Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

Many people have birth certificates that list parents from whom they are estranged, or have to list a previous name that relates to an abusive past relationship when they fill in forms. If McConnell wins this case, will the courts allow all of us to discard life details that no longer fit with our current sense of self?

It's easy to understand why a birth certificate can be distressing, but at the moment they provide limited, neutral information about an event. However, McConnell's case (and trans ideology) suggest that they make a judgement about identity and I really, really resist the idea that official documents can or should record identity.

Placemarking. Will be interested to learn the result of the second court case.

I can't get over the idea that this journalist sued for anonymity while making a documentary about their situation. Surely if anything is going to harm the child the publicity surrounding the documentary will do the trick.

Doesn’t this tend to give the lie to any suggestion that birth certificates are a record of the (biological) truth?

I think it's largely practical, and assumes that generally speaking people will be truthful about registering on the birth certificate, and most of the time if a couple is married the husband is the father. Given that most people won't be having genetic testing to confirm this - it wasn't even always possible - it's the most sensible assumption.

If it's challenged in some way, then tests can be done and it can be modified to reflect what's true.

Agree with the ruling but disagree with the “poor kid” comments. Someone can be a loving and competent parent while having a different belief system.

However, I am concerned by the push to reconfigure society around gender instead of sex (of which this was part) because it hurts girls and women.

So I agree with the ruling.

Trying to pin down a definition of what it means to "live as a man" (or woman) isn't going to be improved any by a situation in which giving birth has been legally recognised as part and parcel of living as a man. Words are meaningless, definitions are meaningless. You'd almost think this was all completely deliberate. 🙄

I suspect that this is one of those strategic court cases (funded by TELI?) to try and set a precedent that then becomes law.

This is the result of the legal fiction of the GRA that says gender identity is equal to sex.

Which is of course nonsense.

I would have hoped child protection issues would come into this. What type of reality will this child grow up in knowing that the person who gave birth to them says they are their father.

I loathe it when parents try to indoctrinate their children with their beliefs. (I feel this as strongly as I do about children bought up in religious households!)

Is it bad that every time I open this thread, I see the title as Trans-man who gave birth TO a Guardian Journalist?

I know that. My point was the certificate does not record 2 mothers. If it had, that might strengthen this person's case as "mother" would not imply person who gives birth.

Just checked something- in the case of a lesbian couple the certificate does not have 2 mothers. It has mother and parent. Referring to "2 mothers" is colloquial.

That's the case if the child is the result of being treated at a licensed fertlity clinic. If it's a result of a privately arranged pregnancy then the 2nd parent has to apply for PR. If it's a fertility clinic pregnancy then a letter from the birth mother to the other parent means they can go on the birth certificate.

We inherit DNA from our parents. Some DNA we inherit equally from our parents, but mitochondrial dna is only passed from our mother. Therefore the child has a mother.

jacky that is so interesting. I agree, there is no provision in the 2004 Act for a grc to be rescinded. Since a grc is entirely a creature of statute, this means that it can’t be rescinded. I can’t see that even deliberate fraud would permit this(and this particular case looks like one involving an unhappy and mixed up person rather than fraud).

What this demonstrates is the astonishing naïveté involved when the 2004 Act was enacted. The possibility of this situation, and of one involving deliberate fraud (for instance in order to access women’s prison estate), simply wasn’t considered. So now the courts are facing a very unpleasant situation - either face trans opprobrium for maintaining the accuracy of the birth certificate, or surrender the child’s interests in an having accurate record of his/her mother’s identity. Particularly hideous given that in this case, given the restrictions on disclosure of a grc, the effect of the 2004 Act seems to be that the child can never even be informed, even as an adult, of the identity of his/her biological mother- something not the case in any other context.

This piece of legislation was well meaning but is completely unable to deal with the pressure now being put on it. It should be repealed - or at least amended to provide for compulsory revocation of a grc in specified circumstances, and spelling it out that issue of a grc does not affect the birth certificate record in the case of subsequent birth of a child (but also that such birth should normally be grounds for revocation).

Poor child. A parent’s energies would be far better focused on the day to day care of the child, and enjoying his/herbabyhood, than on complex and presumably stressful legal action aimed at withholding information from the child.

He certainly did not intend to live as a man for the rest of his life, which he committed to do when he got his GRC, because men do not give birth.

And this is where I get stuck. Currently, you can only get a GRC because you have lived as a man.

If you stopped taking testosterone, conceived a child, carried that child and gave birth, you are not living as a man.

Just checked something- in the case of a lesbian couple the certificate does not have 2 mothers. It has mother and parent. Referring to "2 mothers" is colloquial.

As I understand it, the other legal fiction birth certificate issues are around the 2nd parent - because without DNA testing the genetic truth of the father/second parent is not 100% apparent upon birth.
However, the baby literally exiting the body of the mother is and has always been a very clear line. The baby belongs to the mother, no question, because it was inside of her.
Father/Parent 2 is more of a record of the mother's partner, ie, the person who will be involved in raising the child. This seems like a practical solution, unless DNA testing of newborns and named fathers becomes routine. I don't know how that fits with the child's right to know their genetic parent...

This case, as I understand it, is about wanting the mother - the one from whom the baby issued - listed in the father/Parent 2 slot and leaving the mother/born-of slot empty. If we must, couldn't we change the 'slot' names to include a gender neutral option if the word mother is so triggering (more triggering than, ya know, being pregnant and birthing a child ). Mother/Born of/Birthing Parent and Father/Parent 2 for example? I don't love it, but it's a compromise that keeps in mind the child's right to an accurate record of who birthed them.

As for surrogacy/adoption - the surrogate mother would still be named as mother on the birth certificate. The intended mother would be named as adoptive mother on the adoption certificate. I think that is ethically right.

Yes allesandria. He committed to live as a guy. Then well he didn’t

Everything Merrymouse said.

He certainly did not intend to live as a man for the rest of his life, which he committed to do when he got his GRC, because men do not give birth. And herein lies the problem. He wants the court to say that men can give birth. I do not care how delusional these people are, God knows Scientologists exist, but we cannot have legislators and courts pander to these delusions and design law and policy around their delusions.

The birth of a baby is a wonderful thing. Congratulations to the family.

I hope that the whole legal and media shenanigans that undoubtedly follow remember that this is about a baby. The baby didn't ask for this and hopefully won't end up being used to make a point .

I also hope the legal implications for what it means to be a woman and mother are taken into account when determining the legal paperwork for the child. Am not holding my breath.

I don't think the problem is lying - I suspect McConnell would be completely honest about being trans.

I think the problem is legally defining 'mother' on a birth certificate in terms of gender and parenting role, rather than biology.

I think parents come in all shapes and sizes, and I don't care how people refer to the people who parent them. However, if the law is too squeamish to use language that describes the biological reality of birth itself, it becomes less and less possible to talk about the unavoidable consequences of being somebody with the potential to give birth.

So if he was in a relationship with another man and conceived naturally. Who would be dad? Technically the partner would be, but the transman also wants to be dad.
That’s one of the questions I would have been asking in court.

A person cannot have two biological same sex parents.

And how messed up will the child be in a few years time. Nothing for mother and wants to know more about the donor.
That’s of course after years of bullying even if the case never went public. Kids are encouraged to talk about their family.
The child will be called a liar when they say my dad gave birth to me, I have no mother, and the sperm donor is called Brian.

Lass

More succinct than my ramble - but I agree..

I’ll take that as a compliment - thanks!

merrymouse

Thank you. That does go a long way towards addressing my concerns.

It’s going to be very interesting to see the judgement.