"Transgender man, 34, loses legal battle to be named as the father on his child's birth certificate as Supreme Court refuses to hear his case"

And do so without my consent?

It would be interesting to know that group of people views on whether they wish the law would allow that their own BCs could be changed in line with their parent’s acquisition of a GRC.. or not.

You mean, if my father transitioned now then could he change MY birth certificate to say he is my mother?

Why can freddy not see that the inconsistency is not in the law.
Its in signing a declaration to live as a man and then getting preganant and giving birth.
He refers to a mother in the video, the woman partner of a trans man, then has to correct himself, you can see it dawning on him that hes using the word mother as intended and a way that every single person on this earth understands.
Its not complicated.

It would be interesting to know that group of people views on whether they wish the law would allow that their own BCs could be changed in line with their parent’s acquisition of a GRC.. or not. I’ve not seen anyone in that position call for this so if anyone has examples that would be interesting.

It would be interesting.

They need to invite opinions from people who are actually in the situation that freddy's baby will be.

Great analysis, thanks ohholy and chattylion.

Xpost on s12

That is interesting OHJ on the acknowledgment of the ‘oversight’. I’d say it’s lawmakers applying a systematic male default to women, so a bit more than an ‘oversight’.. to have ignored the needs of female biology within the UK’s main legislation specifically considering biological sex and legal gender.. but I guess it wouldn’t serve Freddy’s legal arguments which rely on the GRA as a solid starting place, to look too far into that aspect.

BC's recording mother and father and not 'parent 1' and 'parent 2' is apparently for 'cs' people and not queer-family friendly and also BC's are not about recording genetic relationships either.*

But ‘second parent’ is quite rightly already allowed on UK BCs. And I guess it could come as bit of a surprise to some of the lesbians or transmen who are already the second parent on their kids’ birth certificates, alongside their female civil partner or wife, to learn that they are all apparently now ‘cis’ or ‘not queer’..

www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility

Freddy says the law didn't consider GRC holders as parents and that a trans woman might want to have a BC retrospectively changed to show them as the mother of their child, with no mention of the actual mother

OK (not watched the video).. well yes anyone might ‘want’ something that the law doesn’t allow them to have.. but to say that they can’t have it because the law ‘didn’t consider’ their situation is not true.

GRA has considered parenthood, and in the exact instance that Freddy outlines there. GRA section 12, which is called ’parenthood’ says: ‘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.’
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/12

The explanatory notes continue that:
Section 12: Parenthood
43. This provides that though a person is regarded as being of the acquired gender, the person will retain their original status as either father or mother of a child. The continuity of parental rights and responsibilities is thus ensured.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/12

So the GRA did specifically consider the instance Freddy mentions... and it ruled it out. Meaning that children’s existing birth certificates are not changed, if their parent obtains a GRC allowing the parent to legally ‘change’ their documented sex.

It would be interesting to know that group of people views on whether they wish the law would allow that their own BCs could be changed in line with their parent’s acquisition of a GRC.. or not. I’ve not seen anyone in that position call for this so if anyone has examples that would be interesting.

GRA is unworkably poorly and naively drafted. For example because it is permanent and irrevocable irrespective of the GRC holder’s own consent which can of course change over time, as detransitioned people have noted.

And crucially for example because it does not specify what should happen if parents get the GRC before the birth of their child. Hence Freddy’s legal case to test that situation.

GRA was seemingly drafted only with later-in-life transitioners in mind. It appears not to consider the needs of natal female transitioners. For example when it assumes that people holding a GRC would until their death behave consistently with the stereotypes of their acquired legal gender.

The example of pregnancy exposes this exclusively male-centred world view in a shocking way, in that GRA’s legal drafting doesn’t even consider the possibility of pregnancy etc after GRC. Pregnancy can of course can be unintended or forced, as well as being intended and planned, as everyone with female reproductive capacity grows up all too aware.

It’s discriminatory and sexist for the law to apply male biological norms to female biological people, where biology creates different needs or abilities.

The male agenda here has neglected women and in that sense Freddy’s case shines a long overdue light on the unworkable problems with the GRA itself. As opposed to the GRA showing up any problem on the existing laws around children’s birth certification.

I think it's hard for people have been used to having their own way completely to understand and accept it when they are told "No"

True. I am hoping that the European Court of Human Rights also says no. I think the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear it is a bad sign for Freddy. They suggested there was no arguable point of law for them to hear. The cases that go to the ECHR have nearly always involved a judgment from the highest court in the country.

Ah well, I guess it’s not Freddy’s money being wasted here. At an estimate, I reckon the legal fees are over 100 grand by now and that’s without the ECHR appeal.

Bit hard for Freddy to understand this given that Freddy has clearly got very used to being referred to as Freddy wants to.

I think it's hard for people have been used to having their own way completely to understand and accept it when they are told "No".

Yep, despite that part being very clearly laid out (as opposed to 'acquired gender') testing Freddy and the pro bono lawyers still see this as a gap/discrimination in the law. (Freddy says that originally it was more the idea of pointing this out as a sort of oversight and it was thought it would be recognised and maybe dealt with?!)

By BC's recording mother and father and not 'parent 1' and 'parent 2' is apparently for 'c*s' people and not queer-family friendly and also BC's are not about recording genetic relationships either.

The denial of biology is strong in this one.

I have nothing more to say on the video, only that a fundraiser is mentioned at the end so like Joylon's I'll be watching to see how deep the supporter's pockets are, just to make a comparison as we've been funding JR's etc for years now...maybe some of those big pharma profits could be redirected for the plight of trans parents in Europe.

Apart from the GRA 2004 Section 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 e father or mother of a child.

So they considered it and decided that having an acquired gender of man doesn't mean you're not a mother.

Freddy says the law didn't consider GRC holders as parents and that a trans woman might want to have a BC retrospectively changed to show them as the mother of their child, with no mention of the actual mother.

That’s completely ridiculous because a child can only have one mother. If you allowed the child’s father to be registered as the mother, you’d have to erase reference to the actual mother. Freddy is living on another planet with this shit.

And nobody is saying that trans people can’t be parents. Of course they can. It’s just that they can’t be referred to as something they are not just because they want to.

The video is actually really interesting. There are several points where Freddy reveals how deep Freddy is. I won't say too much here but I recommend watching if only to try to understand a bit more.

I was annoyed that there was no thinking around why a husband of a surrogate mother might be on the birth certificate of a child born from surrogacy and given parental responsibility (so to avoid exploitation) or why a trans man might not be listed as the father on the BC of a child (would not be the provider of sperm).

The child gets a mention around 17m into a 28m video. The boy has his own lawyers so I wonder what would happen if the ECHR found that the boy has rights to have his mother named on a BC as this is in direct conflict with what Freddy wants and believes Freddy's rights to be.

Freddy says the law didn't consider GRC holders as parents and that a trans woman might want to have a BC retrospectively changed to show them as the mother of their child, with no mention of the actual mother.

I'm totally gripped by this case and find it truly bizarre how far you can dissect yourself from reality.

I don't think that's the chief concern

Yes it's really sad, it doesn't seem to be any type of concern. It's all about the brave trans parent and their 'struggle'. Nothing about what's best for their child, it all sounds very cold.

Removal of breast tissue doesn't make a woman "live as a man". There are many women who have sadly had this procedure, they remain women.

One of my sisters had a radical mastectomy. To save her life. (aggressive but tiny cancer tumour)

This reduction of women to their parts makes me so angry. Women are not just men with their penises cut off (to paraphrase Prof. Greer). And men are not just women without breasts.

A GRC should be rescinded immediately on either the owner becoming pregnant or perpetrating a sexual assault
It's a scandal that it isn't so.

Well, quite.

Freddy talks about the trans parents but never seems concerned about the effect on the children of those parents.

Freddy says the case is pro bono on Insta.

Good to see sense. As a doctor I really want to know the difference between a baby with a head injury whose mother has haemophilia vs whose father does. Call me sexist but I would also be a lot less worried if the patient was a girl - all down to the key difference between XX and XY.

No objection to changing gender but the biology needs to be correctly labelled in key documents.

It was also in the Guardian.

It's disingenuous to say there's no evidence. Letting men into women's facilities at their say-so has not been the norm, hence there's a paucity of evidence as to suggest whether or not that causes problems! No shit Sherlock.
There is a however growing body of evidence/anecdotal evidence to suggest that men do take advantage of women in unisex facilities. And that neither sex generally is well catered for in poorly designed facilities.
Can they really not see the connection?

Peter Dunne clearly has no clue what the objections are based on!

I don't want to share changing rooms with people who pose a significant risk of triggering either my dysphoria or my ptsd, or even both.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5149172/snp-breast-cancer-patients-id-row-mastectomies/

With some of our comments.