The Dad who gave Birth 'Seahorse' Documentary

One day the child will read this and wonder what the fuck they are doing on this earth

Fabulous. What does twitter say?

Pleased to hear this. The role in conception, pregnancy and birth is mother.

Sex = Female
Acquired gender = Male.

Biology rules! Thank goodness.

Let’s shout it loud. Only women get pregnant. Only women are mothers. Only women breast feed.

Thank you, the court. Woman is an actual thing defined in law.

Slightly scary that I am grateful for this.

Big sigh of relief. It's crazy how grateful I feel about someone displaying common sense.

Findings:

a) At common law a person whose egg is inseminated in their womb and who then becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child is that child’s ‘mother’;
b) The status of being a ‘mother’ arises from the role that a person has undertaken in the biological process of conception, pregnancy and birth;
c) Being a ‘mother’ or a ‘father’ with respect to the conception, pregnancy and birth of a child is not necessarily gender specific, although until recent decades it invariably was so. It is now possible, and recognised by the law, for a ‘mother’ to have an acquired gender of male, and for a ‘father’ to have an acquired gender of female;
d) GRA 2004, s 12 may be both retrospective and prospective. If that is so then the status of a person as the father or mother of a child is not affected by the acquisition of gender under the Act, even where the relevant birth has taken place after the issue of a GR certificate.

...In other words, sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-23.9.19.pdf

Judgement

Hurrah! Our law courts are doing a sterling job this week

Fucking good

Court says no to changing status from Mother to Father on birth certificate.

"Being a 'mother', whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth."

There is, as we know, a motherhood pay penalty that affects only women.

If transmen fathers suffer this same penalty, then it has nothing to do with women, does it?

And so institutionalised sexism is erased.

and some feminists, who argue that biology is destiny and therefore trans women are not really women and trans men are not really men.

Well, durr. They're not.

Freddy is the baby's dad. He also was pregnant.

Women get pregnant. Not men.

He is NOT the baby's biological father. Freddy did not provide the sperm. Freddy is the child's biological mother, and no amount of hand-wringing will change that.

I guess what I'm confused by is the emphasis in this conversation on biological motherhood or fatherhood. If this was an article about foster or step-parents, or sperm donation, or someone not in a relationship getting IVF, I'm just not sure there would be almost 50 posts of people saying what that parent is or isn't.
Because, in all those cases that you mention, the biology of the parents are clear and don't need clarification.

This is about biology; only biological women can conceive and give birth. People can have any gender identity that they want; they can change their gender five times a day if that makes them happy. I (and I'm sure most of Mumsnet) have no problem with that. But they cannot change their sex.
The problem here is much wider than "pregnant men". A large part of the problem that we "bigots" are fighting and debating is that the language around biology and sex is being changed, without our consent.

Women around the world are oppressed because of their biology. They suffer FGM, rape, forced marriage, prostitution; they risk being outcast if they cannot produce a male child but only "useless" daughters; they are used as breeding machines. All because they are women; they cannot identify their way out of it.
When words become their opposite ("War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery" "men can be mothers; women can have penises" etc) people lose the power to name their oppression. To give two examples, women cannot point out they they have little power when there are men identifying as women in positions of power (ie, taking positions on all-women shortlists). And women cannot point out the fact that men commit the greatest amount of violence against both men and women, when some of those violent men identify as women and are listed in crime statistics as women.

I guess what I'm confused by is the emphasis in this conversation on biological motherhood or fatherhood. If this was an article about foster or step-parents, or sperm donation, or someone not in a relationship getting IVF, I'm just not sure there would be almost 50 posts of people saying what that parent is or isn't. Somehow when trans identity is involved it elicits much stronger reactions from people.

I guess you haven't read the surrogacy threads then? Another very current and pertinent topic.

My question is who benefits from disconnecting the concept of motherhood from women, from their bodies and reproductive processes?

It sure isn't women and children.

@GrumpyGran8 - thanks for the questions.

1. The filmmaker mentioned that she didn't want transition to be the focus of the film - that is handled in the first few minutes so the story could be about life after transition (in this case, starting a family). But Freddy's mother is a major character and she comes across as loving and supportive and mostly concerned with Freddy's happiness. Freddy's father, rather tragically, only appears via some home movies and mostly unsupportive emails. There is an excellent scene with aunts and cousins and an awkward conversation over tea that includes some of the themes of this thread. The style of the film isn't really "talking head" interviews, so the dialogue mostly comes from the filmmaker following the characters and talking to them as they go about their lives.

1. They did not go into the surgery at all in the film.

1. I hadn't noticed the choice of words in the film - it wasn't explored.

1. The narrative of the film follows the pregnancy from beginning to end. But really it is all an exploration of gender and identity. When he comes off testosterone, rather than simply reverting back to how he was before transition, Freddy is completely at sea. And what was approached mainly as a practical solution becomes an incredibly physically and emotionally exhausting process (as if pregnancy wasn't already physically and emotionally exhausting enough). I also think one of the major insights of the film - and the lines that got the biggest laughs in the screening - are when he talks about how if all men had to experience pregnancy it would be taken so much more seriously in society (or at least they'd never stop banging on about it).

Anyhow, I'm off to the rest of the film festival now....

I feel so sad reading this and sort for Freddy. I perceive a person who is very unhappy and it comes across to me that their mum and the film makers have exploited his suffering.

Freddy talks about men feeling broody but he can't talk from the male perspective, because he isn't male. Likewise I think he can't really speak from a female perspective having been taking male hormones and having his body gone through significant changes. Freddy seems to be talking from the only perspective he truly can be - a trans male. And I feel upset for him - he comes across as desperately unhappy and uncomfortable in his own skin. I am reminded that many (or is it most?) trans people do not feel comfortable in their bodies pre-or post- transition. To me it seems that freddy desperately needs psychological support, but I'm not aware that he has had or continues to receive any.

It is a beautifully made film from one of the UK's best documentary producers (Jeanie Finlay) and I'd suggest reserving judgement until you've had a chance to watch it

I would like to watch it but I'm in two minds about the ethics of even that. It just seems to exploit freddy.

I guess what I'm confused by is the emphasis in this conversation on biological motherhood or fatherhood. If this was an article about foster or step-parents, or sperm donation, or someone not in a relationship getting IVF, I'm just not sure there would be almost 50 posts of people saying what that parent is or isn't. Somehow when trans identity is involved it elicits much stronger reactions from people

Parenthood consists of both biological and legal status.

Freddy is mother in both senses. It’s the emotional rejection of that material reality that is puzzling to me (and presumably, other Mumsnetters).

All the other scenarios you bring up involve taking on the material reality of either the legal or the biological status of motherhood.

Wmfinnegan, maybe there’s no similar response to articles on step or foster parents because they aren’t delusional and denying physical reality?

wmfinnegan Since you've seen the film and I haven't, and its going to be months before it comes on TV, could you answer some questions about it?
1: Is there any exploration of why Freddy's Mum expressed happiness when her daughter became her son? Were other members of his family interviewed?
2: Is Freddy asked about why he kept his womb and ovaries after transition; was it just the fact that a complete hysterectomy is a major operation with some risks, or did he have other reasons?
3: Was Freddy asked why he used distancing language about his pregnancy? (According to the article, he avoided saying "pregnant" and talked about "carrying" a baby, rather as though it were a bag he could put down at any time!)
4: Was he asked if his feelings of gender identity changed at all during his pregnancy?
Thanks in advance if you can answer any of those.

I guess what I'm confused by is the emphasis in this conversation on biological motherhood or fatherhood. If this was an article about foster or step-parents, or sperm donation, or someone not in a relationship getting IVF, I'm just not sure there would be almost 50 posts of people saying what that parent is or isn't. Somehow when trans identity is involved it elicits much stronger reactions from people.

watch the film and decide for yourself. Or don't watch it - but don't rubbish it without having watched it
We're not rubbishing the film; I don't doubt that it's very well made. What we're rubbishing is an article that is uncritically pushing the mad idea of a woman magically turning into a man and then giving birth as a father.

wmfinnegan, Freddy's gender identity is as a man. But he is still a biological woman who became pregnant and gave birth. And there's nothing interesting or special about that. What could have made the film potentially worth watching (for me, at least) and illuminating would have been a Louis Theroux-type exploration of Freddy's partner and family and of Freddy himself as a person. Not as a "Look at the pregnant man!" freak show.

If Freddie did not produce the sperm for his baby, then he is not the biological father. There’s no discussion there. It’s a fact.

However, many fathers aren’t biological, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Freddy is the baby's dad. He also was pregnant

Does the baby have a mother?