Transgender man gives birth and wants to be recorded as baby's father

[OrchidInTheSun]

FFS

I just heard this on the news. This fucked up person says it's a breach of their human rights not to be recorded as the baby's father.

I'm kind of running out of words to express my feelings about this

Just to note the other thread on this case:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3271483-Baby-could-become-first-person-born-in-England-or-Wales-without-a-legal-mother?watched=1&msgid=78490392#78490392

The closer the law gets to validating delusion, the closer we get to enabling any lie to be legally validated.

The law validates myriad lies! The law is not some repository of absolute truths. You only need to move to another jurisdiction and live there for a while to find yourself forced into accepting things (that everyone takes for granted) that you “know” to be “untrue”.

Agreed. There are legal fictions about status or relationships between people which can be useful and protect some people.

Whereas this set of ideas:
-of being able to legally self identify into being a father when you biologically can’t possibly be the father (.. and I don’t accept that it’s more important to lie because you feel you are a man at the time you give birth..), or

• of being able to legally self identify out of being a mother,

^^ is against the interests of children.

The law is a set of commonly agreed beliefs, at any one time and in any one place, about the best way to operate society for the common good. Lots of loopiness passes through the net but this idea seems particularly outrageous and unlikely to prevail.

The legality of all this does seem a minefield. It's interesting hearing everyone's views.

Although ChattyLion I'm not sure it is necessarily against the interests of children. It would need to be explained when they're at the right age but in and of itself I don't think it need be a problem.

Every single person in the world was born from a woman. A woman carried that person as a foetus in her uterus and then gave birth to a baby. To tell a child that this solid fact that applies to every other person in the world doesn't apply to them because their mother decided - during her pregnancy - that she wanted to be a man seems unspeakably cruel to me.

I'm not sure (unless I've missed it somewhere) that the child is being told they weren't born to a woman?

Wouldn't the child be told that they were born to a woman just like everyone else. But then that woman decided they wanted to be a man and so that is how they now identify. The child doesn't need to be deceived in this - they can be told the truth.

It's weird but I really can't understand why it's a big deal or other people care.

There are surely many far more important issues about how you are raised than what appears on your birth certificate, something that children aren't even really aware exists until they are old enough to understand the situation anyway.

Its not a difficult issue to understand - the dad was born as a woman. Didn't want to be a woman anymore. Had a baby because they wanted one and are biologically able. Raised that baby as its father. It's highly unusual but a simple enough story. I don't get how that's going to "mess up" anyone.

Presumably their belief is that it will be more consistent for the child to have the person they grow up with as "dad" listed as a father not a mother on their birth certificate. To be honest I don't think it's all that important but it feels like a decision for the parent to make.

At the end of the day we know nothing else about this person or their set up and we shouldn't be judgmental. Maybe they will be a terrible parent. Maybe they will be a fantastic parent. What has it got to do with them being trans? What has it got to do with what's written on a piece of paper in a file in a cupboard somewhere?

During their formative years this kid is simply going to have been raised by their dad. Like a lot of children of single parent families.

People used to cry out in outrage about the first IVF babies or the first babies to be raised by gay parents too.

Wouldn't the child be told that they were born to a woman just like everyone else. But then that woman decided they wanted to be a man and so that is how they now identify. The child doesn't need to be deceived in this - they can be told the truth.

We have no idea what the child will be told. We do know that if this case succeeds, the legal document recording the child's birth will say a man gave birth to her - there isn't a space for a note about identification and feelings etc. That is a deceit. Whether or not she will be told the truth by her parents is a matter of supposition.

Birth certificates aren't a perfect genetic record. That's not their purpose. Many people have no details of their biological father on their birth certificate.

Only the woman who gave birth to the baby is given on the certificate, though it may not have been her egg that was used to conceive the child.

Feels like some people are looking for reasons why this is a problem.

listener but why should a kid, whose mother wants to be seen as a man (despite giving birth to them, which is what the birth certificate records), be put in a special category of not having a certificate of who gave birth to them?
When everyone else can have that on their birth certificate?
That is discrimination of a group of kids due to adult preference and it is NOT covered by the GRA powers- it is specifically excluded from the GRA in fact, as PP have noted on the other thread on this. (Linked to above)

Sorry for recycling a post, but: I am not a lawyer but I can’t see how this case could succeed, legally speaking.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (right to respect for private and family life), incorporates the right to personal identity. There is also Article 14, the anti-discrimination provision.

As I understand it, this combination of rights would seek to defend the rights of all individuals to the information necessary for an understanding of their personal identity. Which should certainly include the female person who gave birth to them being recorded as the mother not as the father.

Do you really think people need to look for reasons why recording a man as having given birth to a baby is a problem?

No, birth certificates are not perfect genetic records. But they should make an attempt at being correct - like even a bit of a stab at it. Adoptive parents should not be recorded as biological parents. Men do not give birth. Women do. If the mother of this child wants to identify as a man then fine - child can call him daddy and be told the story. But it is absurd to record a man as having given birth. A man didn't. A woman did.

pallisers I agree we can't know what the child will be told, but a few of the comments seem to be assuming that the child will be lied to and we don't know this to be true either.

Will the birth certificate actually say that a man gave birth to the child? Won't it name the father as the person who wishes to be recognised as the father of the child?

If as you say there isn't a space for identification or feelings then presumably there isn't a space to say that the father also gave birth?

From my understanding, the person that gave birth wants to be in the father field with mother left blank. So this child will be the only child in the world who has never had a mother. Even if their parent tells them, that birth certificate is a lie.

ChattyLion Maybe they shouldn't. Perhaps the birth certificate should include the name of the birth mother but then this birth mother could also be recognised as the father with their new identity. I guess there would also need to be space for the biological father if that was felt appropriate.

OrchidInTheSun Yes that is weird! There should be space for both.

If someone who is recorded as a mother wants to be known as Dad, and explains in age appropriate ways from a young age sll about their transition etc then that’s being honest and their child will take that on board. It’s certificated lies and revelations of truth in the future that we need to avoid. There is plenty of evidence that it harms children so we can’t go back there.

It’s fine if the person who wants to be known as Dad feels that way, but it’s not a matter to be recorded on the birth certificate. That’s the child’s legal document. It’s not about the parent’s ID feelings. That’s why it feels so narcissistic for someone to push this in court.

A man isn't recorded as having given birth! In anything, you could argue that that would be more the case, if a legally male person was listed as mother on a birth certificate...

The child has a father. That is, a parental figure legally recognised as male.

(You may or may have a problem with people born as female sex who are later identified as legally male. And those people still being able to give birth. But it's what has happened!).

So that legally male parent is listed as father on the legal document recording: name at birth, date of birth, legal parents.

There is going to be nothing on the birth certificate to specify whom gave birth. Simply the absence of a mother. Presumably people whose mothers are unidentified also don't have a mother on a birth certificate. I'm sure this doesn't cause them confusion as to the fact they were born out of a uterus. Or change their relationship with their male parent if they have one.

Yes, people are trying to find problems with this situation that don't exist. Eg: assumptions about the way the child will be raised, what they will be told about their birth etc. Concerns re genetic lineology even though that isn't and has never been the purpose of the birth certificate.

There are some people who would insist it is less confusing for the person who gave birth to be listed as mother. On the other hand, you could argue that if your father (who raises you as a father, is legally recognised as male) is listed as "mother" on your birth certificate then that would be confusing! At the end of the day, it's not a typical straightforward situation. It is a little confusing. What a are you gonna do? Sterilise trans men? Stop people from legally changing gender? -insert mandatory reminder about intersex-

It's not a difficult situation to understand. The "weird" bit that is maybe hard to get around is that a legally male person can sometimes biologically give birth. Obsessing over the birth certificate won't change the weirdness. Weird doesn't have to be bad.

The way a child is raised is of paramount importance. Not how they were conceived, who gave birth to them, who is listed as parent blah blah blah. Why can't people care as much about real issues that actually affect children?

I think abandoned babies who don't have a mother recorded on their birth certificates probably do experience some confusion. To deliberately not record the fact of who a baby's mother is seems perverse. Perhaps you could also record them as the father in addition to recording them as the mother?

Why does it matter to you how someone is recorded on their baby's birth certificate?

Because there are principles and values involved. And, often, those principles and values affect the whole of society - even those who think that although it doesn't affect them directly it isn't important.

Cf: I have a home so why should I care that other people are homeless? I am in good health, so why should I care about funding for the NHS? I don't have children, so why I should be fussed about childcare provision? I have never been to prison, so why should I care about prison conditions?

Oops - should say "is important"!

ChattyLion If we don't allow people other than the biological parents to be legally recognised on a birth certificate then that may open a can of worms. Same sex couples etc being recognised on a legal document. If in this instance the person who gave birth would then like to legally become the father I don't see an issue. But as previously mentioned I think the birth mother should be logged too even if in this very niche case that is the same person. Removing the requirement to name the birth mother does seem strange!

Also I think think the birth certificate is a document of public office and a copy of that record is issued. I don't think the birth certificate belongs to the child or the parents - it belongs to the government/council. (I'm not sure this is true, it is just my understanding!)

Even if their parent tells them, that birth certificate is a lie.

So what if the birth certificate is a lie so long as the parent's identity is validated? After all, what / how they feel is paramount.

The child will still have records of who gave birth to them. There will be an antenatal record of the pregnancy, delivery etc.

A birth certificate in practical terms exists for the purposes of identifying name, dob and legal parents at birth. Its not a record of the details of your conception.

This situation was never in mind so there isn't a clear answer on whether it makes more sense for a legally male person who gave birth to be given as "mother" or "father". Because, obviously that person is in a weird middle place (both legally male, and biologically capable of pregnancy and childbirth). People seem to think being biologically capable of childbirth means you must be a woman, or have to be a woman. But man, woman, father, mother are used as legal terms in our society (in any society). A birth certificate is a legal document not a medical one.

I would remind everyone that even in nature a very small number of people are true hermaphrodites possessing both male and female sex organs. Many others possess both male and female chromosomes. Should they not have children, if they are able to? Is it all too confusing? Or can we just, get over it?

I think, tbh, either mother or father on the birth certificate is acceptable. It's not a lie because one is medically true, and one is legally true. The law is used for purposes that don't tie in with the medical reality all of the time (take non biological dads given on the birth certificate). Medical records still exist and it really doesn't seem that important.

Shrimpi I agree with your post "weird" bad choice of language.