more or see the adults they will become. Especially if you’re then unable to have children you raise yourself which could happen. That’s the exact opposite of doing it for your own ends.

Why not say ‘James is your dad but me and your ma have full custody, care and control of you, we are your legal parents’. Done. No lies, no B.S.

Really? You think that would be better, easier, and less complicated for the child?

I’m concerned you don’t actually understand children, attachment, or child development at all.

This is a completely pointless conversation because you’re just adamant you’re right despite all the actual evidence to the contrary. At this point I’m just hopeful other people read it and feel reassured that the kids are alright in same-sex parent families.

Of course it would be easier for the child. 🫤

All the alternatives you are suggesting are just those which offer the parents the maximum control for their own benefit.

This whole conversation seems to sit in a twilight zone of self-soothing lies repeated by people who who want a heterosexual nuclear family structure which nature won’t endow them, and their denial about it. It would all be harmless enough if it wasn’t in opposition to the rights of the child.

I think actually the maximum control would be to have a one-night stand and say you don’t know who the dad is, which is much more likely if you legislate for this bizarre approach you are suggesting of forcing donors to be named all the way through.

Numerous people have tried to explain to you why what you are suggesting would be significantly more detrimental to children than the current situation.

I do think that we need to address the problem of male/female couples lying to their children about using sperm donors though. But seeing as the HFEA has those records perhaps they should just write to all donor conceived children when they reach 18 to provide the information. But seeing as a lesbian couple can’t obfuscate the fact that sperm is involved and obviously didn’t come from either of the child’s mothers it shouldn’t really change anything for them.

It appears you have a very deeply rooted view that many/all children who are created by the use of donor eggs and/or sperm will feel upset (abandoned, betrayed, deceived, rejected) if/when they come to understand that some or all of their genetic material came from someone other than their parents (by which I mean the people who are raising and caring for them, who chose to bring them into the world). Correct?

if so, my understanding is that is very much not what the evidence of many years of use of donor sperm (and fewer years of donor eggs) shows. I am not of course claiming that no child has ever felt that way.

That’s a nice soothing argument isn’t it? Feels better to say it.

Or perhaps you just have some unfounded beliefs about what is best for children, which happen to sit in opposition to the legitimate interests of same sex couples and those who suffer infertility?

Assuming it’s not just veiled homophobia, obviously.

Your view is so far from considering the rights of the child (as expressed in previous posts) I can’t take it seriously if you are adopting a more neutral-sounding stance.

I’m soothed by the evidence Tangled, but by all means continue to get all riled up by your own unfounded conspiracy theories. Just hope you don’t have any opportunity to spout your nonsense in person to real families and children who might be distressed by it.

I know that my take isn’t going to go down well here and @loopsdefruit I imagine there are real families who will be distressed by it, here on this thread. Once you have created the family, it’s not like you can uncreate it, so it will sting if someone says they think you’ve been unethical and non-child-centred.

What I have learned from the trans thing is that you have to go there, you have to get to the crux, even if people who are personally affected will be offended. I personally know blokes who have manufactured and bought babies from surrogate mothers, I won’t mention my disapproval to them, but when I was asked directly to contribute to a crowdfunder for access to a surrogate mother, I let them know that I was ethically opposed and wouldn’t be contributing.

This is a conversation that needs having urgently because it’s all so normalised now.