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

Also, for adopted children in the UK, the certificate that shows your legal parents isn't a birth certificate. So no problem with it showing two men or two women. Child has two legal fathers, and a birth mother who can't raise them but about whom the child has age-appropriate information.

What's the timeline here?
Surgery I'm assuming before pregnancy
Does this person have a GRC?
If so then clearly there was no intention to live permanently as a man.
But of course everyone is supposed to believe that men get pregnant now.

Hideandgo I don’t think fathers are ‘shittier’ than mothers or that straight people make better parents than gay people. I do think all children deserve accurate information about their biological parents.

We have generally moved away from the view that children don’t need this information. We used to be much happier to conceal this for adopted children and donor-conceived children, but now see the information as something all children have a right to have because it’s information about themselves. That’s the issue to me, and seems more substantial than ‘hand-wringing’.

The baby should absolutely have accurate information written on their birth certificate. The baby may need to know who was 'the female person that birthed them'. Perhaps the birth certificate can say 'Father (female)' or something?? I don't know the answer!

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

The child has a father. There are many children with only one parent on the birth cert. I fail to see the issue. It’s like the handwringing over gay parents all over again. (What about the child’s rights blah blah). The child is likely to be just as loved and protected and looked after as it would have been should this father have wished to be ‘the mother’. It’s the same person. He not shittier just because he’s now the father.

But surely you can't have surgery when pregnant!!

The child surely has the right to accurate information about its parentage, in the same way that donor-conceived children do and adopted children do. I don’t see how it would be in the best interests of the child to have the parent who gave birth listed as ‘father’ and the space for ‘mother’ left blank.

From a legal precedent kind of view there’s also a question about what ‘mother’ means on a birth certificate I suppose. If giving birth doesn’t qualify you as a birth mother, what other criteria should we use and how do we fairly apply those to everyone?

"Surgery" probably means double mastectomy here.
Removal of healthy breast tissue that would benefit the child.

Obviously not a hysterectomy, nor phaloplasty.

The child has human rights too. This child has a right to know who it's mother is when it is old enough to want to find out. I don't think that the mother's right to identify as male should be a valid reason to falsify information on the child's birth certificate.

Heartbreaking story. This baby has a right to know their genetic history. There are health conditions where it's significant whether it occurs on your mother's or father's side.

If it makes no difference, why is the person with a womb who gave birth to a baby taking this case to court?

It says in the article that "The baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery."

So, when was the surgery done?

But who then is the mother?

And it makes what exact difference that public record states that the father of the child is X (mans name).

What parent he wishes to be referred to as is a private matter.
No. No it fucking isn't. The parentage of a child is a matter of public record!

Lots of people are going to be very confused by this. HideandGo would prefer to simply shame people into not asking questions. That's point number one.

For those confused, this person will have been born female so, being in possession of a female reproductive system, they can conceive and bear a child. How it happened is irrelevant. What they personally choose as their name with their kids is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether it right, in law, to no longer record the mother of a child as 'mother'. As always, the best question to ask when this kind of change is on the table is Cui Bono - who benefits? Will the child? Will wider society?

Presumably this person acquired a GRC whilst pregnant.

How are you living as a man whilst being pregnant?

Surely the GRC should be revoked.

Budgie how could she have been living as a man when she got pregnant

All it takes to "live as a man" is to believe you are doing so - dress, pronouns, bodily modifications perhaps such as breast binders. How you have sex or reproduce are not defined.

I'm just amazed that someone with a new baby thinks that the priority is to conduct a groundbreaking court case. I'm also very fed up with people wanting to rewrite the dictionary to suit their very, very rare circumstance. It's all very 'me, me, me'.

Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth

Soon none of us will be "of woman born", it seems.
What harm? None, apparently.

I echo the PP above: whose rights are most important in this matter?

What on earth do you all care?

It directly affects more than just the adult involved.