Transgender man gives birth and wants to be recorded as baby's father

What the birth mother intends to identify as going forwards has nothing to do with the birth.

and also that the birth mother intends to identify as the father going forwards.

why is this necessary? Why? Because of the feelings of the parent - not the purpose of the recording of birth.

My birth certificate records my mother and my father unknown. it doesn't record that my mother intended to place me for adoption or was going to identify as an unknown person to me or that my mother was desperately unhappy at placing me for adoption. it just says what happened. X gave birth to Y on this time and date and place.

People are saying "what does it matter, no one looks at their birth cert etc." Well if it doesn't matter, why can't it not matter to the woman giving birth instead of "adjusting" the truth for the baby.

but a birth certificate is a record of a birth - not of an intention to be a responsible parent? Why would you be adding all those guardians etc? And what if the guardians bugger off in a year's time - does the poor child still need their consent for a passport? Or would it just be a "feel-good" inclusion on a record of birth.

Record the birth - it isn't a certificate of parenting it is simply a record of birth.

Then record any adoptions etc after that. separate legal documents (all of which should be available to the child who is the subject matter of them)

Pallisers Agreed! The birth certificate should be a clear record of the truth at their birth.

In this instance that would mean the birth mother being stated on the certificate, the biological father as unknown (which I think is the case here?) and also that the birth mother intends to identify as the father going forwards.

Popchyk Perhaps the certificate should have:
Birth Mother
Biological Father (If known)
Responsible Parent/Guardian 1 (or some other suitable phrase) and how they would like to be identified.
Responsible Parent/Guardian 2 as above

Jamie Thank you for clarifying!

It is a bad sign for the future of the child for the record of their birth to be being used in this way by the parents.

Listener - I presume you were conventionally conceived, with married parents who have raised you. Your failure of imagination is a bit depressing. I can retell you - from personal experience- that birth certificates are enormously important if you don't have a conventional parenting set up

This sums it up for me. People are looking at this from the point of view of the person giving birth - his feelings etc (I use "his" out of courtesy - of course he is a woman as he is giving birth but pronouns don't always bother me)

I look at it from the point of view of the child whose birth is recorded - the main player in all of this I think the record of someone's birth should prioritise their needs and the needs of the state - not the feelings of the person giving birth. The truth is the simplist way of approaching any issue imo.

And the state refers to a child’s birth certificate as ‘their certificate’ i.e. the child’s.

The birth certificate includes only the birth mother, her husband or wife or the unmarried father if present.

Presumably when the child is 18, they can go to court to get the correct information on their own birth certificate.

And what if the mother changes her mind about identifying as a man in five years or so? Presumably they'd want the birth certificate changed again?

I'm guessing you could have a situation where a person is mother to one child and father to another child? Or both a mother and a father to one child.

What if they identified as non-binary (both mother and father or neither)? What do you put on the birth certificate then?

And this is a quite unusual case where the biological father is unknown. In most cases, the mother and father of a child are known. And that just opens up even more cans of worms.

What if the biological father were on the scene and did not agree that the child has another father? Which father wins that argument? How do you order the fathers in the birth certificate? Who goes first? How do you specify which one of them gave birth to the child?

What if the biological father identifies as a woman? And wants to be described as Mother on the birth certificate? Where does that leave the actual biological mother?

Is the biological father entitled to maternity leave if the birth certificate states that they are the Mother of this child?

bewilderness I'm not sure what the contradiction is? The birth certificate can be both a state document and include birth mother, father and legal guardians can't it?

It is a record of a live birth. It does not include any information about how the child will be brought up.

I think its fair for them all to be recognised/acknowledged on the birth certificate.

Why if it is simply a document that belongs to the state that records a child's birth?
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I absolutely agree! It should record the child's mother - I'm not disputing that. It sounds like the person that is taking this to court wants to avoid that though.

In this instance it would seem that the truth for the child is that the birth mother intends to bring the child up as it's father and this truth should also be noted.

It also records the father and in the case of surrogates and same sex couples their names too. I think its fair for them all to be recognised/acknowledged on the birth certificate.

But if the birth mother then intends to then be the father ...

The birth mother is the birth mother is the birth mother. That's what the birth certificate records.

Prawn From the little research I've done the birth certificate doesn't belong to any individual - it is a matter of public record.

I agree it should reflect the real circumstances and should state the birth mother. But if the birth mother then intends to then be the father then it should also reflect the real circumstances of that.

Listener the baby's birth certificate is the baby's, not the mother's. That means it should reflect the real circumstances of the baby's birth, not be a talisman for the greater glory of some narcissist's gender identity.

"I honestly cannot understand this. I can understand someone who truly believes that they have been born into the wrong body and therefore choose to change the outward appearance of their body to align with how they feel but I cannot understand not "feeling" like a woman and yet doing the most female of things."

To them, the same way women can have dicks, men can give birth.

Because to them it's all just a feeling. Sex doesn't matter, i.e. sex functions (providing sperm or giving birth) are irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not in good faith".

You said:

" The thing that is paramount to me is that this is the child's birth certificate, not their parent's. It's a legal document that belongs to the child."

If it's paramount is that it is a legal document belonging to the child, I don't see how it is splitting hairs to say that the document doesn't belong to the child as that was the basis of your argument.

Orchid I may have misunderstood. I thought your previous argument was based on the premise that the birth certificate belonged to the child. Therefore the parents requesting changes to be made to it was unfair to the child as they shouldn't have the right to impact another persons birth certificate in this way.

If the certificate is a matter of public record and doesn't actually belong to a specific person but to the state (?) then that wouldn't apply.

Orchid I mentioned this in a previous post but my understanding is that the birth certificate is a document belonging to the government/council/state (??) families are provided with a copy of it therefore it doesn't belong to the parents or the child.

I've tried to verify this and haven't found a conclusive answer so I could be wrong.