Baby could become first person born in England or Wales without a legal mother

Very significant and crucial point made by Jamieandwordswo Thankyou for your post. This is not just about the feelings of this individual transman. It is the child’s identity document not the parents’, so the child’s right to accurate information about their identity must come first, as well as considering the wider implications of any decision. I’m not clear though that permitting a certificate naming only a father necessarily endangers the rights of a child to be registered to only a mother. But absolutely, the importance of a mother’s name on a birth certificate needs to be respected.

Are there not any circumstances where a birth certificate can already be issued without a mother being named? What happens for a child found abandoned? Or for a child legally adopted by two men - or one man, for that matter - my understanding is that adoptive parents are re-written onto birth certificates of their children?

Whatever happens with the legal paperwork, this parent can raise their child with whatever beliefs about gender they like, and to call them whatever name they like too (to a point at least). We can’t legislate against this child being raised to call their TIF parent ‘Dad’, and nor should anyone want to, tbh. A rose by any other name and all. But I don’t believe that the state should collude with their beliefs to the extent of denying reality on another person’s identity document - this person gestated and birthed their child, they are that child’s biological mother, however they identify themselves.

Who is backing the case and what are the wider implications?

In Scotland, woman and female were redefined.
Fairplay for Women comment:

"Last year while we were all looking the other way and distracted by the UK government’s proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act the word woman was stolen from us. It was sneakily done by the Scottish parliament and hidden behind a smoke screen. That smoke screen was The Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill.

The Bill introduced the ‘gender representation objective’ – a target that women should make up 50% of non-executive board membership.

The purpose of this bill was admirable. It was to help women overcome the institutional sexism we suffer due to our sex. Positive action to redress the imbalances that have arisen from centuries of historical disadvantage. It was to acknowledge the reality that institutionalised inequality and sexist attitudes stop most women from reaching their full potential in public life. Financial barriers, income inequality, the gender pay gap, sexist attitudes, gender stereotyping, women’s disproportionate share of caring responsibilities, the undervaluing of women’s paid work, and media portrayals of women, to name but a few influences, all play a role in the sexism that prevents a fair number of women being involved in public life.

But in a cruel twist of irony it was also to be the perfect trojan horse to steal the very meaning of the words woman and female from us." (continues)

fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

And that has unpleasant overtones of the abortion debate, in which the woman's body is a matter of public, rather than private, issue.

I agree some of the comments are getting over the top but come on - this has nothing to do with a woman's body (apart from the obvious problem that the "woman" in this case says he is, in fact, a man.)

Once the baby is born, he/she is an entirely separate human being - with her own body and rights. The birth cert isn't an opportunity for the parent to push forward an agenda dear to the parent's heart. It is a legal document recording the birth of the new human being - the mother and father are bit players - not stars of the show. The baby should have the facts recorded as accurately as possible. if she then wants to refer to the person who gave birth to her as "Daddy" away with her. But the fact is that a woman gave birth to a baby and passed on her mitochondrial dna to that baby.

I am adopted. I have a very visceral response to state-sponsored lies about recording the birth of children. And yet we seem to be going back there ...

But Polynerd this is a matter of public interest as if successful it will establish a legal precedent, and one that could have a significant impact on women and children (and potentially men too). It is also in the public domain as the court case is a matter of public record. No names are given and strict reporting restrictions are in place to make sure the child is not identified. I suppose there could be some parallel with abortion as it is a conflict of interest between mother and child, but I don't see that it is about the mother's body, but about rights associated with identity for both mother and child.

Oops pressed post by accident... The above point shows up the supposedly "intersectional" trans ideology as actually one for the privileged one per centers. Fuck the plebs.

*Millions of children have no citizenship or legal identity globally because mothers in many countries cannot register a birth alone. That is why it is a feminist issue and a human rights issue that the birth mother is the primary piece of information to get a baby a legal birth certificate.

That someone should start a legal case against such an important right as the birth mother being what allows legal registration is selfish beyond belief, given how important that principle is to establish globally for all children.*

Forgive my naivety but if this case were to succeed would it not essentially 'legally' recognise that a person can change sex, which is a biological impossibility, as well as gender.

To me it's a question of whether the parents rights superseded the child's. This legal document belongs to the child, and surely the child has a right for it to reflect their correct details.

I would be interested to see if the child has their own court appointed representative as really this is 2 issues, the parents needs in conflict with the child's rights.

Just wanted to thank @Jamieandwordswo for a frankly brilliant, succinct and educational post.

I'm finding the whole tone of this debate somewhat distasteful tbh. I am a reader and occasional posters on the FWR board and trans men are very, very rarely discussed. But oh look - when it comes to pregnancy they are fair game. And that has unpleasant overtones of the abortion debate, in which the woman's body is a matter of public, rather than private, issue.

I do absolutely confess, if I were of child baring age now I would not have children. I look at all my grand kids and I am more terrified than I have ever been.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

But then after a relatively short amount of time out in the wider world your child would understand that this claim that you are a man, and were a man before they were born, is completely at odds with anything you are telling him about your part in their genetic heritage, conception and/or gestation and birth. This will be very distressing for the child who will feel misled about personal, fundamental truths to their identity. They are not going to give a crap what the GRA certificate says, if they haven’t been told the truth they will be very distressed.

This exactly. I wish the wokesters would engage their collective brain a tad more.

Sorry for that long saga above.

Can’t interested parties ask the court to make points of argument in cases of public interest such as in a case like this? I wonder if that is happening in this case with the general Register office (they are part of passports)?
www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/

This is another attempt to juggle up language, again.

Make vocabulary meaningless.

Not RTFT and not a lawyer but I can’t see how this case could succeed, legally speaking.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (right to respect for private and family life), incorporates the right to personal identity. There is also Article 14, the anti-discrimination provision.

As I understand it, this combination of rights would seek to defend the rights of all individuals to the information necessary for an understanding of their personal identity.

So in this scenario as the parent you would be saying to your child that you are a man who was pregnant with them, also that you were a man before they were born, despite you being at that point being able to make eggs/carry a pregnancy, which only females’ bodies can do.

and you would be saying to your child that they were either born from your female ‘man’s’ body (or were born from a surrogate’s female body, the female who had carried your female ‘man’s’ egg that you had added male sperm to into an embryo and then asked the surrogate to carry for you to grow into a baby).

But then after a relatively short amount of time out in the wider world your child would understand that this claim that you are a man, and were a man before they were born, is completely at odds with anything you are telling him about your part in their genetic heritage, conception and/or gestation and birth. This will be very distressing for the child who will feel misled about personal, fundamental truths to their identity. They are not going to give a crap what the GRA certificate says, if they haven’t been told the truth they will be very distressed.

We know this is true, from closed adoption which is why we don’t do this any more in the UK-we don’t keep the fact of the adoption secret from the child because we have seen that allowing people to grow up not being told the truth of their origins can be very emotionally damaging to them.

This is not to say that people can’t explain to their kids about their transition to ‘live as’ a man or a woman in an age-appropriate way. Nor to say that people can’t ask their kids to treat them in a way that feels appropriate to the parent’s ideas of who they are.

But it can’t ever be OK to pretend to your child that you have always been a man or always been a woman, when your relationship to them is living proof of the biological facts.

Putting father on your child’s birth certificate to match what it says on your GRA, is an obfuscation of biological fact by legal fiction.

There isn’t anything wrong with legal fictions per se, but only when they are beneficial. This would not be a legal fiction of advantage to the child, and it well could be of enormous emotional detriment to them if they are not told of their parent’s history and transition.

Even if children are told of the transition history by their trans parent/s, the mother as listed on the birth certificate (i think) should be the woman-bodied-person who gave birth to them.

(If in a surrogacy arrangement then there are legal provisions available to transfer the legal parenthood from the surrogate to the intended mother).

This seems most respectful of the child and most likely to contribute to the information necessary for an understanding of their personal identity as is the human right of everyone to have available to them.

I thought the mother was always the person who carried the baby. So donated egg would still be the birth mother, if you use a surrogate in the UK, she is the birth mother regardless of who's egg it was, she has parental responsibility and goes on the birth certificate, parental responsibility is then signed over to the intended parents.

You allow this it opens up all sorts of doors for what can go on the certificate. It's a BIRTH certificate it's supposed to say who you are and who you were born to.

This is appalling. Biological fact should not be overridden by self identify.

It's a bit like when someone discovers their sister is really their mother

Ted Bundy apparently found out his grandmother was his mother in his teens and it's often cited in biographies as one reason (of other arguably more important ones) he was psychologically fucked up. So it's not a weird OTT idea that it's not good for children to be lied to about their parents/origins but clearly one many people share.

I’m now even more enraged by this ‘human rights’ action by this ‘parent’.

I know, while these whiney navel gazers disappear up their own fundament.....

Thanks for that link.

I’m now even more enraged by this ‘human rights’ action by this ‘parent’.

More mental than the mental thing.

Just discussing it with my 15 year old son. 'Stranger than fiction' was his summary.

Yes, thank you Jamieandwordswo.

Millions of children have no citizenship or legal identity globally because mothers in many countries cannot register a birth alone. That is why it is a feminist issue and a human rights issue that the birth mother is the primary piece of information to get a baby a legal birth certificate.

It is. It absolutely is.

plan-international.org/birth-registration/count-every-child-birth-registration

It's a bit like when someone discovers their sister is really their mother.