"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"

Freddy McConnell was gloating recently on Twitter about “imminent developments”. I see now what Freddy was referring to. I’m glad Freddy’s appeal has failed. I am still discombobulated about how a person could be so dysphoric about their birth-sex and go onto become pregnant only days after getting their GRCert. I wonder who’s been paying for all this very costly legal action?

When it's a question of the rights of the child versus the wants of the adults, in UK law the rights of the child will win. The can of worms should the legal definition of 'mother' change would be huge, and would open up all manner of ethical implications.

That might be coming, though. The lawyers arguing against this are couching it in the terms of the rights of trans gender people rather than the rights of children to know their own parentage. They claim trans rights are 'piecemeal' and only applicable in some circumstances, which is only a logical conclusion if 'gender identity' is conflated with biological sex.

Asserting these rights at the expense of women is one thing, children quite another. UK courts still always prioritise the latter. Unfortunately if this movement continues gaining traction I can see that changing.

Hope this isn't just a temporary victory.

Good. What a waste of time it would have been to have heard this out.

Hopefully this ruling will encourage others not to bow down to this nonsense.

'Moreover, we do not have evidence before this court as to how other members of society would feel if they were no longer to be referred to on their child's birth certificate as a mother or a father but simply as 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2'.'

They could ask them. I'd support that in a heartbeat.

Interesting.
I wonder if this will trickle down to service providers trying not to use the word 'mother'. It's a mother who gives birth, regardless of their gender.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, concluded that people who have given birth are legally mothers, regardless of their gender, and said there is a 'material difference between a person's gender and their status as a parent'.

Which, presumably, would also mean a male who provided sperm couldn't be called the mother if they subsequently identified as a woman.

This should always be about the truth on the child's birth certificate, not for validation of the parent's identity.

Good to see the courts recognising facts and biology - as well as prioritising the rights of the child to have an accurate birth certificate rather than a 'legal fiction'.

Mother and father are legally recognised roles not just nice words on pretty cards and I'm really glad the courts have reinforced that.