Have you ever..felt a little uncomfortable..

[DavidG02]

Thank you for your response Guy

Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?

I thought this might come up    I raised same sex attraction because there are still stigmas with it. Especially from those of an earlier generation. Many of us now , as Guy pointed out , recognize that it is legal and it shouldn't be an issue.

But it still can be.

Would I specifically notate someone as heterosexual?  No but I could think of a few reasons why I would

[Guy Etchells]

Thank you for your response Guy

Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?

I thought this might come up    I raised same sex attraction because there are still stigmas with it. Especially from those of an earlier generation. Many of us now , as Guy pointed out , recognize that it is legal and it shouldn't be an issue.

But it still can be.

Would I specifically notate someone as heterosexual?  No but I could think of a few reasons why I would

Many homosexual individuals would be identified on a family tree in two ways, first by the sex of the individual and secondly by the sex of their partner. If they were not in a relationship I would not normally make any mention of their sexual orientation.

I would have more problem with intersexed individuals and to some extent a transgender person is more difficult to identify on a family tree.
No family tree programs as far as I am aware currently allow a third sex or even a transgender allocation.

This is a short coming of family tree programs not intersexed individuals or transgender individuals.

Cheers
Guy

[angie29]

What do you all think about this:-

Put in that which is subject to public record, leave out the family Chinese Whispers and title tattle ? Especially if your tree can be accessed via the internet?

A birth certificate will not tell you whether the child was born at term or premature.

Death certificates give a cause of death, which can then be researched. Sometimes parish registers give cause of death, if you're lucky, coroners' records gives cause of death of those investigated.

The 1911 census asks how many children have been born to a couple and how many are still living.

 Having said that, I have an original 5 January 1881 Fun Magazine, which among the recommendations for New Years Resolutions suggests:-

 "Must fill up the census-paper with truthful particulars as to my age and all the rest of it"

nil novi sub sole

[Andrew Tarr]

What do you all think about this:-

Put in that which is subject to public record, leave out the family Chinese Whispers and title tattle ? Especially if your tree can be accessed via the internet?

That seems reasonable, but I'm sure quite a bit of family folklore is reliable, especially if there is private documentation.  Your list omits other sources such as wills and newspapers, which can provide interesting sidelights on a person.

[mike175]

Sexual orientation and probably ethnicity are more sociology than genealogy. Family history includes both disciplines but sociological factors are often gossip and hearsay and belong in background notes, not necessarily to be shared like the genealogical facts.

Things are changing now but I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.

Mike.

[rachelralph]

i have mentioned this briefly on another post but i will put this is more detail here. my youngest 'brother' is biologically my brother from my mother. he would be classed as a half brother he has a different father. his father is my mothers step father.

heres how it worked.
mum was made pregnant with her mothers husbands sperm (he was the 3rd husband and came into mums life when she was an adult)
she carried baby for 9 months (a surrogate) she then handed the baby to her mother and her mothers husband.
the registration of the babys birth was a tricky one. as my mother was biologically the mother she was listed as the mother. the father on the birth certificate though had to be my father as my mum was married to him. this did not please my father but at the time surrogacy was almost unheard of.
it all went to court so that parental responsibilty could be handed over to my mums mother and her husband. adoption was not an option as biologically the father just wanted parental responsibilty and needed not to adopt.
then my mums mother leaves her husband (number 3 remember! she does get through them!) and the baby grows up under her care with the biological father over 200 miles away. the boy has his biological fathers surname though.

if we are only going to record things are they are black and white in records. then unless you are lucky enough to stumble on the court records you will not see how this story works as the childs birth shows my mum and dads names as parents.

this has all been recorded in my tree, and although a lot of people find it hard to get to grips with i really couldnt care less. its facts as they are and if it offends you then dont listen/read/look.

[Andrew Tarr]

.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.

I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike).  Perhaps soon?

One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring.  I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details.  I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.

[mike175]

... I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.

I'm fairly certain the rules do say that, though I haven't checked.

Sorry about the missing  emoticon earlier . . . I've been told I can be a little sarcastic at times . . . it's in my genes . . . family trait  . . . but it isn't recorded in my family tree

Mike.

[Josephine]

Lots of good food for thought here (as always with Rootschatters!).

Best regards,
Josephine