Baby could become first person born in England or Wales without a legal mother

[hungryhippie]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5817699/Baby-person-born-England-Wales-without-legal-mother.html

Hi, long time lurker here. Just came across this story online. If this ruling gets through I imagine it will open a whole other can of worms.
How can the law say the child has no Mother?

Wasn’t there a similar case in Germany recently? Iirc the judge ruled in favour of reality!

Eresh, I'm not sure you've noticed, but I haven't at any point ever indicated that I'm pro self-ID. As I've said before, I have concerns and questions, which is one reason I'm here on these boards more actively then I used to be.

I'm really not careless of women's or children's rights at all, so you're wrong on that front.

Is it possible that because I speak in defence of trans people when particular, and to me quite horrible and unnecessary, generalisations are posted about them, you have assumed a whole lot of things about me based on that?

SameTerf I think someone linked to it upthread

I don't understand what the fuss is about? Why would the child have any disadvantage from their parent being recorded as their father on the birth certificate? Why is it an issue that there is no mother? Is it any different to children that are lovingly raised by two gay father's where there is no mother around? As long as the child is raised with all the love and support and nurture they need I don't see any problem.

I'm really not careless of women's or children's rights at all, so you're wrong on that front.

I think you certainly are on this point at least and I perceive you are on others from the tone you've taken on other threads. And that Picasso was pretty spot on actually.

I don't expect you to agree so I see little point in continuing this specific exchange.

It's not about the mother not being around. It's about the child having a right to know that they have a mother and not be gaslighted about it by narcissists.

I don't think "gaslighting" means what you think it means.

I know perfectly well what it means. What do you think it means?

The child will be disadvantaged because their birth certificate will be a lie and because they will spend their entire life being lied to by their mother who claims she is their father. Unbelievable that people are actually defending this or pretending it’s no big deal.

Is it any different to children that are lovingly raised by two gay father's where there is no mother around?

Surely you can see the difference between a situation where there is no longer a mother in the child's life, and a situation that denies the previous existence of a mother at all?

Widowwadman. There's a huge difference between 'loving parents' regardless of whether they're adoptive, two dads, two mums, and the legal and truthful reality of the genetic and biological trail of where that child originated from.

With two 'fathers' on the birth certificate. How, as an adult child, do you track your biological reality?

There are so many stories out there of adoptive children seeking their mothers - how on earth do you track down that, if the law, and complicit people around you deny that you ever had a biological mother.

If you have two fathers on your birth certificate, is it transphobic to ask which one was the biological mother? Is it transphoboic to try to assess which may past matriarchal genetics down the line?

If this challenge goes through, the biological definition of female mothers loses to identity politics and narcissim.

It pushes boundaries that filter in to so many other parts of life we can't even imagine (we can!) right now.

@WidowWadman do gay men pretend they carried a baby in their male womb for 9 month and then gave birth to the baby?

"Here is daddy with a bump"
"Here is daddy after he gave birth to you"
"Here is you and daddy on the maternity ward"

Or completely deny it happened at all and the baby arrived magically by stork.Male stork of course.

The parent being recorded as father but not as mother is not obliterating any biological link though is it? And neither is there any evidence that the father will not discuss their medical history with their child or the reason why there is no mother recorded on the certificate.

And since the father clearly is living as a man anyway I can't see any confusion arising from documentation showing just that.

I got to peak trans a while ago but, you know what, I can't get bothered about this. He's had the surgery and is legally a man and what difference does it make to other people who aren't involved. It's no different to babies having two mothers or two fathers.

Off to don my asbestos suit now.

No one's going to flame you. People have explained why they don't see it as the same.

Lifesavingorange "I hope the child is placed on the at risk register"

Really? I think that's an over-reaction at this point. There are very specific criteria to place a child in the at risk register, and requesting clarification or change to a legal document isn't on the list of criteria.

I'm not sure we can assume there is any intention to deceive the child other than by altering the meaning of the word Father. What does worry me is that if this law changes all references to mothers would have to be changed to parent 1 or 'mother or father' would this not endanger the right of the mother where she is unmarried to have the birth certificate issued? If a father can prove he is the father will he be able to get a birth certificate and leave off the mother's name? The law would have to let him otherwise it would be treating him differently from men who have uteruses?

Exactly Eresh. No one's flaming anyone, no abestos suit required. This board is a debate board, people trying to understand other's perspectives.

User546425732 Yes 'he' has had the surgery, but just 'top' surgery which means a mastectomy, otherwise 'he' wouldn't be able to birth a child. Which means 'he' has to be female. Is taking off your breasts, and then being pregnant, enough to define you as male?

This is different to babies having two mothers or two fathers, as I've said above.

This is erasing the meaning of mother and father words in birth. And telling a child a lie.

This is ridiculous. A mother gave birth. End off. Imo.

He's had the surgery and is now legally a man
Legal status is irrelevant here. The birth certificate records who carried and gave birth to the child as the mother. Just because the mother identifies themselves as a man and a father doesn't change the facts.

I find it interesting in a really depressing way, how transmen only ever make the press for having babies.

I think I read that Caitlyn Jenner "allows" their kids to still call him dad. I'm not sure about grandkids though.

Basically, the choice should be with the child, not adult. As a parent, you have to be selfless sometimes.

CJ said it on the Genderquake debate.