What about the birth mothers?

[WallaceinAnderland]

Thinking about the recent news around the Scottish GRR. Is it right that a person can legally change their sex on their birth certificate? Does the woman who gave birth to that baby not have a say in this? After all, she birthed the child and registered that birth. This is a fact, is it not?

YANBU a birth certificate is an accurate record held by the state which should not be tampered with

YABU a birth certificate belongs to the baby and is nothing to the with the mother or the state

@SaveMeFromMyBoobs those are disorders though, and anomalies, not the norm. Humans are bipeds and the fact that some people only have one leg does not change this. Humans are binary male or female. The fact that some people have sexual development disorders does not change this.

I don't believe any legal document which states birth sex, should ever be changed.

My mum doesn't own my birth certificate and I don't own my children's. It is a document about the person who has been born so when my children become adults they will be responsible for it, I am merely looking after it. Its not the mother's medical record.

My mum doesn't own my birth certificate and I don't own my children's.

True. But I understand the point being made.

It would feel very odd for an official, legal document to state that an individual gave birth to a boy when they absolutely know they didn't. Its all a bit Orwellian actually.

But it comes back to the principle of 'no lying on legal documents' rather than a debate about who 'owns' the birth cert.

But it comes back to the principle of 'no lying on legal documents' rather than a debate about who 'owns' the birth cert.

This is the key thing - legal documents like birth certificates should be factual.

A person can be both male and female because their sex may be male and their gender female for example. If we didn't use the same terminology for both we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm sure someone without one leg would be most upset if you told them they had 2 because they're human, and would expect that detail to be included on their medical records also 😂

It isn't the mother's birth certificate. It's the child's

Bear in mind that many, many people use a birth certificate whose information has been edited. The ID of the father can be missing, or false.

Adopted children use a certificate that carries no ID of their birth parents; the parents named are the adopters. The child's name, may be one chosen by the adopters.

IOW there are already birth mothers (and fathers) who live with the knowledge their reality has been edited out.

The birth certificate should not be changed for sex or name (unless an error was made) and any changes should be noted and tracked including for 'father' changes.

Ultimately, the birth certificate is a document to represent the provable facts of that birth. It doesn't 'belong' to the person to be able to make changes that are not representative of the facts at birth. Of course, if I person has been diagnosed with a difference of sex development, then that should be changed. Changed and tracked.

The discussion about who 'owns' the certificate is not a relevant one to me.

If a person wants a different document with their own changes on it, then an alternative certificate should be issued.

The birth certificate is for the person whose birth it's recording. The mom doesn't own it and shouldn't have the right to decline changes their child might be legally entitled to make.

I don't think you should be allowed to change your birth certificate unless there are extreme circumstances, though.

I'm sure someone without one leg would be most upset if you told them they had 2 because they're human

That's not what I said. I said that despite the fact that some people have one leg, humans are still classified as bipeds.

I don't really have an issue with my offspring's birth certificate being changed when they are old enough to elect to change it themselves. If it would make them happier, I would have no objection whatsoever.

Why does it make a difference to the mother anyway? It's not like someone is going to arrest you for lying that you gave birth to a baby girl, brandishing your child's birth cerificate as evidence?

Not sure about your question, but I don’t see the point in a birth certificate if you can falsify it.
Changing the sex on it is liter

Sorry!
Changing the sex on it is literally a lie, and particularly in the case of rapists changing their sex, could lead to a lot of problems.

I can't vote because I don't agree with either of your answers. I don't believe a birth certificate should be altered. I think there will probably be an additional new category (eg undecided or not declared ) in the future or maybe gender will just be left out altogether!
I don't believe a mother (or father) has any rights over what goes on a birth certicate. I think the rules around fathers name need reviewing.

If l accepted/agreed that my child was actually really a girl from the word go I'd be pleased that they had the recognition they needed however I don't feel the birth certicate would be in a big factor in my over all feelings on the subject.

This is a really good idea (the age self-ID). If you can change sex, why not age?

If my child was happy, I wouldn’t care.

This is a really bizarre argument.

Birth certificates belong to the baby not the parents, children do not belong to their parents, and birth certificates reflect a variety of things.

On my great-great-grandmother's birth certificate, the section for 'father' was left blank (oo-er scandal in those days). It doesn't mean her mother was the 19th century's answer to the Virgin Mary.

I agree BC shouldn't be changed unless there's an actual error. The details should be accurate but it's not the mother's documented birth record, it's the childs.

If l accepted/agreed that my child was actually really a girl from the word go I'd be pleased that they had the recognition they needed

How could a male baby be a girl from the word go? I think you are confusing sex with gender. It's not the gender being changed on the certificate, it's the sex.

I think it's just gaslighting for a woman to give birth to a boy and register the baby's sex only for it to be changed retrospectively.

'Let the record show that you gave birth to a girl madam!' It just seem wrong to falsify documents from the past.

'Let the record show that you gave birth to a girl madam!' It just seem wrong to falsify documents from the past.

Well of course it is. We've got to wonder who's agenda is being served here?

I agree with this.

Whatever argument there is for allowing or disallowing change of gender, neither rests on a mother's ownership of their dc.