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

Plus, if you have external male genitalia you cannot give birth.

@shrimpi - If you are a doctor, as you claim, then you know that you are female if you have XX chromosomes. Identity is irrelevant.

@TerfsUp

Yes you can. I am a doctor. An example would be some people with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. In this condition there are internal female organs but male external genitalia and often a male identity.

If you want me to blow your mind we can talk about true hermaphrodites.

@PetraDelphiki

Medical records already exist for this purpose and are confidential.

What you propose would mean that someone who has Turner's syndrome, for example, would have to reveal this to all sorts of parties (their employer, for marriage registration, to obtain a passport) even if they didn't want to. That would be very unfair and open some people to discrimination.

We have a variety of legal documents that allow people to be clear on their current and previous identify, without having to reveal their medical or conception history.

@shrimpi: it is not possible to imagine the scenario you put forth as it is biologically impossible. You cannot have XX chromosomes, a uterus and be born with male genitalia.

The "male physique", birth certificate, sex of spouse and type of sex (anal sex is also penetrative) are irrelevant to your argument, which lacks any kind of coherence or logic.

Maybe we need to completely change birth certificates...maybe we need genetic parent (xx) genetic parent (xy) genetic parent (other eg mitochondrial dna), then legal parent one/two, and genetic test all babies to put chromosomal sex of child? All of these are factual and measurable, and only legal parentage can be changed.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Imagine the following: I am XX with a womb. But I also male genitals that I was born with, a male physique, a birth certificate where I am given as a boy, a wife with whom I have penetrative sex.

Am I a man or a woman? Does mumsnet get to decide? Or should I get to decide?

If I host a surrogate pregnancy for my sister following her hysterectomy, do I have to become a woman now?

This could be a reality for some people. So. I would say, of course having a womb and potentially being able to use it doesn't mean you are a woman.

Imagine having to explain it every time you had to submit your birth certificate for a new job, to get a passport, for student funding etc.

@Listener73

I think the situation is weird. But I don't use it as a derogatory term. Everybody's weird in their own ways.

Its says something about human nature that so many words that mean different or unusual are taken also to mean perverse, wrong or negative.

Because, obviously that person is in a weird middle place (both legally male, and biologically capable of pregnancy and childbirth). People seem to think being biologically capable of childbirth means you must be a woman, or have to be a woman

Of course to be biologically capable of childbirth means you must be a woman

This is the mess that legal fictions get you into. The individual in question is a woman, a female who is now legally recognised as a man.

Now the law will have to decide whether to add an additional legal fiction of a man being a mother, of a father being the birth mother.

Would be so much simpler if people could not be legally recognised as the opposite sex, and could instead accept themselves as masculine women, or feminine men.

Shrimpi I agree with your post "weird" bad choice of language.

The child will still have records of who gave birth to them. There will be an antenatal record of the pregnancy, delivery etc.

A birth certificate in practical terms exists for the purposes of identifying name, dob and legal parents at birth. Its not a record of the details of your conception.

This situation was never in mind so there isn't a clear answer on whether it makes more sense for a legally male person who gave birth to be given as "mother" or "father". Because, obviously that person is in a weird middle place (both legally male, and biologically capable of pregnancy and childbirth). People seem to think being biologically capable of childbirth means you must be a woman, or have to be a woman. But man, woman, father, mother are used as legal terms in our society (in any society). A birth certificate is a legal document not a medical one.

I would remind everyone that even in nature a very small number of people are true hermaphrodites possessing both male and female sex organs. Many others possess both male and female chromosomes. Should they not have children, if they are able to? Is it all too confusing? Or can we just, get over it?

I think, tbh, either mother or father on the birth certificate is acceptable. It's not a lie because one is medically true, and one is legally true. The law is used for purposes that don't tie in with the medical reality all of the time (take non biological dads given on the birth certificate). Medical records still exist and it really doesn't seem that important.

Even if their parent tells them, that birth certificate is a lie.

So what if the birth certificate is a lie so long as the parent's identity is validated? After all, what / how they feel is paramount.

ChattyLion If we don't allow people other than the biological parents to be legally recognised on a birth certificate then that may open a can of worms. Same sex couples etc being recognised on a legal document. If in this instance the person who gave birth would then like to legally become the father I don't see an issue. But as previously mentioned I think the birth mother should be logged too even if in this very niche case that is the same person. Removing the requirement to name the birth mother does seem strange!

Also I think think the birth certificate is a document of public office and a copy of that record is issued. I don't think the birth certificate belongs to the child or the parents - it belongs to the government/council. (I'm not sure this is true, it is just my understanding!)

Oops - should say "is important"!

Why does it matter to you how someone is recorded on their baby's birth certificate?

Because there are principles and values involved. And, often, those principles and values affect the whole of society - even those who think that although it doesn't affect them directly it isn't important.

Cf: I have a home so why should I care that other people are homeless? I am in good health, so why should I care about funding for the NHS? I don't have children, so why I should be fussed about childcare provision? I have never been to prison, so why should I care about prison conditions?

I think abandoned babies who don't have a mother recorded on their birth certificates probably do experience some confusion. To deliberately not record the fact of who a baby's mother is seems perverse. Perhaps you could also record them as the father in addition to recording them as the mother?

A man isn't recorded as having given birth! In anything, you could argue that that would be more the case, if a legally male person was listed as mother on a birth certificate...

The child has a father. That is, a parental figure legally recognised as male.

(You may or may have a problem with people born as female sex who are later identified as legally male. And those people still being able to give birth. But it's what has happened!).

So that legally male parent is listed as father on the legal document recording: name at birth, date of birth, legal parents.

There is going to be nothing on the birth certificate to specify whom gave birth. Simply the absence of a mother. Presumably people whose mothers are unidentified also don't have a mother on a birth certificate. I'm sure this doesn't cause them confusion as to the fact they were born out of a uterus. Or change their relationship with their male parent if they have one.

Yes, people are trying to find problems with this situation that don't exist. Eg: assumptions about the way the child will be raised, what they will be told about their birth etc. Concerns re genetic lineology even though that isn't and has never been the purpose of the birth certificate.

There are some people who would insist it is less confusing for the person who gave birth to be listed as mother. On the other hand, you could argue that if your father (who raises you as a father, is legally recognised as male) is listed as "mother" on your birth certificate then that would be confusing! At the end of the day, it's not a typical straightforward situation. It is a little confusing. What a are you gonna do? Sterilise trans men? Stop people from legally changing gender? -insert mandatory reminder about intersex-

It's not a difficult situation to understand. The "weird" bit that is maybe hard to get around is that a legally male person can sometimes biologically give birth. Obsessing over the birth certificate won't change the weirdness. Weird doesn't have to be bad.

The way a child is raised is of paramount importance. Not how they were conceived, who gave birth to them, who is listed as parent blah blah blah. Why can't people care as much about real issues that actually affect children?

If someone who is recorded as a mother wants to be known as Dad, and explains in age appropriate ways from a young age sll about their transition etc then that’s being honest and their child will take that on board. It’s certificated lies and revelations of truth in the future that we need to avoid. There is plenty of evidence that it harms children so we can’t go back there.

It’s fine if the person who wants to be known as Dad feels that way, but it’s not a matter to be recorded on the birth certificate. That’s the child’s legal document. It’s not about the parent’s ID feelings. That’s why it feels so narcissistic for someone to push this in court.

OrchidInTheSun Yes that is weird! There should be space for both.

ChattyLion Maybe they shouldn't. Perhaps the birth certificate should include the name of the birth mother but then this birth mother could also be recognised as the father with their new identity. I guess there would also need to be space for the biological father if that was felt appropriate.

pallisers I agree we can't know what the child will be told, but a few of the comments seem to be assuming that the child will be lied to and we don't know this to be true either.

Will the birth certificate actually say that a man gave birth to the child? Won't it name the father as the person who wishes to be recognised as the father of the child?

If as you say there isn't a space for identification or feelings then presumably there isn't a space to say that the father also gave birth?

Do you really think people need to look for reasons why recording a man as having given birth to a baby is a problem?

No, birth certificates are not perfect genetic records. But they should make an attempt at being correct - like even a bit of a stab at it. Adoptive parents should not be recorded as biological parents. Men do not give birth. Women do. If the mother of this child wants to identify as a man then fine - child can call him daddy and be told the story. But it is absurd to record a man as having given birth. A man didn't. A woman did.

listener but why should a kid, whose mother wants to be seen as a man (despite giving birth to them, which is what the birth certificate records), be put in a special category of not having a certificate of who gave birth to them?
When everyone else can have that on their birth certificate?
That is discrimination of a group of kids due to adult preference and it is NOT covered by the GRA powers- it is specifically excluded from the GRA in fact, as PP have noted on the other thread on this. (Linked to above)

Sorry for recycling a post, but: I am 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. Which should certainly include the female person who gave birth to them being recorded as the mother not as the father.