Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

My wife and I are the legal parents to 2 dc born using donated sperm. I am the biological mother. For our eldest child my wife adopted our ds as she wasn’t included on his birth certificate, the original certificate only list me as mother and a blank for the father. The law changed by the time our second child was born and on his certificate it lists me as mother and my wife as other parent.

From before our children could speak, to avoid any future confusion, I would routinely tell them that “to make a baby you need a little bit of a man and a little bit of a woman mixed together to grow in a mummy’s tummy, as we didn’t have a little bit of a man a very kind man gave us a bit of him to make you.” We have always been very open about their donors, discussed things like their heights and listed interests told them when they are grown up we will help them find them if it’s what our dc want. It’s not been complicated or confusing,for us, our dc, their friends, their schools, their friends parents. My dcs are completely chilled about it, it is their normal. Families that seem strange to outsiders are straightforward to the members.

Last I heard Freddie was considering doing part time home educating because the school system wasn’t suiting her kid. I read it as the child’s friends will be asking the obvious questions that adults are too polite/scared to say out loud.

Hang on, Freddy McConnell has been all over the media for ages. Why does she suddenly need privacy?

You missed the bit that pops up on zombie threads just above where you post?

Personally don't, necessarily, have that much of an issue with resurrected threads; certainly not if they have been revived because of a genuine desire to learn and to discuss. New posters particularly are often advised to go back through years of threads...rather than have everything repeated all over again in a new thread. Also, it's sometimes good to be reminded of excellent threads and discussions that have taken place over the years.

I call bullshit on this. You have been doing this, constantly, for days now, and all you do when you get called out on it is say, “Oh sorry, I made a mistake. I promise I won’t do it again” - and then you find a new old thread to do it on.

Go bother some other forum, you are absolutely tiresome.

Sorry, I made a mistake. ☹️

Ummm @TheJoyOfWriting why are you resurrecting a thread from 2019?

A .middle way of this argument would be arguing that marriage would so help those gay couples who DO reproduce.

But as PP have said, sounds like the GRA was invented after high powered lobbying, which was seemingly unquestioningly accepted by the government.

I thought that one of the reasons the GRA was passed was to protect the right to privacy of a person who had transitioned per human rights law. However, the existence of a birth certificate listing only a father would make it difficult not to make an accurate conclusion about biological sex.

It seems to me that the birth certificate's purpose is to give a child a legal identity

A birth certificate is a copy of information in the register of births in the same way that a death certificate is a copy of information in the register of deaths. If you had read the thread you would realise that adoption does not change the information on the record of births, and that a short birth certificate does not give any information on parents.

just the fact that their traditional views on gender and sex are being challenged. It would be simpler to just list the parent who gave birth and the second parent, without mention of gender.

It's true that 'Mother' has different meanings to different people, but the sense used on the birth certificate just means the parent who gave birth. A birth certificate gives details about sex, not gender. Trying to impose gender on to a birth certificate is the epitomy of forcing parents into traditional gender roles, and that is why I object so strongly. McConnell clearly has a narrow view of what it means to be a man or a woman, and obviously is free to hold those beliefs. However a birth certificate does not and should not dictate gender or parental roles, it just records the facts of a birth.

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

Again, you are insisting that a birth certificate can give value or identity.

'Motherhood' is completely irrelevant to a birth certificate. The certificate is a record of birth, not a certificate of the mother's ongoing social relationship with the child. For many reasons some children do not have a relationship with their birth mother after birth.

The second parent listed on the birth certificate has a legal relationship with the child, but the nature of the mammalian reproductive process means that some males do not have a relationship with their offspring after conception, and some don't even have a relationship with the mother at conception.

Many people have parents listed on a birth certificate with whom they have no relationship, but the birth certificate doesn't change because it is an official document, not a scrapbooking memento.

One of the things people particularly worry about on here is that the choice to have their own kids naturally may be removed from kids and young people who identify as being trans, by them taking puberty blockers, then cross sex hormones or having surgery or by the various side effects of these interventions. Which some of those young people may then come to bitterly regret having been done to them, in future.

Many people think that permanently removing an individual’s capacity to have children naturally is a choice that that individual can only make for themselves, once they have become a mature adult themselves.

It would be easier to understand if we colloquially called it a certificate of birth rather than a birth certificate. It is there to accurately record the details, as far as they are known, of a child's birth. Not to pander to someone's particular demands.

So what exactly should trans people do ? Give up on having kids because how dare they use their reproductive system ?

Where has anyone said that anyone else shouldn’t have kids?

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

In terms of recording the birth of a child, for reasons I would have thought fairly obvious, yes it is.

A woman may not know who her child's father is. Or she may know but he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact. and refuses to sign the birth cert. However, there is no denying who a child's mother is, because the child is born from her body. Or perhaps I should say, there used to be no denying who a child's mother is.

It seems to me that the birth certificate's purpose is to give a child a legal identity. It's not a genetic history. Adopted children get a new birth certificate where their adoptive parents are shown as the parents. There is no mention of the biological parents. So, if biology is so important, why is it okay when it's adoption but not when a transman gives birth ?

You are wrong, this doesn’t happen in the Uk.

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

I don't think it's less important, this is why I would say the father also should be the genetic father, unless it isn't possible to know who that is.

Adoption can happen years after a child is born, they would already have a birth certificate with the biological parents at that point so the documentation must be able to account for the change already. I would tend to treat it the same way whether adoption happened at birth or later. (I don't know about the UK, but adoption right at birth is almost non-eistent here anyway.)

Mother's are listed on the birth certificate for the protection of the child.

Fathers are only allowed to register a birth alone if they are married to the mother.

If transmen are allowed to register as a father then you allow all father's to register on their own. After all, how is a registrar to know that the man registering the birth is a transman or a male?

Adopted children get an adoption certificate which is not the same as a birth certificate. All children have mothers. Recording this child's mother as its father is a lie because only women give birth.

And as far as fathers not being recorded, they are if a) they are married to the mother or b) they attend the registry office to register the birth. Many women would love to have their child's father recorded but unfortunately a lot of men don't want to be financially responsible for their children.

And should transpeople have children? Well many men come out after they have fathered children so perhaps ask their children how they feel that daddy is now Barbara. If they're younger then their sperm may not be of sufficient quality to fertilise an egg.

As for women who transition, then no, I don't think they should. Only women can give birth. If you are trans and would prefer to be a man, don't give birth.

Fred told the board that he was planning on living as a man for the rest of his life to get his GRC. He lied. He had no intention of doing that because he was already talking to a fertility clinic.

The current system doesn't work and is being abused by people who are pushing a queer agenda which has nothing to do with dysphoria. So yes, I think it should be repealed. Women were lied to when the legislation was out in place and it is causing us enormous harm.

I'm also confused as to why the birth certificate absolutely must list the biological mother, but the second parent apparently can be whatever. Is fatherhood somehow less valid or relevant than motherhood ?

It seems to me that the birth certificate's purpose is to give a child a legal identity. It's not a genetic history. Adopted children get a new birth certificate where their adoptive parents are shown as the parents. There is no mention of the biological parents. So, if biology is so important, why is it okay when it's adoption but not when a transman gives birth ?

I think it's not the biological thing that really disturbs people, just the fact that their traditional views on gender and sex are being challenged.

It would be simpler to just list the parent who gave birth and the second parent, without mention of gender.

As for people who say the grc should be revoked, what do you mean exactly ? Trans people are not allowed to want kids ? It's not like there is a whole lot of options to have kids they can choose from. Adoption is not always possible, and it's also not the same as having a child of your own blood. It's not less, but it's different. So what exactly should trans people do ? Give up on having kids because how dare they use their reproductive system ?

The whole thing honestly looks a lot like it was designed by and for the benefit of older mid-life transitioning blokes, with no further thought about women or children.

Doesn't it just.

It becomes more painfully obvious by the day.

Lang that is (rightly) true in relation to already-born kids’ birth certificates if the parent/s get a GRA after they have become a parent. Those kids/adults BCs can’t be changed under GRA if their parent gets a GRA certificate.

But as PP have said, sounds like the GRA was invented after high powered lobbying, which was seemingly unquestioningly accepted by the government. It seems inevitable if that is the case that it will be poorly or naively worded as an Act and as we can now see some of the obvious applicable scenarios are not covered by it at all. Like in this court case, of a female-born GRC-holder (now legally male) giving birth and wanting to be registered as the baby’s father instead of mother.

Feels like gaps in GRA keep on being spotted- like the GRA having no possibility of revocation (for anyone who doesn’t behave as it is laid out that a GRA-holder must). Plus that there is no review point on built in on the GRA being kept in UK law as a permanent thing (despite saying GRA was needed to be put in place to rectify inequality on pensions and marriage rights - which have since, rightly, been sorted out).

And as we know from this case, the GRA also didn't say anything about the rights of kids whose parents get a GRA before they have those kids. Perhaps because that scenario would have made the GRA itself look a bit questionable, if getting the certification requires people to have to ‘live as’ their acquired legal sex?

The whole thing honestly looks a lot like it was designed by and for the benefit of older mid-life transitioning blokes, with no further thought about women or children.

The next thing for transwidows and there children to deal with...

Can you imagine the emotional consequences if a transexual parent later tried to have their child's birth certificate amended.

I remain convinced that this case is designed to set precedents in other areas including surrogacy. Surely good law is law that is simple. Mothers give birth.