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

Interesting that there is some talk of sympathy to trans men for being sold a lie that their legal status will be changed but it turns out not to be true in every respect. Firstly, the legal exemptions are clear and ought to be understood by anyone making the effort to undertake this legal transition. Secondly, the judge seemed quite scathing of the fact Freddy essentially lied to to obtain his GRC as he had no intention of living as a man due to his ongoing efforts to become pregnant. He invited the relevant body to consider voiding for fraud. Had Freddy disclosed at the time he was trying to have a baby it is likely his GRC wouldn’t have been granted. I can only assume they left it alone as they didn’t want to deal with the fall out of trying to void it.

It’s becoming more and more common to see the word male used to describe trans men and female to describe trans women. It’s clear than they need the validity of that word to help try and add some authenticity.

OneEndedStick

Honestly, I don't get it. Our (hypothetical) child doesn't need a falsified record of her birth, and I don't need the validation.

That is the definition of throwing lesbians under a bus!

My wife cut the cord when our daughter was born, has been there for her every day of her life holding her, feeding her, dressing her and loving her like any normal parent.

If anything happened to our DD (imagine she was rushed to hospital) and the sperm donor was on the birth certificate rather than my wife then my wife would have absolutely no legal right to make any decisions about our DD.

If my wife and I split and she wasn't on the birth certificate she would have no legal right to see our DD and I would have no right to claim maintenance. I could take the DD she has loved and cared for her whole life away to the other side of the world without my wife's permission and there would be nothing she could do about it.

As a fellow lesbian, surely you can see why lesbian couples who have a child would need that 'validation'?!

I don't think there's anything 'bigoted' in being honest about the look someone has deliberately chosen for themselves not really working for them (in my opinion). I'd say the same if he'd had a horrible facial tattoo or his tongue forked like a snake. Feminism does not mean we lose our personal sense of taste or style or our ability to give it to people straight. We're not bound by the 'gorgeous' 'brave' 'stunning' brigade and can tell the emperor he's naked.

Didactylos well said.

Very pleased about this judgement

Whatever is on the birth certificate this unfortunate child will be brought up with the narrative that he does not have and has never had a mother. This may satisfy Freddy's dysphoria but it can hardly make for a happy secure child. The child will also, along with everyone else be required to tiptoe round Freddy's narcissistic obsession with looking male.

I saw the film and thought that this was the nearest example I had seen of a F to M trans person fetishising their own appearance

He’s no less attractive than many other people. What does telling people they are ugly actually achieve? The only thing it does is give ammunition to TRAs who frequent these boards looking for evidence that we are not feminists, just bigots.

Not to mention the fact that he has actively chosen to look strange. It's not an accident of birth.

It's not my obligation to be 'helpful' or 'kind' here @pota2 . I'm being honest. Freddy, on the other hand, is trying to get a Big Lie incorporated into the very fabric of our legal system and our society. Get a sense of perspective. And a grip.

Ruffle not very helpful or kind to comment on someone’s looks.

twitter.com/sally_hines/status/1176880945795936257?s=20

Raring to go to change the law apparently. Serious can of worms.

Ha.

I think it's safe to say my faith in the legal system is on the way to being restored after the past few days. Still a long way to go though.

Someone who gets pregnant is not living as a man.

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

Adoption certificates don’t replace birth certificates they are issued as well as them - and what’s biological fact got to do with it? They are a record of an adoption, not a birth.

If, at the point of an adoption being legalised, a birth certificate was issued, naming adoptive parents not birth parents, you might have a point.... but it isn’t.

OneEnded the female partner can only go on the BC if the child is conceived through IVF. She won’t be the second parent if your friend donates sperm.

Anyway, I take the points made here. However there is a very powerful lobby behind this. If the court had just let Freddie be named parent, it would only apply to a tiny number of cases. Now Sally Hines and others will campaign for wholescale law reform off the back of this case probably leading to removing the category of mother altogether. It’s played right into their hands.

Great post @Didactylos

But loathe to begin a comment with "as a lesbian"

Ah sod it, get a badge made up.

What I do feel is may be a little confused about why I should be named on a birth certificate if I'm not actually a biological parent. A birth certificate is a record of historical fact, it's not a personal affirmation. If my partner and I decide to have a child, she carries and gives birth, and a mutual friend donates sperm, they go on the certificate.

Honestly, I don't get it. Our (hypothetical) child doesn't need a falsified record of her birth, and I don't need the validation.

Better to me safe in case of a split and custody case, or bereavement. But I don’t see why I format can’t easily be devised that specified who were the biological parents and who were legal and social parents.

By the same token, it could record sex at birth and be amended later to note any gender identity information.

Thank you Errol

The Law Commission (see Rumplestiltskin threads on here for more on their current proposals on surrogacy law changes ) are already hoping to review birth certification. The Law commission’s purpose is to review UK law and recommend legal changes to government.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668113/13th-Programme-of-Law-Reform.pdf

This ^^ document from 2017 says on p 28:

BIRTH REGISTRATION
4.4 The registration of births in England and Wales, governed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, originally dates from the introduction of civil registration in 1836. Currently, the law only allows the registration of two (legal rather than biological or genetic) parents, and requires children to be registered as either male or female. These requirements have not been revisited in light of widespread changes in the forms that families take, including the growing number of children conceived through the use of donor gametes or surrogacy (whose legal parents may differ from their biological parents), and the increasing acceptance of transgender people and awareness of those born intersex.
4.5 Beyond these issues, a project could consider the fundamental questions of for what reason and for whose benefit the record is kept, raising wider questions about the law determining who is a “parent” and the legal consequences of being a parent.
4.6 Although the scope and emphasis of a project on birth registration would need careful consideration, nearly all stakeholders who responded to our 13th Programme consultation thought that the Law Commission is the appropriate body to undertake reform.
4.7 We believe that there is a case for reform to birth registration but we do not think that now is the time for such a project to begin. With a few exceptions, the stakeholders that we have spoken to did not identify the issue of birth registration as one of the most pressing for immediate law reform. This view was shared by Government departments. Moreover, we take the view that the nature and scale of the issues around the reform of birth registration have not yet fully emerged. In particular, the Government is reviewing the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and our work on the reform of surrogacy law may help to highlight some of the birth registration issues in a specific context, and act as a ‘springboard’ for identifying issues to take forward in further work.
4.8 We have not, therefore, included a project on birth registration in our 13th Programme of law reform, but we expect that developments in this area will mean that such a project is a real possibility, either for inclusion in our next Programme or as a future Ministerial reference.’

Has the judge limited this ‘men as mothers’ point only for the purposes of birth certification?

That's how I read it. In the context of birth, the person who gives birth is the mother regardless of their gender. A male born person can never give birth, so they're irrelevant as far as this ruling goes.

But loathe to begin a comment with "as a lesbian" but it's relevant when I'm about to say I don't see how we're supposedly "thrown under the bus" here. I certainly don't feel that way.

What I do feel is may be a little confused about why I should be named on a birth certificate if I'm not actually a biological parent. A birth certificate is a record of historical fact, it's not a personal affirmation. If my partner and I decide to have a child, she carries and gives birth, and a mutual friend donates sperm, they go on the certificate.

Honestly, I don't get it. Our (hypothetical) child doesn't need a falsified record of her birth, and I don't need the validation.
If I'm going to be with her birth mother, both of us bringing her up for the next eighteen years or so, I'm fairly confident she's going to realise I'm one of her parents without having that written on a birth certificate.

I'm on a debate FB group debating this subject.
Now I'm a bit nervous.
I usually keep my opinions on this to private non traceable forums.

However I just started. And I'm being called a transfobe.

I've told them I don't give a shit about their feelings. Some are supporting some are against. Normal debate.

Except I recall stories on here and on Twitter. And I know that one side is not like any normal debate.

My Facebook is pretty locked down but I know they take it to far.
I've made sure not to say anything to bad. I've kept to using sex and female.

But it's ridiculous that this has me scared. This is how they will win.

How can we argue that this is in anyway living authentically when the whole edifice demands lie upon lie from the individual and everyone who interacts with them?

Well said.

Brilliant post Didactylos

Not RTFT and I haven’t had time to look at the actual judgement yet, but.. If the judgement says men can be mothers, can male-born men now be mothers legally in other ways than this? Has the judge limited this ‘men as mothers’ point only for the purposes of birth certification?

Popchyk, a GRC change of legal sex of a parent, can’t be retrospectively applied to their child’s BC.

So completely self absorbed this person is obviously incapable of putting the needs of their child first. I honestly hope SS are heavily involved here