The right to know one’s genetic origins should not be recognised as a moral right because it protects no important interest. The knowledge of one’s genetic origin is neither sufficient nor necessary for the construction of one’s identity. The suffering of some donor-conceived people is based on the misconception that this knowledge is necessary. The empirical evidence generated by psychological research on donor-conceived families has shown convincingly that not knowing that one is donor conceived and knowing about one’s donor conception but not knowing one’s donor does not lead to significant differences in psychological well-being and family functioning. A new argument by some people who favour donor identifiability is that donor anonymity can no longer be guaranteed. Although correct, this fact has no implications for the normative claim about the right to know. If anonymity was agreed between donor and recipients, this agreement should be respected even when, or especially when, it can be broken.