“Person who gave birth” turns out to be mother.

Not everyone who posts on this board is a feminist

I guess my point is that the birth mother is always given pr because they gave birth and you can't erase that from the record because of the legal implications of not recording the biological mother who gave birth. In a lesbian relationship if they are married then both have pr from birth if not then it would be the same as unmarried fathers on registration. I agree with the verdict.

Same here Scarlett

"Current lover" FFS, did we just return to the 80s where all gay people were supposedly promiscuous and women had doomed angst-ridden partner after doomed angst-ridden partner before eventually dying lonely and surrounded by cats? Because that was the justification for taking lesbians' children away from them so that they didn't keep children in their inevitably-dysfunctional "pretended" families.

I can see why this has upset trans people. It makes clear that the "for all purposes" in the GRA is not true at all for anything sex-related. It may be the right result but I can understand why someone in that position might feel lied to, because this "for all purposes" turns out to be "for some purposes" only.

The birth certificate affects who has parental responsibility. That is part of the facts it captures. It is obvious that in a lesbian relationship where both will have parental responsibility then both should be on the birth certificate.

Sperm donors do not have PR so shouldn't be on the birth certificate.

But as regards this verdict - great news. Any other verdict would have redefined 'mother' and I don't consent to my status being redefined.

In two minds here.

The birth certificate traditionally registers the mother and father - though historically we know pre conceptual aid the only person who knew was the real father was the mother and even then she might have had to guess.

With the advent of conceptual aid I think in most countries a sperm donor is anonymous AFAIK. Not sure about egg donation.

So clearly the birth certificate while normally helpful for a child tracing their parents for personal or medical reasons can be actually either unhelpful or actively misleading.

gestational parent/sperm donor seems to cover it. But to call yourself father when you've given birth is bizarre.

Those birth certificates are going to be sooo long if they cover the 100 genders.

But what about sperm donation? They are the biological father but someone else can be listed in their place as the father. There is no need to even list a father yet this is a biological impossibility.

I think sperm donation should be labelled as such:

Saying ‘Father: anonymous donor’, doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t be recorded somehow to show who the person is who will bring up the child.

A blank in the certificate is not a lie - it just shows the information is not available.

I would have thought the largest group of people where the birth certificate is biologically inaccurate is where the married mother has had an affair.

But birth certificates have always, I think, contained the legal facts. And regardless of the biological facts the husband of the mother is the legal father.

Hence the presence or absence of the unmarried father on a birth certificate being crucial to parental responsibility.

If a lesbian partner is, from birth of the child, that child’s legal parent it makes sense to have her recorded as such.

I presume what this judgement says is that a person who gives birth is, at that moment, the legal mother of the child.

Does anyone have a link to the actual judgement?

There will no doubt be an appeal or maybe even draft legislation saying that he can be named as the father. Be careful what you wish for.

A birth mother automatically has PR and her name goes in the mother box, regardless of who the other parent is (or isn't). That doesn't change whether you're in a lesbian relationship or anything else. That bit records the truth.

There is also the question of parental responsibility, under the law prior to registration of a child's birth the biological mother has parental responsibility which is why babies are called baby (mothers surname). A father married to the mother also has parental responsibility prior to registration of the birth (responsibility assumed as child assumed to be of the marriage). Unmarried fathers do not. This has an effect on medical care for the baby if it is an emergency and the biological mother is too unwell as the unmarried father cannot give consent for treatment. If the biological mother is named as the unmarried father then they would lose that automatic parental responsibility until the birth was registered. The biological father could not take their place as they have not given birth and the baby is not registered under their name, they are also not a patient in the hospital as they have not given birth. It is legally complex.

I'm so pleased with this verdict - thankfully common sense prevailed and these days that's no small thing given how much gaslighting and phobia shouts mean that the truth is not allowed to be spoken.

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC

And would it not follow then, that this person has no more legal right to be recognised as a man than, any random woman?

Scarlett indeed.

And interesting that nobody seems very fussed about the largest group where records are biologically inaccurate: where a heterosexual couple uses donated sperm.

What if that couple split - this leaves the child with a certificate containing mother/current lover details?

Exactly the same as if a straight couple split. The 'current lover' is the child's legal parent.

Surprised at the insinuation that a lesbian partner would be any less committed than a biological father. Current lover indeed!

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC.

The judge should just have said that. End of story.

Datun, I wish I could communicate so efficiently! To the point, no fluff and perfectly easy to understand.

Parents deliberately falsifying a child’s identification documents is very disturbing stuff. Whatever the reason.

I’m glad this was squashed. As said above, this document belongs to the child alone. The parents’ identity or how they feel is entirely irrelevant and their intense desire to impose this has nothing to do with the interests of the child and everything to do with getting legal weight behind an aggressive political and ideological movement.

In a still from the documentary, a scan displayed the usual F35 (or whatever her age was) at the top. Glad the sonographer wasn't strong-armed into writing anything else.

Also if a lesbian mother and second parent split, the second parent is still the parent. That doesn’t stop. It’s no different from if a het couple splits.

feebeecat they are a record of the birth not of all the facts of conception. There are so many exceptions that I have listed. If they were to be a valid biological record there would need to be a DNA test post birth and sperm donors would be listed as the father. Also there would need to be a duty on mothers to name the father as immaculate conception is not a possibility.

This person is not 'living as a man' in any way. They have violated the terms of their GRC.

The judge should just have said that. End of story.

If lesbian couples have the option to list one as a parent I have no idea why trans parents are not allowed to do this

I did not know this and it does kind of make a mockery of the whole notion of keeping records. What if that couple split - this leaves the child with a certificate containing mother/current lover details? Sorry if I'm being dense, I just thought the whole point of keeping records of births/deaths/marriages was to keep track of factual information

Wonder what this child will call its parent when it's older?

LemonGingerCakes assume you think adoption certificates shouldn't replace birth certificates then? Or oppose adoption certificates altogether as they go against biological fact?

And re lesbian parents, this is not an addendum. It lists the person as second parent and there is no mention of a father.

Birth certificates are not biological records at all!