"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"

Does the government interpret law or write it?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVSauZ3D1mB/?utmmedium=copyy_link

@DadJoke - I don't know any lesbian parents (and I know lots) who would like to be referred to as the birth parent. You suggested it was 'in a medical context'.

In a social context, I can't think why anyone would ask. It comes up in conversation typically at some point but as it is of zero relevance, I can't see why or when.

I also don't believe that asking a couple 'which one of you was the birthing parent?' is any less rude or intrusive or 'upsetting' to use your word than asking 'which one of you is the mother?'

It's rude and intrusive either way.

In terms of women rental I suppose the foetus is the tenant and the commissioning parents are bankrolling the occupancy.

Is that where "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" comes in?

Similarly the legal term ‘tenant’ includes people who believe all property is theft.

You've gone the full "and where will it end - men marrying snakes?"

Not sure what snakes you're referring to...Just trying to be fair and inclusive of everyone who identifies as Dads.

We are talking about giving trans men the option to include birth parent on a birth certificate.

And it is being pointed out that ‘mother’ includes everyone who gives birth, even if they are a bit sexist and believe some behaviours and presentation is only appropriate for men.

You've gone the full "and where will it end - men marrying snakes?" route. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

No, your sexism is being pointed out.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you fail to see this.

Why are we trying to erase mothers? It's one of life's true certainties that we were all born from one, a woman at that.

I am very saddened that anyone advocating for the erasure of the concept of mother as set out on birth certificates doesn't have better things to do.

It's the ultimate vanity project. The document belongs to the child. No-one ever really sees the document and anyone who does categorically does NOT care.

Like PPs have said, I can't believe courts have ever entertained this absolute nonsense.

'Sperm Provider Joke'?

Or “masculinestereotypedparentjoke” could work?

*username

I've been trying to think of an accetable phrase, but I'm at a loss.

Maybe Uterus Owning Body? I suppose to make it fair we would have to also consider words like Mum and Dad, but then if Dad was not inclusive enough your surname would need to be 'Sperm Provider Joke'?

Would phrases like Dad Bod and Dad Dancing then become Sperm Provider Bod and Sperm Provider Dancing? Doesn't have quite the same ring to them...

Do ask some trans friends and let us know what they come up with.

Likewise "father" is a role as well as someone who provides sperm.

Mother has a specific legal meaning when used on a birth certificate.

Adoptive parents manage to cope with the concept that ‘parent’ has more than one meaning.

This is just an overwrought attack on something perfectly reasonable - allowing a trans man to have "birth parent" rather than "mother" on a birth certificate.

The attack is coming from the person campaigning to impose gender onto a necessary legal term. Given the huge amounts of prejudice experienced by mothers, it’s astounding that anyone wouldn’t see this for the hugely regressive, sexist action that it is.

Why do you not think that ‘mother’ is an inclusive term?

Likewise "father" is a role as well as someone who provides sperm.

This is just an overwrought attack on something perfectly reasonable - allowing a trans man to have "birth parent" rather than "mother" on a birth certificate.

In a medical context "who is the birth parent?" would be good for that couple.

‘Birth mother’ is the appropriate term if you want to make a distinction e.g. in the many existing instances where a child has been adopted.

However, it’s generally not a distinction that needs to be made in everyday life.

Course it's sexist.

The entire ideology relies on it. How else is an adult human female being recognised as a male?

it's necessary to accomodate trans men, who are not women, and don't think of themselves as a mother. It's not remotely sexist.

It is profoundly sexist.

Trans men who have given birth are accommodated and included in the word ‘mother’. There is no legal difference between a trans man who has given birth and any other mother.

The only reason that ‘mother’ would be rejected is a faulty assumption that it implies something about presentation or behaviour and how much this should conform to societal expectations. That is sexism.

The definition of a father is not a female who conceives, gestates and births a baby.

And whilst in our society men might not feel too bad about that, the converse, that a man who ejaculates sperm, fertilises an egg and impregnates a woman, is not the definition of a mother.

Strewth.

The times you would need to ask a lesbian couple which one of them gave birth to the baby in a medical context are vanishingly small. In fact, I can't think of a single instance except immediately after birth when it would be blindingly obvious.

Please don't use lesbians to prop up your argument to refer to mothers as birthing parents @DadJoke. It's offensive

@CharlieParley it doesn't deny them the knowledge, that's the point. Most people who put "mother," trans men could put "birth parent", and it provides exactly the same information. There is no trauma, no lack of information, no removal from history and no problem.

@merrymouse it's necessary to accomodate trans men, who are not women, and don't think of themselves as a mother. It's not remotely sexist. Children don't lose out in any way.

Mother is a broad term - I have friends who are a lesbian couple, and they are both mothers. The non-birth parent does find it upsetting some times when people say "who is the mother?" In a medical context "who is the birth parent?" would be good for that couple.

It says nothing about not using the term mother, just giving another option.

And the person who gives birth to you is your mother. She may end up being no more than your birth mother, if another woman raises you or adopts you, but having a social mother does not remove your birth mother from your history. Attempts to do so in the past have led to measurable damage to the children affected. And that's in addition to the issues arising from not being raised by your birth mother. (That's not to underestimate the damage a birth mother can do to her child, but that's not what we're discussing here.)

What is your justification for denying these particular children the most important information about their origin that almost* all other children have - their mother?

*there is a vanishingly small number of children who do not have this information because they were abducted, abandoned or found alone in war zones or after natural catastrophes where no identifying information could be found afterwards.

To create such a traumatising situation by design is an abhorrent demand that completely fails to consider the best interests of the child.

I'm frankly astonished this is even entertained by the courts.

[quote DadJoke]@merrymouse nothing whatsoever. I suggested that people could have to option to put birthing parent if they preferred.[/quote]
Why is another option necessary ? It’s a neutral legal term. What could possibly be wrong with being referred to as a ‘mother’ given that it refers to the person who gave birth?

The only reason I can imagine is deeply ingrained sexism, which is endorsed if the word ‘mother’ is optional.