Trans man Freddy McConnell's challenge to be named as father on birth certificate deemed inadmissible by the ECHR

Huh. New gender dysphoria trigger unlocked apparently: when fellow trans people deny the reality of biological sex. I guess it must have to do with the cult-like gaslighting of it all or something.

I am delighted with this news.
A birth certificate belongs to the person named on it. It is the child's document.
They have the right to have an accurate document. Mother is a biological fact and every child has the right to know where they come from biologically.

Yeah, scientists would already have worked out how to impregnate men if not for evil TERFs holding them back!

I don't think any of this would have happened if not for the Internet. I can't believe anyone would be this divorced from biology if they were frequently interacting face-to-face with other humans. You can see it from the way they describe themselves as being in "boy mode" or "girl mode", as though bodies are as customisable as video game avatars.

I take your point. He is so distinctive because he is so well-informed and, to a point, really very sensible. You can see why they think he is a secret TERF (although he does not say anything that would suggest he is) because he treats them to the facts.

There is also an interesting discussion on that thread about labels, and who falls within the umbrella. I have always said that the first hurdle for TRA ideology to become law is finding a workable definiton of trans.

I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable with posters giving away that reddit poster's two names. We wouldn't like our previous posting name to be continuously linked with our new posting name on here, unless they refer to both themselves? I'm not on reddit so wouldn't know.

Back on topic - I'm very glad to see that the children's rights were considered and it wasn't just about Freddie and their false reality.

He also feels the McCloud case was also rejected by the ECHR at the first sift, for whoever was asking about that.

That's deeply offensive, sexist and cruel. A child deserves to know the details of it's birth mother and father, even if circumstances mean they don't have contact with them.

Protect the Dollz (under his new name, Quangocrat) has some interesting thoughts on that thread. He is very well-informed and is the only one to mention the concept of competing rights.

He thinks the McCloud cases have been thrown out, and I tend to agree with him.

They are absolutely batshit. They actually believe this.

I think sometimes when trans allies drag children into this sort of thing, they forget that children aren't just "playing along" like adults are. If an adult insists that a woman fathered her children, we all know they're just pretending. Even they know we know they're just pretending. If they call someone an evil bigot for not believing that men can give birth, we all know it's code for "it's mean of you not to play along".

But children genuinely don't understand. Imagine how surreal it must be to realise as you grow up that your father isn't one of those rare men who can give birth - something you'd always accepted unquestioningly - but actually your mother. Those "rare men who can give birth" don't actually exist, they're just women.

It's the same with children who get diagnosed as trans and told that with hormones and surgery, they'll grow up to be a member of the opposite sex. They're children, they genuinely believe they're being told the truth. There was an episode of I Am Jazz where an adolescent Jazz was clearly unnerved when he met adult trans "women" who were clearly just men in dresses.

Yes, I see what you mean. Shouldn't that at the very least be:

‘and the right to legal recognition of one’s transgender identity” [within domestic legislation]

Yes, the mother featured in the film of McConell giving birth. I did suspect that MCConnell herself were so self absorbed and intent on presenting as male that they simply wouldn't have the necessary emotional bandwidth or commitment to raising a child; let alone deal with the very intense and intimate demands that having a newborn entails.

As soon as the baby was born, you could see that MCConnell ws over-come with that rush of maternal love - and almost as soon was saying they couldn't wait to " get back on the T" ( because it flattens out softer feelings). There was to be no reminder of what it feels like to be a mother.

Mother has an important safeguarding role in the UK.

In Spain birth certificates say Progenitor A and Progenitor B.

This means that this issue doesn't arise. Perhaps the UK could change to Parent A and Parent B.

I've read interviews with Freddie in the past where it was mentioned that her mother was caring for the children but I don't know if that was permanently or not. It struck me at the time as an unusual set up, especially for someone who went to great lengths to get pregnant and have two children. But there were only scant personal details given in the interviews, they were mostly about the legal cases to be recognised as father rather than mother.

These people are off their heads:

I think we need to dismantle the concept of sex as it currently exists instead and say any level of transition counts as "altering your sex" when you account for sex itself not being purely a biological thing

"Any level of transition counts as altering your sex." So, when a man puts on lipstick, he is literally changing sex?

Freddy is a bundle of contradictions.
Beside the mother thing:
She took a load of testosterone and experienced male pattern baldness
She doesn't like this, so is now doing a hair transplant.
There seems to be an endless need for body modifications...

None of the reddit lots are seeing it from the child's perspective. Their attitude is fuck it - we need to find another case, it could take years.

Mother is a key safeguarding role. Maybe some know that and thats the motivation?

I feel for McConnell because everything about her seems to indicate that she needs love and attention. But using her children like this isnt going to help her.

Its odd, last week male GRC holders said they had to use female toilets to live as women as they promised. This week a female GRC holder wants to live as a man, give birth, and have the state to pretend it didnt happen. It reflects the motivations of the sexes, somewhat.

I think this has more to do with surrogacy than trans, to be honest. They want to set a precedent where mother isnt on a birth certificate.

The narcissism of the whole gender ideology once again is showing its knickers that a court needs to tell a mother this and she cannot figure this out for herself. She cannot even consider putting her child first not even at the moment of its birth, it is still all about the trans person.

They're just stuck in this eternal contradictory loop:

• sex and gender are two separate things, it's embarrassing that there are adults who can't understand this
• but all the things we've always divided by sex should now be divided by gender, because sex and gender are actually the same thing

PTD (now known as Quangocrat) has some pretty interesting and detailed analysis on that Reddit thread if you scroll down a bit. I shan't copy it all here as there's a lot but it's interesting. Basically the ECHR tries to avoid the "American problem" of being hamstrung by a static code by applying a principle called The Comparative Law Framework. When deciding how strict to be with members about supposed human rights infringements they will look at what is done throughout member states. So if member states all agree that trans women are women except for one outlier then they will take a "narrow view" and compel the outlier to fall into line (apparently that's what happened with Godwin). However if there is more diversity in approaches of member states they will take a "wide view" and be more lenient.

I think I have got the gist of it correct but he did say what he wrote was an oversimplification and I have simplified it further. I thought it was interesting though, I've not come across this concept before.

Very interesting.

Key end bit:

“But because the policy has always been unlawful, any such group action can include complaints by individual women of instances in which that unlawful policy was applied to them at any time in the past 20 years when it was in place and enforced. The proposed class action can therefore in principle include all and any women who were imprisonedsince 2006 within the women’s prison estate among (trans identifying) men.

“Conclusion
Litigation is a very blunt instrument. Damages action do no more than attempt to translate or quantify trauma into a sum of money.

“Women who are, or who have been, incarcerated are among the most vulnerable and already traumatised cohort of individuals it is possible to imagine. Most of them have comefrom (and return to) situations of multiple deprivation characterised by, in many cases, chaotic lives marred by often poverty-related chronic and acute ill-health, many with long history of being the victims of, domestic-related (male) violence often associated alcohol and with substance abuse.

“On the basis of the above analysis of the relevant law, the potential liability of the Scottish Government for a class action such as JK Rowling has suggested she might fund is potentially therefore very high indeed. But, of course, it is dependent on finding women who are willing to opt-in to any such class action.

“And the issue then arises as to whether an award of damages assist in making these women’s already hard lives better. But that – as a matter of wider social policy and welfare - raisesquestion beyond the purely legal scope of this paper.”