Trans-man who gave birth is a Guardian Journalist

However, the proposed change fundamentally alters the purpose of a birth certificate and we should all have a say in that.

Very well said, merrymouse.

But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors

I know it can seem as though having two women on a birth certificate is a legal fiction, but as the law has never required that a father is named on a birth certificate, and as the second person on the birth certificate has never routinely had to show a genetic relationship with the baby, really the law hasn't really changed that much.

Somebody married to somebody who has given birth will become the baby's legal guardian by default, even if neither of them have a genetic relationship to the child and even if they are another woman.

A birth certificate is a record of birth, not genetics. The only two people who must be on a birth certificate are the baby and the mother, 'mother' simply meaning the person who gave birth.

If the law is changed to say that a father can give birth, it is a fundamental change of the meaning of the words 'mother' and 'father', giving them values that they don't currently have in law.

A birth certificate does not predict whether somebody will be a good or bad parent, or define their parenting role or predict that they will have any long term role in the child's life at all. It is a simple statement of fact. This person gave birth. The word for a person who gave birth is a mother.

Clearly the Guardian journalist has all sorts of issues with the words 'mother' and 'woman'. That must be very difficult. However, the proposed change fundamentally alters the purpose of a birth certificate and we should all have a say in that.

I was shocked to read about anonymity given that we have discussed the documentary after an article was published in the Guardian about it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3564619-The-Dad-who-gave-Birth-Seahorse-Documentary

So ridiculous that a person claims to be male, decides to get pregnant and then insists all of society should lie to the child and tell him he’s the only human not to be born of a biological woman, his mother.

This is where the ridiculous twisting around of ideology and vocabulary to gaslight a nation stops. Thank God.

is there a provision for rescinding the GRC for having given false information? I cannot find it in the GRA.

Not so far as I am aware. There would need to be a referral back to the original GRC panel in this case for the full information, I suspect.

If that panel decides it was deceived it may have power to rescind their decision to grant a GRC.

JackyHolyoake

But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors). So calling this person father doesn’t seem a big stretch does it? I don’t like it, but it seems all the required conditions are in place

More succinct than my ramble - but I agree..

So there may well be enough legal mud for this one to wallow very happily

I don't know but they could argue that in cases of AID, surrogacy and egg donation the law permits birth certificates which are not genetically true. Such certificates are not patently untrue where the parents bringing up a child are a man and a woman. The law also permits "2 mother" birth certificates - which are patently untrue.

All of these are allowing the persons who will be caring for the child to be recognised as parents - although possibly many of these parents have no biological link to the child.

This person has a biological link so the argument would be are their rights lesser than all the other non- biological parents?

In all of these other situations parents are advised that the child should be told the truth- in the case of the 2 mothers it's impossible to hide it.

Why are you (you meaning anyone who thinks this person should not get their way) content that all of these persons can be trusted to explain the situation to their children , but you won't trust this person?

@JackyHolyoake
is there a provision for rescinding the GRC for having given false information? I cannot find it in the GRA.

I sincerely hope the court stops this.

I agree .. and the GRC should also be rescinded, in my view.

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].

In relation to the GRA 2004, no such right exists because it was never anticipated that anyone would obtain a GRC before becoming a parent. So, if this person is permitted to record herself as this child's father, the child has no right yet to discover the truth about its mother, given the 'no disclosure' clauses contained within GRA 2004.

Seadragonusgiganticusmaximus
See section 12 of the GRA
12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.
Here the argument would be that having acquired the male gender makes him a father. But to acquire a GRC one has to commit to live in the acquired gender permanently. How does this square with having a child, which men do not do? Again, this is extremist trans ideology trying to find a legal basis, that male/female distinction is irrelevant, and transmen can give birth and transwomen can impregnate women. I sincerely hope the court stops this.

But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors). So calling this person father doesn’t seem a big stretch does it? I don’t like it, but it seems all the required conditions are in place.

I think the difference here may be that married lesbians do not deny they are both female; neither does a sperm donor deny he is male.

In this case we have a woman who is aiming to use her GRC to have her Legal Fiction status as a "man" recorded on her child's Birth Certificate changed.

This is a completely different issue.

Prior to attending a fertility clinic he applied for a gender recognition certificate, which was granted before he gave birth. This meant he was legally male when his child was born.

The whole thing is completely nuts. Poor kid. It doesn't deserve this.

I wonder if they had their full maternity leave from work.........

Jacky

I agree. But there exists a “legal fiction” (I think that’s the term) that this person is a man. It seems that birth certificates also contain legal fictions (married lesbians, sperm donors). So calling this person father doesn’t seem a big stretch does it? I don’t like it, but it seems all the required conditions are in place.

It seems there was a desire to make a test case for allowing transmen to register as fathers even when giving birth.

Exactly so ... but there is also the issue of the fact that a GRC was granted to this person to which are attached strict conditions.

This goes back to the absurdity of claiming they are born in the wrong body and either claiming the penis is female (then their body is not wrong) or getting pregnant (so using their body for its intended, female, purpose). I sure hope the court thrown out this case, although I do not seem to see any section relevant for fraudulent or untrue declarations in order to obtain a GRC. It seems there was a desire to make a test case for allowing transmen to register as fathers even when giving birth.

Lass

So there may well be enough legal mud for this one to wallow very happily.

One argument could be that, as a ‘man living in a woman’s body’

Except that there is no material basis in reality for such a statement.

This person thinks that "mother" means floral pinny and ladybrain. If you are gender non conforming, then mother is not an apt title.
What a mockery this person is claiming the women's movement is.

One argument could be that, as a ‘man living in a woman’s body’ and wishing to be a parent, although he would have much preferred to have used his sperm to fertilise an egg, he took the pragmatic decision to use the reproductive organs nature had given him.

I still think he should be shown as mother though, although I’m now slightly struggling with the logical basis for that view.

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

. The starting point is pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant. but they could not ever be 100% the truth. The principle can be displaced if there is evidence it is not true.

In many cases, (probably by far the majority ?) bcs would until recently be more accurate than not as to biological parents.

The water is muddied now by AID, egg donation, and surrogacy. In the case of lesbian couples there can't be 2 biological mothers and no biological father but legally there can be.

Indeed, definitely in breach of 2.1.c. How to reconcile the intention to live permanently as a man with getting pregnant?

And how can "gender dysphoria" be a relevant factor if a female is content to use her female reproductive system to achieve what it is intended to achieve?

I asked a trans friend for their view on this, reproduced with permission.

'Being pregnant is something that women do. I am a man and so there is no way I would want to go through the whole pregnancy and childbirth thing. Expecting to be then put down as the father is quite frankly ridiculous. He/She/They need to decide what they are and stick to it rather than wanting to have their cake and eat it.'

Seems reasonable to me.