Pregnant Dad-to-be

Just flagging from other thread, glad to see feminism alive and well in NZ and I wish our Kiwi sisters better luck with making their government listen and understand the dangers of self id than we in the UK have had.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3423919-Law-change-in-NZ-and-obligatory-pregnant-transman

ll111 Thu 15-Nov-18 21:28:45
For any Kiwis out there concerned about proposed changes to Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships act 1995 New Zealand....

speakupforwomen.nz/to-all-members-of-parliament/

Children born to straight couples are frequently unplanned or unwanted Frequently unplanned, I may agree with, but frequently unwanted is YOU being willingly obtuse in order to prove a point.

So it's really only the G that we can safely say is at no risk of an unplanned pregnancy. The L, B & T (if female bodied) don't necessarily have that comfort.

That's true, FWR, but then it further occurs to me that the phrase "It would be extremely rare for a child born to Lesbian or Gay Parents to be unplanned or unwanted" only holds true in societies where being gay is socially acceptable, and also where birth control and abortion are readily available. I should imagine in places where lesbians can't be open about their sexuality and end up married; are subject to corrective rape, or even just "ordinary" rape; and where abortion is expensive or difficult to obtain, it's quite easy for a lesbian to have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy

"differentnameforthis it would be extremely rare for a child born to LGBT parents to be unplanned or unwanted. "

Incorrect.

It would be extremely rare for a child born to Lesbian or Gay Parents to be unplanned or unwanted.

Most bi people and trans people are in opposite sex relationships. So their rate of unplanned pregnancy would presumably be no different than any other straight (in the biological sense) couple.

It's not just scouts business though because she is involving a child. Surely its the parents responsibility to tell their child where they came from

A pp said kids will accept a simple explanation as to why they don't have a dad/mam or why dad is actually mam etc
That's great when they are young but what about when they are 14/15/16
My nieces Dad left when my sister was pregnant. My niece accepted simple answers as to why she had never met her Dad, where he was etc
She's now 20 and those simple answers aren't enough. She wants to meet him and know the other side of her family. She has confidence issues. She feels rejected and wonders "what's wrong with me"
A woman who wants to be a man and gives birth to a child and then proceeds to tell that child that she is their father is wrong. It's damaging to the child and can't be compared to same sex parents.

And spannablue - that's not what the kids of transpeople I've read about say.

Why was my post deleted?

There is a whole lot of speculation here.

But the truth is, if you actually asked the kid of a trans person, they'd probably be fine with their situation.

Because that's what the kids of trans people who've been interviewed for research say.

MerryMouse, you asked Hasn’t that ship sailed if you have a GRC?

When I’d said: you shouldn’t have the right to force your own identity preference on to others including your kids via the medium of their legal identity documents.

no, that ship hasn’t sailed, despite GRC. Birth certificates record as ‘mother’, the person who gave birth to the baby. Only women (adult human females) give birth. For birth certificate purposes then, mothers are women or female people. Regardless of how they identify. Regardless of if they have GRC saying they are a man for their own legal personal documentation purposes. That is the boundary of the GRC- the person who holds it.

GRC possession doesn’t mean you can be listed as ‘mother’ or the person who gave birth if you were born a man originally- because you didn’t give birth to the child.

GRC -rightly- does not extend to changing another person’s legal identity documents. GRC doesn’t allow male-bodied people to say they are the ‘mother’ (who gave birth) on the BC, or female-bodied people to say they are the father on the BC.

Apologies for grammar errors. And that was directed towards Merrymouse in case that wasn't clear.

Just to add to that last paragraph, I'm surprised that any reputable clinic treated Scout.

But most important is the child. The birth certificate belongs to the child. It’s not a gotcha point proving validation slip for the parents

I cannot believe people defend this. It's so bloody depressing. Extreme neoliberalism has won. Nothing more important than I want - even a person's own child.

Who cares? Well the child, who is used as an identity validation chip.

And maybe that child someday needs genetic counselling, which relies on accurate genealogical information over a few generations to draw up an accurate risk factor for them or their own children?

How about national statistics? Equality data? Medical data? These things are important.

But most important is the child. The birth certificate belongs to the child. It’s not a gotcha point proving validation slip for the parents

If the baby is loved and well cared for who cares?

No, this child has a mother, they just don’t refer to themselves as a mother because they are trans.

Plenty of children don’t have mothers or indeed any parents and yes that is unspeakably sad.

Every human on the planet has a mother except this child. I find that unspeakably sad

But again, a lot of people have birth certificates that don’t reflect reality, knowingly or unknowingly. In Scout’s case the situation is actually pretty clear. Scout gave birth and is trans.

Although if scout were listed as the father it wouldn’t be incorrect, just the way the law works because as mentioned before where fathers are concerned the law is more concerned with relationship to mother than relationship to child.

It doesn’t reflect reality. It doesn’t benefit the child in any way.

It isn’t a ‘lie’ if in NZ law the person who gives birth can be listed as the father. It would only be a lie if everybody was pretending that Scout was the biological father. That cannot be possible unless somebody else is listed as the birth mother.

Scout could presumably marry a woman and be listed as the father incorrectly, but it would hardly be the first time.

The argument ‘well we might as well allow people to put false information on official documents because some mothers are unsure of the father’ doesn’t really hold water

Having a birth certificate and an adoption certificate for an adopted child is necessary and also reflects reality. Having a mother listed as a father on a birth certificate is unnecessary and is a lie. So no comparison really.