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

Well said Didactylos.

The sheer waste of people's time and energy on this utter charade.

What is the point of these ceaseless lies?

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power...One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984

At the end of the day, Freddy was in a film about being a pregnant trans man, and took legal action (yes, Freddy wanted anonymity but couldn't have it because of the film), both of which put Freddy in the public eye. As a consequence, Freddy's child has been put in the public eye. Freddy's child isn't going to be shielded from the truth of their parentage as a result of that, whatever the BC says. This is only about validation of Freddy's gender identity and the whole thing has already had an inevitable impact on the child who will always be known as the child of a trans man. Why not put the child first from the start and just quietly get on with life?

Didact Yes. Absolutely.

Well there’s a surprise!

It’s time to revisit the whole business of Birth Registration now, in all honesty. I think there’s an argument for including all parents, social and biological. Plus of course, the trans thing.

I absolutely fucking give up on this fucking nonsense.

Ive read the whole judgement and the entire legal argument is a Gordian knot that is quite simply untied if a female individual accepts the reality that in using a their female body and female gametes to conceive, gestate and give birth to another human being becomes by that act the childs mother, no matter what identity they would like to assume or how they define themself, no matter how many people they have apparently managed to convince that they are somehow a member of the other sex, no matter how many legal documents and affidavits they have that pretend the legal fiction of them being, somehow, ineffably, indefinably a member of the opposite sex despite all biological evidence to the contrary.

Why are we setting up a legal and social precedent that this persons perception (and really only this persons perception) matters more than reality? Who decided we all have to use words in the way they demand, and that those words get to be redefined? What exactly are we sparing them or protecting them from when we agree to prop up the lie that they are male? 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? Is it a healthy way to live, to demand all must give way to this untruth, to give credence to the idea that reminders of the persons original name and sex are somehow violence? Why does this person get to somehow superimpose their identity and apparent psychological needs over everyone elses, including that of their own child to know the reality of their birth. How can it be demanded that as a society we need to prioritise the self identity of the person concerned in this case over the facts that they are born female, will die female and have carried out the female functions in human reproduction.

What is the point of these ceaseless lies? What is the point of acceptance, inclusivity and promoting diversity if we use it to bolster untruths instead of simply saying - live the way you want, gender non conformity should be accepted and protected, call yourself whatever you choose, have a family and relationships in whatever legal and consenting way you can, but the basic truths of your birth cannot be rewritten to suit your perception.

I am glad that the judge ruled the way they did on this case for fairness to the child who deserves an accurate birth certificate, no matter how their parent choses to identify or act. Its also commendable that the judge pointed out the interesting timeline of events and questioned the award of a GRA.

But the whole legal debate about this reminds me of the sombre endless books of theology produced by the various forms of Christianity in the middle ages, earnestly discussing the minutiae and possible manifestations of the trilogy, when the entire relevance and importance of the argument collapses if you just dont share the belief structure. What a fucking waste of human time and effort all this shenanigans is, like counting the number of angels that can dance on a fucking pin.

There are just so many different ramifications that you'd have to think about if you allowed people other than the mother or father to identify as a mother or father on the birth certificate.

For example, a baby is born to a woman called Jane. Her husband Adam is the father and goes on the birth certificate as such.

Adam later identifies as a woman and gets a GRC and goes by the name Anna.

Does "Anna" have the right to be listed as the mother alongside Jane on the birth certificate of the baby? Can Anna go back and modify the birth certificate to list two mothers?

And if not, why not?

Why does Freddy get to be "father" in the case we're talking about here but Anna doesn't get to be "mother" in the fictional scenario? What are Jane's rights in this regard?

@Makesmilingyourbesthobby
Yes, broadly that's the case for fathers, although it's complicated if the mother is married to a person other than the biological father. I guess the difference between eggs and sperm is that placing one woman's egg in another mother is extremely invasive and requires a clinic and clear consent from the donor. Sperm is sadly often placed in the mother with much less thought!

Sure, campaign for a DNA certificate if you like.

The fact is that a child cannot be born except through a woman. It is the simplest way to record who this child is.

Well I see I am wrong I always thought it was down to the egg and sperm even with surrogacy.
But for fathers isit the sperm? As when a biological father (not sperm doners) isn't on a child's birth certificate and no other man takes PR for the child and biological father doesn't give up his PR to child the mother can still pursue child maintenance from CMS so lawfully he is the father and he is biologically the father, so isit right a father is accountable for his sperm but a woman is not with her egg? a mother is accountable for a child she carries

Mention was made of women who use donor eggs. A dear friend, A, used a donor egg and her husband B's sperm in order for them to have a child.

A gestated and carried the baby with a hefty amount of hyperemesis gravidarum, she knew she had placenta previa and had to have an emergency Caesarean section. None of that mattered after the baby was born as A and B love the baby, and as far as A is concerned the child is her own.

A and B will tell the child the truth when the time comes because they understand the child deserves to know the truth.

No matter what Freddy's GRC says and no matter what Freddy feels, Freddy will always be the child's mother as Freddy's child came from the uterus inside Freddy's body. Freddy can wear certain clothes and use certain pronouns, but the facts of the gestation and birth cannot be denied.

Also - Guardian and Obserer reader here, one who doesn't blindly agree with everything in the papers and one who also gets fed up by some of the thoroughly batshit crazy comments at the website.

Why is the law so fuzzy in this regard. Since we now have egg and sperm donors, surrogates and the family that will bring up the child; why can't the birth certificates record all the biological and legal parents. Any episode of long lost family will show you that children want to know the actual biological and genetic facts of their conception. That should be recorded for their benefit.

BC's have nothing to do with biology they are for parental responsibility and nothing else this is also nonsense (in England at least). Birth certificates have existed in this country since 1837. Parental responsibility was created as a legal concept in 1989. When it was created parental responsibility wasn't connected to being on the birth certificate at all. Sure since 2003 it's been the case that being on the birth certificate is an additional route to getting PR for unmarried fathers but it is not at all true to say that BCs are only for PR. They are performing a whole range of roles, those roles have changed over time and they probably need to be more complex to reflect that.

In law it has nothing to do with carrying the child it's still all about the egg and the person it belongs to its their egg or they have PR to the child they are the mother they have PR of the child unless they decide to donate the egg or adoption in which case they are willing giving up their PR to the child or willing giving their eggs or the state decide to remove their PR.
It's whoever the egg belongs too that is the Mother unless they have willingly given consent to donate egg adopt etc same with men sperm donation they are relinquishing their rights and also any PR to any future child that may come if it, same goes for surrogacy the mother is whose egg itis not the woman carrying it in biology and in the eyes of the law

This is complete nonsense as far as English law is concerned. The law is very clear. If you give birth to a child then you are the mother and you have parental responsibility. Even if the egg is not yours and even if you are a surrogate.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/section/27 The law says: "(1)The woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child."

That's pretty clear and it even applies if you go abroad for the fertility treatment.

That ^ makes a bit more sense, although that is hard on the person doing the absolutely tiny matter of risking their health carrying and life giving birth. I can't say I like that fudge either.

BC's have nothing to do with biology they are for parental responsibility and nothing else so the state knows who is responsible for the child, when attending your appointment you have to take a birth number with you this is used to connect the child's birth to the BC.
In biology it isn't the person who carry's the baby it's whose egg is used that determines the mother.
In law it has nothing to do with carrying the child it's still all about the egg and the person it belongs to its their egg or they have PR to the child they are the mother they have PR of the child unless they decide to donate the egg or adoption in which case they are willing giving up their PR to the child or willing giving their eggs or the state decide to remove their PR.
It's whoever the egg belongs too that is the Mother unless they have willingly given consent to donate egg adopt etc same with men sperm donation they are relinquishing their rights and also any PR to any future child that may come if it, same goes for surrogacy the mother is whose egg itis not the woman carrying it in biology and in the eyes of the law

Pota/Scarlett555 - apologies & no offence meant, told you - I'm a bit dense & very simple, way too many variables that I've obviously not considered. Apologies again.

The judgement concludes

It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person’s gender is ‘male’, their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of ‘mother’

This is what the GRA has caused. And in my opinion this is why it should be scrapped.

I’d be willing to bet that this is only the first step. That GRA wedge has now been shoved in the door. There are now opportunities for Freddie to appeal and unfortunately, due to the GRA, there’s a good chance they will be backed. The guardian article today named two legal firms backing this. Such a massive legal coup is catnip for some firms.

It's simply a way of indicating a family has same sex or trans parents

It is also a way of labelling a family as different from the norm.

As an aside I had never heard rainbow family used in that way before - I always thought it was some weird hippy cult...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Family

I'm confused about this, at least as reported on the BBC, I'm not so sure this is a victory for sex over gender. It seems to be yet more wheels within wheels and another crank of the madness away from fact. I'm thinking of this in particular: "Being a 'mother', whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth."

So it seems to me just creating more confusion around the terminology - it's saying that men have to call themselves mothers, and mothers no longer have to be female ifyswim. Can anyone with a clearer brain work it out and explain it in words of one syllable, or are we doomed to these kind of shenanigans of language reinventions forever??

ArabellaDoreenFig why on earth would you have a problem with the term rainbow family?

It's simply a way of indicating a family has same sex or trans parents.

As a rainbow family we like to do things with other rainbow families - it means our kids know other kids with two mums / two dads.

How on earth is this dragging us backwards as a society? It's progressive!

^^this, basically

A birth certificate records the circumstances of a birth. The mother spot is not negotiable, it is reserved for the female person from who's body the child issued. This is an observable fact apparent at the time of the birth, as are other things listed on the birth certificate, like the place & date etc.

The birth certificate is not a DNA certificate, it is not a record of a person's genetic heritage.

Therefore the purpose of the father/second parent spot is not to list the gene supplier, but to record who is the second legal parent at the time of birth, ie. the circumstances of a birth

Adoption cases already have adoption certificates, they don't delete the birth certificate. In female same sex couples, it works well to list partner of the woman who gave birth as the second parent. In male same sex couples the process for an adoption certificate works well, it is very important to make sure the woman who's body birthed the child is not erased - because, again, the birth certificate records the circumstances of a birth

Most on this thread seem to lack the understanding of what a huge privilege it is to get pregnant by the person you are in love with.

I understand it completely but that doesn't change my perspective on facts. We can't break down truth and only use the pieces that suit us - the whole truth is necessary in this situation.

Again, it isn't about the parents or potential parents feelings FFS; it's about the child's biological and parental history. No one has a right to keep those facts from a child. Keeping those facts from a child is in fact a human rights violation.

My cousin recently found out (post her dad's death) that she was conceived using a sperm donor and IVF (I didn't know she didn't know... my mother told me about 20yrs ago). Leaving her to assume until recently that her male parent was her biological father... he was her father/dad/parent but not biologically so it does have an impact on her reality. If this was listed on her birth certificate she would have been aware even if not told directly but through the legal documentation of her existence. She doesn't believe it would have affected how she saw her dad just like it doesn't affect it now. What it has done though is caused her to turn away from her mother (who has brain cancer) as she is the only living parent that has been harboring this lie. If she would have found out by way of legal documentation she could have sat down and spoken to her parents (while her dad was alive) to understand the story of her conception and why a sperm donor was necessary. The truth is that they loved each other deeply and wanted a child but he was infertile so they as a couple decided to employ IVF and use a sperm donor. The truth is that her mother loves her and her father loved her so deeply that for him she was his child regardless of genetics. It is a beautiful story that has now been irreparably tarnished. The story of her creation and her existence has been distorted and hijacked by the adults' feelings of inadequacy. And now her mother is being seen through a new negative lens when she needs her daughters love and support more than ever.

This new found info about the sperm donor didn't change how she sees her father or how she loves him or how important he was to her in her life. But it does impact what she communicates to her children about their ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Not listing the sperm donor on her birth certificate forced her unknowingly to lie to her own children. By way of her parents' omissions she has lied to her own children which weighs more heavily on her than I can imagine.

If a document contained sperm donor details it would be too much information for a child imo.

But not for the adult they will become.

You can’t run away from facts because of #feelings