Pregnant Dad-to-be

Scout has not done anything yet, of course. So my PP is made in general terms. Who knows what they will actually do or not do.

As long as Scout tells the child they were the one who gave birth - which there is every indication Scout will - then who cares if the child calls Scout Papa.

YY, bowl.

The primary beneficiary of directing a child to believe that their female parent can become a male parent seems to be the parent.

Scout telling their child that they are the mother does not make Scout 'not trans'. It makes Scout a parent who gives their child accurate information. Scout remains free to dress and behave in whatever way they wish.

That they are it’s mother is a statement of reality.
That they identify as trans is not incompatible with that.

How are the two incompatible? It would only be incompatible if scout literally believed they had changed sex and made the child believe they had literally changed sex.

You don’t believe humans can change sex, do you jezebelz?

So Scout tells the child they are it's mother... meaning Scout is no longer trans.

Scout is the mother.
The child has a biological father.

I’m not entirely sure where god fits in - are you saying transgenderism is a belief? I’d agree with you on that - it’s a faith based system.

If you’re saying that any object can be a non biological father then so can the table my tea is currently resting on. That’s a statement with the same degree of logics and accuracy as saying scout is the father

What's your solution Floral?

Medics, psychologists and safeguarding guidelines all are of the opinion that age / ability appropriate truth is the way to go.

Families can look all sorts of ways. Two mums, two dads, guardians, foster families, adoptive and plain old boring mum and dad. All that is fine.

What’s not fine is lying to children about their origins or using children as a method of validating your own delusional thinking. Delusional being used in the medical sense here of course, rather than the perjorative.

Scout is the child’s mother.

Both Scout and God could be classed as non-biological fathers.

The religious comparison is a good analogy in terms of belief systems. But that doesn't tend to go down well with people who believe in transgenderism...

i don't think Scout telling the baby they are it's father is any more or less truthful than a Christian telling a child that God is their father.

Wait... you actually believe that? A biological father is a defined, real, verifiable thing. Scout is the child’s MOTHER. Scout has gestated the child in their womb and birthed it. Scouts genetic contribution cane via a large immobile gamete.

Scout telling the child they are their father is a demonstrably false statement.

The existence of not of god is a matter of faith.

Fascinating thought process. Literal denial of reality. Is this peak postmodernism?

Come now. You don’t believe that surely?

Of course trans people should have children if they wish. IMO they should not imply to children that they have actually changed sex. This is confusing to children (who have their own sexed bodies and need accurate information) and untruthful.

A lesbian couple accurately describing the process by which their child was conceived is doing nothing to undermine their child's understanding of reproduction and the integrity of their own body. No lies there.

I'm right with you on Santa merrymouse. Never lied to DC about that.

FloralBunting I don't think Scout telling the baby they are it's father is any more or less truthful than a Christian telling a child that God is their father.

Naturally as a parent one will tell their child what they believe to be true. And will do so with the best of intentions.

If Scout tells the child that they were born with a female reproductive system but have a male gender, how is that more ‘wrong’ than the many, many parents who tell their children that they were in heaven before they were born?

I might not agree with Scout but it’s going to be hard work explaining to millions of children all the ways their parents are wrong.

Still, almost Christmas,should probably make a start with the Santa lie.

You know what, Jez, people of all kinds have kids. I don't think anyone should be 'stopped' from having kids, but I acknowledge that not everyone who has kids makes choices that are in the best interests of their children, and actively make selfish choices instead.

I don't think that every decision a human makes that affects another human being is a neutral thing that can never be commented on, particularly if that decision is trumpeted in the media.

So, obviously, a trans person is free to lie to their child, and in some countries there are laws to facilitate that for them. I am free to say that's an example of bad parenting. You can wander through life with a rictus grin 'love matters more than truth' attitude to everything if you will.

Okay so trans people can have children as long as they are not trans in front of their children.

Oh, just do one, Jez. You know fine well what people are saying. You know fine well that non-standard families - including trans parents - have a duty to be truthful and accurate with the information they give to their children so that those children do not suffer identity issues when they grow up. It's been documented over and over and over.

You just think it's fine to shit on a kid if you're trans.

Okay so trans people can have children as long as they are not trans in front of their children. Makes sense

My 'solution' is that people who have kids put their children first and don't use them as props in their identity 'validation'.

What's your solution Floral?

Trans people don't have kids at all?

Trans people do have children but don't be trans?

That's right, kids just stay at the stage of wanting to go out and play forever. The consequences others have talked about relating to being misleading information or incomplete information about background never crop up as long as they stay cute like buttons who only care about toys and playgrounds.

I think ppl underestimate children's ability to understand and accept these type of things. It takes one convo:

Scout: you need a female egg and a male sperm to make a baby. I provided the female egg to make you and a male donor provided the sperm.

Kid: but you are my Papa, how did you make a female egg?

Scout: remember I told you I was born with the body of a Mummy even though I am a daddy? That's how I made the female egg.

Kid: oh yes that

Scout: do you have any questions?

Kid: can I go and play now

but 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.

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

To be clear I disagree with Scout on a lot of things. I think ‘mother’ carries no more baggage than ‘Blood type O negative’. Scout is like me because we both have female reproductive systems. The thing that makes me not a man is not my gender. Like it or not, the word that describes Scout and me is ‘woman’.

However if birth certificates were a medical document they would apparently allow for the possibility of virgin births and assume that the marriage ceremony is a fertility rite that creates pregnancies.

They have always provided limited information.

In the context of NZ law, Scout is not lying.

I think in the overwhelming majority of cases I can think of that truth IS love when it comes to trying not to emotionally mess up your children. That goes for issues separate to parentage as well.

We don’t have closed (anonymised) adoption any more - and the names of the biological parents of adoptees are stated on their birth certificate which is intended to give the adopted person a way to know their birth family’s names and the BC also holds the full name that the child was registered with at birth.

With donor conception, we don’t explicitly record genetic info if children on birth certificates. Which I think is right and often protects children’s interests.
The UK removed anonymous sperm/egg or embryo donation. The child has a legal right to request their donor’s name and address at 18. They can request to know if they are donor conceived (from treatment in the UK) at age 16. UK charities like Donor conception Network offer info and resources to tell children in an age-appropriate way about their genetic origins.

This quote below is from someone whose legal case contributed to changing the law that removed donor anonymity in the UK- she is against donation per se as is the case for some donor conceived people who are given no legal opportunity to find their donor.. the objection seems to be substantially rooted in the reaction to the lying and the adverse effects that has on identity for the child:

‘Despite my sense of injustice, I love and am loyal to my family. But it is still a very sensitive and prickly issue, and relationships can feel deeply strained at times. My mum and dad - who are now divorced - have made massive efforts to understand how I feel, but it can still be very difficult. I think that like many people who go through donor insemination, they were naive and deeply focused on themselves and their infertility.’ She continues:

One of the most upsetting things for me about the way I was brought into the world is the blatant double standard involved. My mother's need to have a genetic link to her child was valued, while my need to know, love and understand the father with whom I have a genetic link was not.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/14/family-genetics

I think there are obvious parallels.

Live how you want, but 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.

The person in the article used a sperm donor.

I don't think that a situation where two women in a lesbian relationship have a child with a donor father can be compared to the absolute fuckedupness of a woman, claiming to be a man herself, having penetrative vaginal sex with a man, getting pregnant and then calling themselves the child's father. The latter is a clear cut case of mental ill health.

They aren't on the original birth certificate though

Yes and no. The second legal parent can be an intended parent if the surrogate mother is unmarried.

The point is that birth certificates are concerned with legal responsibility, not biology.

When identifying the first parents the law starts with the birth mother and then asks whether they are married, not whether they have a genetic relationship with that child or whether the person to whom they are married could possibly have been involved in the conception.

I don’t know about NZ, but it follows that if the person in the article gave birth in the U.K. they would be on the birth certificate because they are a woman who gave birth to a child, what ever the law allowed them to be called, and there would be no parental order and the mechanism of the law would make it clear that they weren’t biologically male.

I think ‘man’ gives birth stories are always a bit strange because they always just come back to a woman bearing a child. It’s just that some women believe they have a male gender. I might have all sorts of problems with the concept of gender and the idea it’s possible to change sex, but I also believe that gender dysphoria exists.

I still don’t believe that somebody would appear in a newspaper article that clearly explains that they are trans if they were going to create an elaborate subterfuge to pretend that they are actually a man. How would that work? Are they going to cut off all ties with friends and family and hope the internet stops working?