"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"

Incidentally you can no longer put children on parents' passports. They have to have their own passports.

To apply for a child's passport you need to send (originals, not copies):

•	2 new <a class="break-all" href="https://www.gov.uk/photos-for-passports" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">photos of your child</a>d_
•	the child’s full birth or adoption certificate (the one with parent’s details on it)
•	proof that your child has British nationality (for example a British registration certificate, parent’s passport details or parent’s birth certificates)
•	any valid passports from a different country belonging to the child
•	any court orders (for example, that describe parental responsibility or residency arrangements)

In the GoFundMe set up by Freddie's mother, it says: "Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate."

Don’t say that! You’ll get deleted!

The family were at their house in Spain very recently, judging from Instagram, so I find it very difficult to understand that SJ "still does not have a birth certificate."

Oh for goodness sake! So it's all just lies?

That is such a sad story, but I agree that it’s very important for a birth certificate to record when and where you were born and who gave birth to you.

Excuse the stilted nature of my post ^^ Struggled to choose the ‘correct’ words.

SJ's new baby sibling will soon face the same situation as SJ: no birth certificate, or one that opens them up to discrimination and abuse later in life, because it inaccurately lists Freddy as their 'mother'

Well, I can see that having no birth certificate might be awkward, but we know whose fault that is. I don’t understand why someone hasn’t just registered the birth of SJ because that would be for SJ’s benefit

FM has hardly kept their life private so I doubt anyone needs to see SJ’s birth certificate to realise FM’s natal sex. Even those who were unaware of FM’s public history would see it anyway.

Anyone who abused SJ because a trans man had given birth to them would be in the wrong, but I doubt such people would need to see SJ’s birth certificate to do so. FM has publicised many private details already. A correctly-written birth certificate is pretty much irrelevant compared to all that. It’s all that that affects SJ’s privacy and I feel sorry for them.

I never understand why someone would lie on a crowdfunder when whatever it is being claimed is so easily disproved.

I saw one claiming discrimination against same sex couples seeking IVF, everyone knows it's a post code lottery and that sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.

Bit of a random link but it's the same with this, the claim that this child doesn't have a mother. Errr...how was she born then, was it via a surrogate mother? And the comments saying this poor child has a right to have her (genetic) mother listed when Birth in Birth Certificate refers, really quite obviously, about when and where you were born and who gave birth to you. It isn't to record your conception and who you are genetically related to, though I see an argument for that.

www.facebook.com/100044150630680/posts/433786821436335/?d=n

Say if F manages to get baby2 registered with F's desired terminology, then F can argue to the ECHR that baby1 is being discriminated against by not having the same parent terminology on baby1's birth certificate as baby2 and use this to try to force the British gov into complying with Swedish legal precedents.

I don’t think this would be a point they could argue, but presumably the terminology on the Swedish birth certificate would be in Swedish.

Luckily in English we have a gender neutral inclusive word that describes Freddy’s role in the birth - ‘mother’.

Oh right, so SJ does have a birth certificate.

The claim that he will be confused to have Alfred listed as his mother in his BC is bunkum. What's confusing is that his mum is pregnant with his sibling but maintains that they are his dad.

I see from Esme's Instagram that she calls herself activist, campaigner, entrepreneur, mum of Freddie McConnell. She does mention she has 2 other children but who knows if they have Instagram.

Isn't it interesting how many of these trans activists' mothers are so invested in their child's trans identities?

Agree - it's all about FM. What an ego.

Does this person's child have a sex?

Even if you put your child on your own passport you need a BC.

As with other observations made, this claim is not true, I also fairly feel sure that F has said there is a BC but F wants it changed and reissued rather than not having one in the first place.

Does anyone else think this action could be part of setting up the ground for F's future appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Say if F manages to get baby2 registered with F's desired terminology, then F can argue to the ECHR that baby1 is being discriminated against by not having the same parent terminology on baby1's birth certificate as baby2 and use this to try to force the British gov into complying with Swedish legal precedents.

The Guardian stated that F plans to appeal to the ECHR. www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/16/trans-man-loses-uk-legal-battle-to-register-as-his-childs-father

The poor kid is just an identity accessory. A prop to 'prove' Freddie's maleness.

The rights of the kid come second to the parent.

We see it time and again on birth tracing shows about how the genetic identity of people matters to their sense of where they came from and how being denied this knowledge is upsetting and traumatic yet we have attempts to remove the ability of children to know this truth.

But failing to register a child's birth after almost 4 years is something else altogether.

Freddy has no right to deny this child a birth certificate and all the rights of citizenship that follow from that.

The judge recognised that this was a minor infringement of Freddy's article 8 rights but concluded that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A child's right to an accurate record of its birth, and who gave birth to it, is a legitimate aim. So is a state's interest in keeping an accurate record of children born and their parentage, for all sorts of reasons.

Meeting these aims is clearly proportionate when weighed against Freddy's right not to be upset by the existence of a rarely viewed document that fails to validate Freddy's gender identity or legally fictional sex.

Especially as all of Freddy's actions have been about telling the world that Freddy is trans and pushing the GRA to its extreme limits.

Early in the case, Freddy applied for an order to keep F's identity secret. This was initially granted but later revoked because Freddy chose to televise the birth. Freddy's child had no choice about this. From the moment of birth this child has had all the same human rights as Freddy.

Incidentally, don't let anyone ever fool you that 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' is an exceptionally high bar for using the EA single sex exceptions. It runs through the Equality Act and through human rights law like 'Blackpool' through a stick of rock. Nowhere else is it held up as an exceptionally high bar. It's bread and butter stuff.

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
It was all foreseen. That's why there's a specific exception in the GRA regarding parenthood.

The points you raise were discussed thoroughly during the appeal.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/McConnell-and-YY-judgment-Final.pdf

Dogs are not cats.

I read on but I don’t think she got an answer to “ who is the legal mother of those children?”

Having read a bit more of that debate, I think it's about the person with a GRC getting a new birth certificate. If she said anything about the children's birth certificates it must be in a different debate.

Thanks!
I would say the “that” in “and the birth certificate is rewritten to reflect that” refers to “decides that she wishes to change gender to become fully a man” rather than the children’s, (Anne would probably have said certificates too as she said children not child).

I have a vague recollection of reading about Anne Widdicombe pointing out that it could result in a TM giving birth and questioning what would happen on the child's birth certificate where they decided that the person giving birth would still be recorded as mother.

It might be in this debate:
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2004-02-23/debates/7fa2c35f-8043-4516-af9c-b12e02e672ec/GenderRecognitionBill

Miss Ann Widdecombe

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I appreciate that he is taking many interventions.

If a woman who has lived her life as a woman, has been registered at birth as a woman and has borne children decides that she wishes to change gender to become fully a man, and the birth certificate is rewritten to reflect that, who is the legal mother of those children?

It's not clear if the birth certificate referred to here is the parent's or the child's.

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
I have a vague recollection of reading about Anne Widdicombe pointing out that it could result in a TM giving birth and questioning what would happen on the child's birth certificate where they decided that the person giving birth would still be recorded as mother.

A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate!

The right to privacy is a qualified right, as reflected in the exceptions in the GRA.

I think they imagined that in day to day life the GRA would mean that a trans person wouldn’t have to reveal their sex when going on holiday.

However, as with everyone else, the right to privacy doesn’t always apply. It’s difficult to imagine how any legislation could hide the sex of somebody who has given birth.

There is no right to have one’s identity affirmed.

[quote WeeBisom]@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.[/quote]
It was recognised that some people applying for GRC would be parents whose birth sex would already have been identified on their child’s birth certificate as the named mother or father. It was made quite clear that in those circumstances the GRC was not retroactive and that the child’s birth certificate would remain a true record of the child’s parentage. Which all birth certificates should do.

@viques:
Exactly, my point is that the gender recognition act has all of these unforeseen knock on effects that no one at the time anticipated. A person with a gender recognition certificate technically has the right to confidentiality about the sex they were born as, but this cover can be blown by their sex being recorded on the child's birth certificate! I honestly don't think the MPS debating about this law even considered that a trans man, with a GRC, would ever give birth and so have their status as 'mother' recorded on the birth certificate. I do absolutely agree that it is the child's document, and it's important for them to know about who birthed them.I just find it funny that this obvious clash was never foreseen.