Judge is going to rule on the 'landmark' case determining if a child can be born without a mother.

[R0wantrees]

Independent: 'Judge to decide whether baby can be first in UK history to be born without a mother in landmark trans rights case
Transgender parent says being forced to register as the child’s 'mother' breaches his human right to respect for privacy and family life'
(extract)
"The most senior Family Court judge in England and Wales is set to rule on a case involving a transgender man whose baby is at the centre of a historic human rights fight.

Lawyers say the baby could become the first person born in England or Wales who will not legally have a mother.

The baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery.

NHS faces legal action unless it offers trans people fertility service
Judges have heard that the man had been biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but had legally become male by the time the child was born.

He wants to be identified as the child's “father” or “parent” on a birth certificate but a registrar has told him that the law requires people who give birth to be registered as mothers." (continues)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-man-baby-birth-certificate-mother-trans-rights-landmark-case-family-court

UKTELI 'landmark case'

Jesus Christ! Stop the world, I want to get off!

My guiding star when making decisions and choices that affect my children is simply: Do the children benefit?

Just saying.

Not until Feb he's not!

So they had surgery when pregnant? I'm confused

"Trans women are women"
"Trans women are women with trans experience"
"Trans women are females"

"Trans women are mothers" ?

Probably not the point but imagine squeezing a baby out through your penis if you are actually their father....

adulthumanfemail
So they had surgery when pregnant? I'm confused
You don't need any surgery whatsoever to legally "change sex".

Okay this is a really stupid question
But how did he get pregnant ?
I may take my biology O level back as I must have actually failed

You don't need any surgery or treatment to change your legal sex.

This should all have been actually thought about and resolved when the changes were made to allow people to change legal sex. It seems a no brainer that this situation might occur. What should be done about birth certificates for children born into these situations should have been considered. Change them to say "Mother/Parent 1 (person who gave birth to the child)", or something like that. Definitely no need to create another legal fiction and record someone as a father where it is known without doubt they are the mother of that child.

I think depriving a child of its mother is a much bigger 'breach of human rights' and downright bloody selfish as well.

@Budgieinaberet this person is biologically female, was born female. To legally become male doesn't require any hormone treatment or surgery. So they would have been able to get pregnant though usual PIV sex, or through self-insemination of donor sperm.

How he has sex or conceived is a private matter. What parent he wishes to be referred to as is a private matter. What biologically female issues he deals with post labour is weirdly also none of your concern and I’m sure his dr. can help him be appropriately treated as required.

What on earth do you all care? And it’s a gross overstep to demand you know how his body worked or looks or functions or is treated. Private. Just like our medical records.

I get that, but how could she have been living as a man when she got pregnant
HQ please don't delete this for me using the wrong pronouns as this can't be explained in any other way

What on earth do you all care?

It directly affects more than just the adult involved.

Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth

Soon none of us will be "of woman born", it seems.
What harm? None, apparently.

I echo the PP above: whose rights are most important in this matter?

I'm just amazed that someone with a new baby thinks that the priority is to conduct a groundbreaking court case. I'm also very fed up with people wanting to rewrite the dictionary to suit their very, very rare circumstance. It's all very 'me, me, me'.

Budgie how could she have been living as a man when she got pregnant

All it takes to "live as a man" is to believe you are doing so - dress, pronouns, bodily modifications perhaps such as breast binders. How you have sex or reproduce are not defined.

Presumably this person acquired a GRC whilst pregnant.

How are you living as a man whilst being pregnant?

Surely the GRC should be revoked.

Lots of people are going to be very confused by this. HideandGo would prefer to simply shame people into not asking questions. That's point number one.

For those confused, this person will have been born female so, being in possession of a female reproductive system, they can conceive and bear a child. How it happened is irrelevant. What they personally choose as their name with their kids is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether it right, in law, to no longer record the mother of a child as 'mother'. As always, the best question to ask when this kind of change is on the table is Cui Bono - who benefits? Will the child? Will wider society?

What parent he wishes to be referred to as is a private matter.
No. No it fucking isn't. The parentage of a child is a matter of public record!

And it makes what exact difference that public record states that the father of the child is X (mans name).

But who then is the mother?

It says in the article that "The baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery."

So, when was the surgery done?