Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

Similarly, when two gay men have a child via a surrogate, does it still include the mother's name on the BC?

I think this is the way it works, although happy to be corrected:

A long form birth certificate is a certified copy of an entry in the register of births. I don't think the register of births can be changed so a long form birth certificate will always contain the details of birth although it can note that a child was later adopted.

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.

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.

For what it’s worth (not much) I would prefer a system where my child’s egg donor parentage could also be recorded so that parents couldn’t try to keep something important like that secret from their child. But the reality is that people have been keeping genetic parentage (of the father) a secret forever and will continue to do so. Even so I agree with previous commentors that the person who gives birth should at a minimum be accurately recorded.

I'm not sure I understand the debate on this thread.

While the paternity of a child might be questionable and hence it is not necessary to name the father on a birth certificate, it is part of biological reality that a child always has a mother. Unless the child was abandoned in a cardboard box somewhere, it is impossible not to know who the mother is. Only females can gestate and give birth to a child and therefore the mother always has to be recorded on the birth certificate, irrespective of how they identify. It can have implications for genealogical records, citizenship, claims to nationality based on ancestry records etc.

Birth certificates are not for validation of parental feelings or even that of the child. They simply record factual information about the origins of each person that is born.

In a lesbian relationship, there is still a mother that gave birth to the child, irrespective of who else is named in the BC. So I don't see what the issue is here.

I'm assuming when a child is adopted, this doesn't alter the BC in any way? What happens in this case?
Similarly, when two gay men have a child via a surrogate, does it still include the mother's name on the BC?

Why is this person so ashamed to be named as the mother on the BC? They were perfectly happy to go through the entire biological process. They can continue to bring up their child as a single dad without any fuss. BCs are not something children concern themselves with anyway. In due course, if the child has any questions, then they can decide on an appropriate response.
Rather than manipulating and hiding the biological history of a person, surely the best way to teach your child about acceptance and understanding of trans people is to sensitively discuss that although you identify as a man and their father, you decided to use your own female body to bring them into this world.

I think you're arguing that non-birth mums should no longer be named on the child's birth certificate but should retain automatic parental responsibility when married to the birth mum.

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. Nobody on the birth certificate, including the birth mother needs to prove a genetic relationship to the child and I don't think that is a problem, because a birth certificate is a record of birth not genetics.

If it were decided that all children needed a record of their genetic heritage on their birth certificate, that would be quite complicated and for many impossible, but either way, it's more information than a UK birth certificate currently provides.

But nonetheless my daughter's birth certificate does reflect the facts of her birth and her social and legal parentage at her birth - she was conceived intentionally in a lesbian couple who both formally consented to the fertility treatment which resulted in her birth. She was born to that couple who at the moment of her birth intended to and did take responsibility for her and parent her. Those are the facts of her birth that the birth certificate records and which are worth recording.

Birth certificates routinely record some, but not all of those things. Many parents on birth certificates do not intend to take legal responsibility for their children and some never intended to have children at all. Sometimes this is because the birth mother is acting as a surrogate, and sometime it's because they intend to give the child up for adoption. Sometimes it's because the parent is abusive or irresponsible.

The nature of same sex parents is that their decision to parent is likely to be more intentional than opposite sex parents, but that doesn't mean that a birth certificate actually records anything more than the circumstances of a birth and a child's first legal parents.

@merrymouse You make some good points.

I think you're arguing that non-birth mums should no longer be named on the child's birth certificate but should retain automatic parental responsibility when married to the birth mum. And you're right - that could be done. Whilst the change to birth certificates for lesbian mums and automatic parental responsibility for non-birth mums in marriages/civil partnerships with the birth mum were reforms that happened at the same time, and parental responsibility for a child usually comes initially from being named on the birth certificate until something changes that later - they are not necessarily tied together - I hadn't thought of that. You could take away the right of non-birth mums to be named on the birth certificate without taking away the parental responsibility. Would you also stop non-genetic, infertile dads from being named on the birth certificate, where there was a sperm donor? I suppose logically you would.

It's true that a birth certificate often does not reflect the social and legal parents of a child over the course of the child's life. My wife could die and another woman or man could parent my daughter and would not be named on the birth certificate. But nonetheless my daughter's birth certificate does reflect the facts of her birth and her social and legal parentage at her birth - she was conceived intentionally in a lesbian couple who both formally consented to the fertility treatment which resulted in her birth. She was born to that couple who at the moment of her birth intended to and did take responsibility for her and parent her. Those are the facts of her birth that the birth certificate records and which are worth recording.

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

I do not think the intention is to pretend that nobody gave birth to this child.

I think the intention is to say that both mothers and fathers can give birth.

I object to this because it's forcing gender ideology onto an official document and redefines the purpose of that document.

Sorry, RedToothbrush, you feel that lesbian mums want to be named on the birth certificate instead of the anonymous sperm donor because of "ownership" issues? You think lesbian mums think they own their kids and don't want anyone else to own them? That is an odd perspective - I don't own my daughter and neither does my wife. But I am legally responsible for her and so is she.

How can you name an anonymous sperm donor on a birth certificate? I don't know his name. My daughter will be able to find out when she is 18 and can find out other information about him before then. Do you want to end anonymous sperm donation? That seems to be the upshot of what you are saying.

Then you've misinterpreted what I've said.

I've treated to be clear in stating that legal parents should be named as part of the decision making involved in having that child and to reflect their legal and emotional commitment to bringing a child into the world BUT this should not be viewed as 'lesser' merely a statement of fact. And should be in addition to, not in replacement of.

If you choose to view it through the lens of me saying it's 'lesser' then I do feel that's coming from you and certainly not reflective of how I feel about lesbian parents.

However I do think it is a sore point about anonymous donors and I'm not convinced it's ultimately to the child's benefit for them to be anonymous. Especially when there's been abuses of the system and men fathering 50 kids through donation. There are health implications and there are potentially relationship implications. The only reason I'm not completely against it, is because the alternative is perhaps worse. (And there issues relating the recording of a father in traditional heterosexual relationships, cases of rape, cases of not knowing who the father is and deliberately concealing the identity of the father). I generally think that a child should have the right to know their heritage and have it reflected where ever possible because its their history.

At the very least a child should have the right to add an anonymous donor to their birth certificate if they want upon reaching 18. So there needs to be space to do this rather than just having room for two parents.

A child's dna IS part of who they are and their identity. There will be curiousity about whether they share traits or look like their biological parent. And I do worry about the erasure of this, even if there is no legal parental status whilst growing up. An anonymous donor WILL be their father.

No amount of identity politics or support/dislike of LGBT parents changes that.

It just is.

The political erosion of our realities is not a good thing because it doesn't stop them being the case.

If there is a way to reflect both biological and emotional/legal parents I think that should be preferable. I want LGBT parents to have legitimacy and equal status. But you can not ignore it where there is complications to someone's identity through the involvement of additional parties.

On the half-brother and half-sister-surrogate case:

"She will not have any reason to pursue any maternal relationship with Chapelle."

How on earth do they know that she won't want to? Why would they assume she doesn't want to?

My guess is that those men didn't want to (or were refused due to their attitude to birth parents) go through the process to become adopters. They could have been approved to be adopters barring any convictions (maybe they have convictions that would prevent them from being adopters but not from being parents through surrogacy?) and it is still possible at their ages to adopt quite a young child in the UK. Or there are a few countries where there is more of a need for adopters for babies, apart from the cost of course (cheaper to get your baby from your sister).

Think for example the consequences it will have for trafficking children if you can legally leave the mother section blank on a birth certificate.

The purpose of a birth certificate is to ensure nationality.

Millions of children grow up without a legal nationality and thus lacking basic human rights, because the birthing mother is not recognised as a person capable of passing on nationality.

It is essential to children’s and women’s rights that a woman who gave birth to a child is named on the birth certificate.

But it does record her legal parents and importantly her social parents

But long form birth certificates don't very often don't record either social or legal parents. They are a simple record of birth. Many people are not parented by their birth parents and many people lose contact with a parent before the end of their childhood. If you insist that a birth certificate is a reflection of a child's life, where does that leave people for whom it very much isn't?

The question becomes whether birth certificates are required at all. It's as reasonable to have that argument as it is to have any other argument. However, if we going to discuss the point of birth certificates, then we need to involve everyone and discuss all the implications, not just change the meaning by default.

The alternative is to go back to the previous position where the non-birth mum had to adopt the child in court proceedings.

Why? The non birth parent has never had to demonstrate a genetic relationship to the child, and anyone married to the birth parent automatically becomes a legal guardian of the child. Why should that change?

The issue being discussed is the language used to describe the birth parent.

And how does it help the child to tell her that she has a dad?

I don't understand why this is relevant. As far as I know Birth certificates have never had to name a second parent, male, female, genetically related or otherwise.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g These are the requirements for getting a GRC
Determination of applications
(1)In the case of an application under section 1(1)(a), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied that the applicant—
(a)has or has had gender dysphoria,
(b)has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,
(c)intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death,

McConnell obviously lied, because living in the acquired (male) gender until death excludes obviously getting pregnant.

@JocastaJones
I think it is brilliant that two people of the same sex can be registered as the parents of a child. I think it is awful that the reality of a biological birth is denied. Men do not have babies. Women do.

Am I right in thinking that applying for a GRC is a paper exercise? I'm sure I've read that the applicant gets all the paperwork together and sends it in and periodically a panel convenes to go through all the pending applications. The applicant doesn't come in to meet them or answer questions. I surmise there is probably a wait of a few weeks or months between making the application and hearing the outcome of the panel hearing. So no reason for the panel to know that the applicant was pregnant or considering getting pregnant.

I'm also now of the view that the GRA should be repealed. Failing that, I can't see how the legal fiction of a GRC can be upheld in the case of a transman who gives birth or a transwoman who impregnates a woman. In both cases that is living as their birth sex, not the opposite, surely.

@AlessandraAsteriti Not yet. But this person is seeking a change in the law.

I agree with you that the child should have ‘mother’ recorded but logically we are getting in a right old mess here. I am glad to have benefitted from the change allowing 2 women to be recorded as parents because it suited my circumstances. I’m not so blinkered that I can’t see the potential pitfalls of this.

Juells this is different though as it is not omitting the name of the father. It is removing his existence and instead replacing his section on the birth certificate with the name of the birth mother’s female partner.

But it's not that is it? It's giving the title of father to the female who birthed the child, not the partner. Thus leaving the mother section blank, isn't it?

@JocastaJones
No certificate records the birth mother as the father and no mother, to my knowledge. On top of it, McConnell obviously lied to obtain the GRC.

mirrormouse

This is about a certificate relating to the history of a child's birth. If birth records are to mean anything they need to be recorded accurately, or as accurately as they can be since as others have pointed out ,paternity is not always cut and dried, or even recorded.

But 'maternity' is a different matter, the person who pushed out the baby is not usually in dispute on a birth certificate. and that is how it should stay . A document of such importance in a person's life should not start off with a lie. [Which is of course why unmarried fathers who want to be recorded on the certificate have to appear in person at the registration]

I have no doubt that the parenting of this child will be fine, he will have a happy time with his dad and will , I am sure , be told appropriately about the circumstances of his birth much as you and your partner have done with your child. What he is told about the sperm donor is not our business, but at the point of his birth the child was delivered from a vagina because that is how births occur. And that is part of his history and should not be tippexed out to satisfy someone else's need.

Sorry, RedToothbrush, you feel that lesbian mums want to be named on the birth certificate instead of the anonymous sperm donor because of "ownership" issues? You think lesbian mums think they own their kids and don't want anyone else to own them? That is an odd perspective - I don't own my daughter and neither does my wife. But I am legally responsible for her and so is she.

How can you name an anonymous sperm donor on a birth certificate? I don't know his name. My daughter will be able to find out when she is 18 and can find out other information about him before then. Do you want to end anonymous sperm donation? That seems to be the upshot of what you are saying.

Alessandra I agree but we’ve already gone there and my children’s birth certificates do already go against ‘logic, culture and nature’. Obviously not law.

@JocastaJones It is impossible for a child not to have a mother. A father can be no more than a single cell, but a mother is more than that. Women make children with their body, and birth them. To tell a child nobody performed that function is perverse. And of course, it is an abomination of logic, law, culture and nature.

It doesn't feel great reading this thread as a lesbian mum. My child's birth certificate record's her mother and her second parent as my wife and not the details of the anonymous sperm donor. That birth certificate doesn't record her biological/genetic parentage. But it does record her legal parents and importantly her social parents - the women who look after her every day and take responsibility for her upbringing and wellbeing.

Arguably biological parents should be stated as they are important for all sorts of reasons.

I can see an argument for also having legal parents named but I don't think it should purely be a substitute for.

There seems to be this rather human desire to 'know where we came from' genetically. It's part of the story of how we came to be (see separated and adopted children and the popularity of family history).

However another legal parent is very much part of that history and heritage and should be treated as such. This is a bonus rather than taking aware from parentage or having 'lesser' status.

I wish that this was reflected in documentary papers as its the story of a person's origins and heritage and purely factual rather than a statement of 'ownership' of a child which I feel is how this is going. It shouldn't be viewed as a judgement - it's merely the reality of a chain of events and decisions which led to a child being born.

In the case of an adopted child, where the Legal Fiction that is the adoptive parents exists, the child always has the right to discover its natural parent[s]

That’s not the case, there’s is no legal fiction . Adopters don’t get a new full birth certificate with their legal parents names.

Juells this is different though as it is not omitting the name of the father. It is removing his existence and instead replacing his section on the birth certificate with the name of the birth mother’s female partner.

MirrorMouse I am in the same situation as you. The birth certificate is not a biological record. We’ve already broken that link. My children have no father just as this child might have no mother.

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