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

Someone will come along soon to say
"But an adopted baby wasn't gestated in the womb of their adoptive mother"

So... assume that conversation has been had and it was recognised that "mother" still refers to those of the female sex and that the person who did give birth to the adopted child was female....

All I seem to be saying recently is 'ridiculous'.

RIDICULOUS!

Wait, so does this mean that the child’s maternal side will be referred to as its paternal side?

The terms 'mother' and 'father' on birth certificates don't refer to the people doing the parenting after the child is born. They refer to the reproductive parentage of the baby. Like 'dam' and 'sire' are used on cattle breeding records.

Before donor eggs and surrogacy it used to be the case that the only parent known with 100% certainty was the mother, because they had given birth to the baby. The father as recorded might not actually be biologically correct.

What happens with donor eggs and surrogacy? I think with surrogacy the birth mother is recorded but is that record sealed and another document issued with the legal parents' names?

Agree this is nothing like having gay parents. Same sex attaction is same sex attraction, not same identity attraction. Sexual attraction is based on a truth, not a lie.

This is not a child being given up for adoption, the child will have the parent who gave birth raising them so will have access to their female related medical history.

It will set a legal precedent.

Once precedent is set, it can be used in other situations.

How selfish to use a baby to validate your “identity”.

This.

Hideandgo ”The child has a father”...of course they do, but that isn’t the person who grew the child in utero.
How selfish to use a baby to validate your “identity”.

The law is pretty clear that the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ relate to who contributed which gametes (rather than being any reflection of the parent’s gender), I can’t see how this is in any way an incompatibility with human rights legislation and even if it were ruled to be an incompatibility there would still need to be a change to primary legislation which would require consultation etc

Words have meaning.
To be a father you need to be firstly a man and secondly to be male.

I can't think of anything less male than being pregnant tbh. So how was this individual living as a man then?

As others have noted upthread, I assume the surgery (mastectomy) was done prior to conception. That wouldn't prevent a pregnancy but does remove the option of breastfeeding.

It's all getting silly now.
If the baby came out of a vagina, then whoever it's attached to is the mother! The child's rights come first!

"Male"
Adjective
Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

R0wan I’m sure the child will know all about it if it’s father is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or paternal grandparent.

I can't get my head around this sentence! A father with ovarian cancer? FFS.......

Hideandgo why are you so keen to deny reality? This is nothing like gay parents, gay parents never denied reality to their children?

Also, how is a female who is pregnant 'living as a man'? What exactly does that mean?!

red A parent is BOTH the biological reproducer AND the person raising a child. Failing to acknowledge that is disastrous for children for whom they aren't the same person. You can't erase biology.

It may rest on the dictionary definition.

"Father"
Noun
A man in relation to his child

"Man"
Noun
An adult human male

If it is deciphered that this person is male then they could indeed be their father. It's up to the courts now. I'll follow with interest.

The child has rights too. In this case to have recorded on their birth certificate the correct parentage. Another child being used in the trans ideology game. Seems to me that many of these trans activists don't give a fuck about children at all, only how they can be used to manoeuvre the desired end goals for themselves.

Obviously don’t know the full circumstances of conception but if it was say a one night stand or donor. What would happen if in years to come the child found its other parent and they decided to go to court to be put on the birth certificate? The space for father would already be filled by the birth parent so where would the name of the other parent go? Especially if they are male and doesn’t identify as female.

There was a similar case a few years ago. It was unsuccessful as it went against the rights of the child (info is near the end).

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11551217/Transgender-father-loses-court-battle-over-childrens-birth-certificates.html

I am not sure this is an issue that is worth so much angst.
If birth certificates listed biological parents instead of naming one as a mother and one as a father there would be no issue.
After all the current situation uses mother to name the female adult who gave birth to the child. While we all know giving birth does not make you a mother.
Mother implies a parent who is parenting...
Some mothers don't parent.
Ditto 'father'
This is not a child being given up for adoption, the child will have the parent who gave birth raising them so will have access to their female related medical history.
It does not seem such a huge deal. The parent now wants to be seen as a 'father' rather than 'mother' by society. What does it matter.. As long as the child is raised by their loving caring parent

How he has sex or conceived is a private matter

It's really not that controversial to talk about Hideandgo

This person is a biological female. There are limted ways of conceiving a child. It's basic biology or a little bit of help from modern medicine.