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

This is not a question about parents who trans, that clearly happens occasionally, it’s a question about what should be on the birth certificate and what birth certificates are for.

Women used to have to go to court in order to put the truth on a BC, Now they want the right to lie on a legal document that belongs to the child.

Do posters who think the trans person here has got a good case, also think that if you changed legal sex after you’ve had children and after you’ve registered their births, that you should then be able to go back and revise their birth certificate/s in light of your new GRA certificate changing your legal sex?

(This is a power GRA certs don’t give at the moment).

If people don’t agree with doing that, why not? What’s different about making certification to suit an adult’s perception of themselves, at the initial birth registration?

This is not a question about parents who trans, that clearly happens occasionally, it’s a question about what should be on the birth certificate and what birth certificates are for.

Orchid Yes, I was and apologies for that comment I was being flippant.

I do agree that the birth certificate should include the details of the birth mother. It's important that they have accurate information when needing proof for official documentation. As mentioned previously, in this instance I think the person identifying as father should be able to have that included on the certificate, they should also be recognised as the birth mother.

@AssassinatedBeauty except for that case where two lesbians went to court to be recorded as mother and mother on the child's birth certificate... but it's far more convenient to forget that happens right?

Agreed Orchid. Also important to have facts on a child’s birth written down legally in one place in a way that the child and any official people around them can access.
Relationships between parents break down, adults can be shitty to each other and they can each want the child to have ‘their’ version of the ‘truth’. Self Identification in and out of motherhood or fatherhood is not OK for any child in any family set up.

Yes, so simple to explain to a child who sees every other child with a mummy.

The fact that a child sees other children with a mummy and they are with their dad certainly isn't too difficult. This happens when a mother dies or a father brings up a child or when gay fathers bring up a child.

In the case of this person a 'father' is asking to register himself with no mention of s mother. If this is permitted and the process is changed what is to stop a biological father from doing the same?

Perhaps someone who knows more about the legal process can reassure me? One reason many of us worry about virtually all things trans is because at the cutting edge of liberal correctness, which often filters into the main stream, the word 'woman' now means people who dress and act feminine. This is an unintended consequence of the expectation that society must reinforce trans gender people's perceptions of themselves. So the word 'mother' will mean a person's parent who behaves in a feminine way and believes themselves to be female.

That said - as above I think it should be explicit that the person who is their father should explain that they also gave birth to the child

Yes, so simple to explain to a child who sees every other child with a mummy.

I don't think this person is necessarily going to be a bad parent and I do dislike the tone of the statements about them (personally) but I am very concerned about the change in language and the fact that the word mother could lose its current legal meaning. In doing so, it threatens mothers rights surely (as in the rights of the people who have carried the babies in their wombs)

Prawn I'm not sure that what is on the birth certificate would be damaging. I'm nearly 40 and I can't remember when I saw my birth certificate - life goes on whatever is on there isn't damaging me! As per my previous posts I think the birth certificate should state the birth mother and also have space to name the person identifying as the father. In this instance it would be the same person - but presumably with different names.

You are making assumptions that the person is delusional and self obsessed and what they will/won't tell the child. Neither of us know what the reality of that is. However if there is an attempt to hide that I agree that it would be inappropriate. At some point the issue will have to be addressed but when that happens is up to the family.

Orchid I think saying it is a lie wouldn't be helpful. If the father brings the child up as the father and the child recognises that parent as their father in the way that really matters they ARE the father - it isn't a lie.

That said - as above I think it should be explicit that the person who is their father should explain that they also gave birth to the child and was their birth mother but then changed. They can still have conversations about tummy mummy's etc and that conversation can be had.

The Times take on it. The comments are good.

But he isnt the father. He's the mother. It's not remotely like a gay couple or an adoption. In neither case is there an actual and damaging lie on the certificate.

And I stick to my point that anyone so delusional and self obsessed is unlikely to tell the poor kid the truth until or unless it becomes unavoidable.

I imagine grieving for a mother so removed that even my dad doesn't know her name...

Prawnofhtepatriarchy You're making quite a few assumptions about the parent.

He isn't using the courts to lie on a birth certificate, he is using the courts to ask to be recognised as the father on the birth certificate.

The family set up may not be typical but with support there's no reason the child won't understand it. There was similar thinking around same sex couples bringing up children and the detrimental effects/confusion that would bring. None of it has proved to be well founded. I expect the same will be true in transgender families.

The person bringing this case is a deluded narcissist. If she's prepared to attempt to use the courts to enable her to lie on her baby's birth certificate, I find it impossible to believe that she'll tell her DC the truth in an age appropriate way. Her priorities are all too plain

Children are more affected by the absence of a mother than a father. If I had grown up sad that I had no mum - not even the name of my mum - and then discovered that my mum had been there all the time, that what was missing was my dad I'd feel terribly betrayed. It's the sort of crap that leaves people needing years of therapy.

Babelfish just to emphasise as it didn't come across. I do fully agree re your sentiments on children not being able to explore their identity outside of narrow, highly sexualised gender identities.

And that people who genuinely benefit from permanent medicalised changes to sex may be a very small group & it is of utmost importance not to inadvertently categorise people who will be harmed by the same procedures into that group.

I guess, re the bunfight issue - you can have legitimate concerns as above and still be pro acceptance and reduced stigma, pro necessary legal protections for trans people. And be feminist. It's about balance and proportionality. As I've said I'm not been very invested in this debate - precisely because the threads all seem to be about sharing outrage, no sense of proportion, no sense of innocent bystanders, and very much picking sides and labels. You say something in defence of a trans person and you are a "TRA" (I actually had to look up what it stands for). You voice a valid worry about frightening sexually motivated men from entering a women's bathroom, or an issue about menstruation, and you are a "TERF" (I do know what that one means!). Everyone just fights. I got sucked in on this thread and became a bit indignant too. Such is the Internet I guess.

It’s not about a single transwoman using a ladies loo though. What will happen if self ID goes ahead is the following:

Men who are not trans, but are predatory will be able to access female spaces. And they will - predatory men will use any loophole they can to access victims.

Women will have no right to challenge them. The social convention that marks out a man in the ladies as a danger will be gone. Where changing rooms have become unisex in the USA, voyeuristic and sexual crime against women has tripled

If self ID goes ahead, men will be able to self identify into women’s prisons. Not in a case by case basis, there will be no way of refusing them. Women have already been harmed by this.

Safeguarding provisions will be damaged. Children of both sexes will be at risk. Take the girl guides for example - parents are already not being informed if a male bodied person is sharing a tent with their daughters. Right now GG has all female leadership which is in itself protective - men cannot access it. If self iD comes in, how many predatory men do you think will decide being a guide leader or volunteer is a good idea and will allow them access to girls? Note that I’m not actually talking about transwomen here at all - I’m talking about predatory men who will exploit any loophole they can.

Oh but men wont do that... they do. They have. They will.

Almost all our child safeguarding rules and procedures were brought in after awful crimes exposed loopholes in safety procedures. Ian Huntley was able to get a job as a school caretaker despite previous convictions because there was no national system of linked up background checking. There is now, because of that crime. (Huntley now identifies as a woman by the way, if that’s in any way relevant.)

Will someone who committed a crime as a man be able to be picked up in DBS checks? No one seems to know.

Will self ID mean that men are allowed access to children where they were not previously? Yup. Already happening (see girl guides.) TRA groups are pressing for confidential disclosure in schools - ie if a child tells a teacher they’re trans, that teacher can keep the confidence- that is simply an abusers charter.

So that’s just plain old men. Who have always tried to abuse women and kids, and will do so using any loophole they can.

What about transwomen? Well studies show they are no more or less dangerous than men in general. They retain the offending pattern of their sex even after transition.

So no one is saying all transwomen are a danger. They’re not. What they are is as dangerous as any other Male, and that’s why they do not belong in female only spaces, or in any arena where men are excluded for safeguarding.

This really is no longer a live and let live situation. It’s a small but powerful group of people actively trying to remove the protections of women and children.

I have to say I don't know anything about medical transition. But of course having concerns about children with gender problems and how to manage those (and specifically about irreversible procedures) are very legitimate!

Of course the concern about men (and some trans women) coming into female spaces and making them unsafe is legitimate. I feel sorry for trans people who are just trying to live their lives and have no involvement in that. I think it's also important to recognise how at risk they are too (generally not from women but from men). But it's also important for women to have places that are safe. I don't have an answer to that! It's not a debate I've particularly engaged in or thought too much about.

To get back to the topic of this thread however, a person born biologically female who transitions to male has absolutely nothing to do with men using women's bathrooms. They aren't a man invading a female space and making it unsafe (most of the posters here are very insistent that this person is woman!). It isn't threatening to anyone. There's no reason not to believe they are a for want of a better term, a "normal" trans person, in a difficult situation, trying to do and make what's best of their circumstances. Or that they can't or won't be a good parent.

For people to get this blown up over what is written on a birth certificate, and make all of these horrible assumptions, has really nothing to do with feminism, is disproportionate, seems to me it actually undermines more legitimate and proportionate concerns re intersection of trans and women's rights.

It feels like, because people are concerned about some potentially harmful parts of the trans movement, that they have become totally against all things trans. To me this is just a parent making a decision about what they think will be best on a birth certificate in quite an unusual situation where there isn't a perfect fit. None of the options are ultimately that difficult to understand or have any where the level of impactfulness as basics relating to how the child will be raised. So it should be the parent's decision without them facing vitriol.

Believe me I have to have encounters with parents all the time when I might disagree with their approach to child rearing! But it's important not to villainise or abuse or assume.

Bowl, I wish there was some way of forcing all MPs to read that last post. I am not a medic or scientist, just a concerned member of the public (and a mother) and I can't understand why the risks to children are not causing more concern in the corridors of power.

I haven't rtft but this just screams of having your fucking cake and eating it.