Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

Excellent sleuthing with regard to the intentions of the GRA from Vulvamort on Twitter:

twitter.com/hairyleggdharpy/status/1151783026176778241?s=21

It seems that both the Hansard debates and the GRA itself tried to ensure that birth certificates could not be changed.

I really don't get how you can so strongly feel that you are 'male on the inside' and then do such a 'female' thing like getting pregnant? And then decide that you want to be registered as 'father' on the birth certificate?!

That really sums it up for me. It’s very “having your cake and eating it too”. Entitlement springs to mind for sure

www.gov.uk/register-birth/birth-certificates

According to this it should still be possible to get a short birth certificate that only gives the child's details.

there are all kinds of reasons to have a record of the biological parents, even in infant adoption, or other situations. You could I suppose have it recorded elsewhere, but that ads a complication for anyone trying to follow the paper trail back, especially if it's a less recent paper trail.

But an older child or adult who has to produce their birth certificate does NOT want it to immediately be different from everyone else's in stating that they have been adopted. Adoptees report this as being very othering.

It's absolutely fine to have the birth parents recorded elsewhere (different birth certificate, in the case of adopted people).

When I registered my daughter’s birth last year, I wanted to buy a long form and a short form of her birth certificate. I was really disappointed to be told by the Registrar that they didn’t offer the short form anymore. I’ve only ever had the short form of my birth certificate. DD’s father isn’t on her BC and I wanted DD to have the choice of which version to use (when possible), for privacy reasons.

A short birth certificate will list adoptive parents or parents who have become legal parents following the grant of a parental order, e.g. in the case of surrogacy

A short form only lists that a baby was born and its birth has been registered. It used to be the case they were issued free but you had to pay for the long form. I'm pretty sure that in the dim and distant past I got my first passport with a short form.

Because of immigration/fraud/fake ID, long forms will be asked for for many purposes.

This is interesting because it illustrates a tension in the GC movement. This strand seems to be "trans rights have come from gay rights gone too far" - the argument that people have been softened up by being told that a woman can have a wife or a child can have two mums, and now look what's happened. This appears to be socially conservative and frankly unlikely to be immediately attractive to lesbians.

I think there is this tension though I'd not place it in the same place. It is certainly the conservative argument about marriage equality that the basis of the social institution is built around managing reproduction. So you could carry on in the way you suggest from there.

On the other hand, most coherent arguments for it make the claim that reproduction is not the basis of the institution, rather than saying that two men or women can actually reproduce together, obviously pretty much everyone knows that isn't true. I think from this POV you could still look back at the gay rights movement and ask if all of the ideas it proposed to support it's position were actually good ones, or if some were convenient or pithy rather than true, and perhaps might have set unfortunate and unexpected precedents.

Lesbian parents aren't claiming, in appearing as "second parent" on a birth certificate that the woman concerned has biologically fathered the child. Are they?

I wouldn't think that would be usual.

I think my issue is that there are all kinds of reasons to have a record of the biological parents, even in infant adoption, or other situations. You could I suppose have it recorded elsewhere, but that ads a complication for anyone trying to follow the paper trail back, especially if it's a less recent paper trail.

Not RTFT yet so apologies if I have missed something but I don’t recognise posters on FWR as saying ‘gay rights have gone too far’ at all. There are regular posts concerned that a men’s sexual rights agenda is actively erasing and undermining lesbian and gay rights in various ways though. Many posters on here are worried that lesbian and gay rights are being rolled back.

I am not sure I have followed all the arguements on this thread and some of the issues I am not informed enough about.

However, the initial response to the article and court case is about the simple biological fact that a female person who actually gave birth to a child is the biological mother.

To try and argue that you can be registered as the "father" is as non-sensical as saying we are "assigned" our gender (euphamism for sex) at birth.

Birth certificates have all sorts of signifigance but particularly for the child itself. And any bending of the truth is not in their interests.

Also, though a bit off topic, many children who are fostered out and / or adopted out of their birth family often only find their true story through their birth certificate. And in some cases are also important in terms of inherited health issues.

This is a futher example of the unintended consequences of the fairy story of the GRA.

I think birth certificates should not be allowed to have the "sex" of the child changed, and have the birth mother recorded.

And it is these facts that should be used when recording crimes, health statistics, housing, income levels, etc.. (Not forgetting the "man" who turned up at A&E with stomach pains which nobody could explain until the "man" give birth. Hospitals shouldn't be put in this sort of make believe.)

If it means we now need to have additional paper work for "identity" issues, so that those who want to imposed their internal vision on others let that happen.

I wouldn't have a problem if a transman could ask for an alternative to "mother" on the birth certificate - "parent who gave birth" for example.

A huge part of the reason people have easily accepted the arguments of trans advocacy is that they have already come to believe all kinds of roles, acknowledged in some way by society or the authorities, are the "real" truth, as if it just erases the material facts.

This is interesting because it illustrates a tension in the GC movement. This strand seems to be "trans rights have come from gay rights gone too far" - the argument that people have been softened up by being told that a woman can have a wife or a child can have two mums, and now look what's happened. This appears to be socially conservative and frankly unlikely to be immediately attractive to lesbians.

Then you have an entirely different strand of arguments that seem or claim to be progressive/pro-lesbian.

But there are different sorts of facts. There is biological parenthood which is material and real and has genetic and health and other consequences. And there is social and legal parenthood which is real as well - there are consequences for the child in who cares for you and how, and legal consequences if you don't meet your responsibilities.

Lesbian parents aren't claiming, in appearing as "second parent" on a birth certificate that the woman concerned has biologically fathered the child. Are they?

I don't think that is really the same as a father being recorded erroneously, you are asking people to ignore what they know must be true and pretend that it isn't so.

That depends what you think the purpose of a birth certificate is.

I think it is to record a birth and a child's first legal parents. As two women can be a child's legal parents, a birth certificate is an accurate documentation of what is know to be true.

The law recognises both a same sex spouse and the unrelated spouse of a surrogate as a parents by default, so I don't think it is currently very concerned with proving a genetic relationship. You might think it should be, but that isn't the current situation.

It's true that a birth can be re-registered if it is later proven that a particular person is or definitely isn't the genetic father. However, that doesn't therefore imply that all parents on birth certificates must be genetically related to their children. At the point of birth I think it's more important to establish a legal parent relationship than a genetic relationship. Certainly labour wards would be much more tense places if all births were immediately followed by a DNA test.

Which mess?

Messes like, what I feel is my real gender, or, I want to be recorded as the father even though I carried this child in my womb.

What's seen as important and real is the social and legal acknowledgement or role, or the appearance, not what we know can and cannot be materially true.
A huge part of the reason people have easily accepted the arguments of trans advocacy is that they have already come to believe all kinds of roles, acknowledged in some way by society or the authorities, are the "real" truth, as if it just erases the material facts.

drspouse

Yes, there can be practical complications if the father doesn't agree that he is the father. I believe in most places it is possible to get around this though it ends up being expensive.

I understand why someone might not want to record a father who was dangerous or otherwise a significant problem. I wish that doing so would not cause the problems involved in them claiming paternity as I think it is still useful to have that information recorded, but in the end people work with the system they find themselves in and what is ideal and what is possible are often mismatched.

As far as who is a legal guardian vs an adoptive parent, I'm not really trying to be very specific - only to say that birth parents are significant, as are genetic parents in cases of egg donation. It's not all about who raises the child as if the physical body is just an extra bit of oneself.

I think it's that kind of thing that has gotten us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

Which mess?

I am saying that as men have never had to prove that they are genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate, there is no reason for a women to prove that she is genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate.

No, but this can be challenged, if someone wants to take the time to show they are not in fact the named father, or they are the father and weren't named.

On the face of it, the non-birthing mother in a lesbian relationship cannot be related genetically to the child. I don't think that is really the same as a father being recorded erroneously, you are asking people to ignore what they know must be true and pretend that it isn't so. I think it's that kind of thing that has gotten us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

For our children (adopted) the short form doesn't have our names on - only their name.

Just checked DD's 'certificate of birth' (must get on with my actual to do list and leave this thread!) and you are right dr spouse. DD's birth certificate just lists name, sex, place and date of birth. No details of parents.

it's morally incumbent on the mother to put the father's name there if she knows who he is.
Only if this doesn't need his consent (many don't consent) or attendance (some would consent in theory but CBA to turn up) and if it doesn't lead to PR (some are clearly the biological father but, and let's start with this and go on downwards, not suitable fathers e.g. rapists, incest).

Adoptive parents should be recorded as legal guardians, it doesn't mean there are no birth parents.
Legal parents (like me and DH) are not the same as legal guardians (e.g. via SGO) but my DCs' long form adoption certificate reflects that a) there are birth parents and b) they are not DH and I.
When my DCs are 18 they can legally access their original birth certificates (in fact, we have through some odd route a copy of one of them, and we know who is named on the other, and in both cases we know who the biological father is though he's not named for either DC, and clearly we tell them, like donor conceived parents should tell their children before 18).

Do those of you unhappy about the potential removal of mother feel the same about father being removed?

Ah, yeah. I don't think it should be allowed either, and for that matter it's morally incumbent on the mother to put the father's name there if she knows who he is.

I don't think anonymous sperm donation should be legal, it infringes on the rights of the child. Much the same way I think adopted children shouldn't have their birth parents hidden from them, which is increasing the law

Adoptive parents should be recorded as legal guardians, it doesn't mean there are no birth parents.

A short birth certificate will list adoptive parents or parents who have become legal parents following the grant of a parental order, e.g. in the case of surrogacy.
For our children (adopted) the short form doesn't have our names on - only their name.

Thanks for clarifying that merrymouse .

I guess in this particular case, the long form BC records the transman as the mother, and the short form BC can record them as the legal parent. There's very few instances someone would need access to the long form BC and the trans parent can decide on an appropriate age to discuss with their child. Seems like a sensible compromise instead of the growing movement of denying biological reality that seems popular these days.

I am a mum through egg donation and I agree that sometimes reading threads like this can be uncomfortable where they touch on who is a real mum and sometimes whether egg donation should be allowed at all. I still think these kinds of discussions about birth certificate and parentage are important though and I also think other people are allowed to discuss matters that might make me uncomfortable.

I agree with this. Of course people can discuss things that make us uncomfortable. It's hard to hear I think because we love our children more than anything and thinking about the fact of having voluntarily introduced a complication into their lives is hard - even when you can see the reality of happy, thriving children in front of you, and know happy well-adjusted donor-conceived adults.

I hope that parents of donor-conceived children are honest nowadays about their conception, regardless of what the birth certificates say. There isn't much scope not to be honest about sperm donation in a lesbian family. There's more scope for 'who is the real mum' questions from others though.

No, I'm not. I am saying that as men have never had to prove that they are genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate, there is no reason for a women to prove that she is genetically related to a child to be named on a birth certificate.

Oh I see. Sorry Merrymouse, I understand what you mean now!