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

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

Of course to be biologically capable of childbirth means you must be a woman

This is the mess that legal fictions get you into. The individual in question is a woman, a female who is now legally recognised as a man.

Now the law will have to decide whether to add an additional legal fiction of a man being a mother, of a father being the birth mother.

Would be so much simpler if people could not be legally recognised as the opposite sex, and could instead accept themselves as masculine women, or feminine men.

@Listener73

I think the situation is weird. But I don't use it as a derogatory term. Everybody's weird in their own ways.

Its says something about human nature that so many words that mean different or unusual are taken also to mean perverse, wrong or negative.

Imagine having to explain it every time you had to submit your birth certificate for a new job, to get a passport, for student funding etc.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Imagine the following: I am XX with a womb. But I also male genitals that I was born with, a male physique, a birth certificate where I am given as a boy, a wife with whom I have penetrative sex.

Am I a man or a woman? Does mumsnet get to decide? Or should I get to decide?

If I host a surrogate pregnancy for my sister following her hysterectomy, do I have to become a woman now?

This could be a reality for some people. So. I would say, of course having a womb and potentially being able to use it doesn't mean you are a woman.

Maybe we need to completely change birth certificates...maybe we need genetic parent (xx) genetic parent (xy) genetic parent (other eg mitochondrial dna), then legal parent one/two, and genetic test all babies to put chromosomal sex of child? All of these are factual and measurable, and only legal parentage can be changed.

@shrimpi: it is not possible to imagine the scenario you put forth as it is biologically impossible. You cannot have XX chromosomes, a uterus and be born with male genitalia.

The "male physique", birth certificate, sex of spouse and type of sex (anal sex is also penetrative) are irrelevant to your argument, which lacks any kind of coherence or logic.

@PetraDelphiki

Medical records already exist for this purpose and are confidential.

What you propose would mean that someone who has Turner's syndrome, for example, would have to reveal this to all sorts of parties (their employer, for marriage registration, to obtain a passport) even if they didn't want to. That would be very unfair and open some people to discrimination.

We have a variety of legal documents that allow people to be clear on their current and previous identify, without having to reveal their medical or conception history.

@TerfsUp

Yes you can. I am a doctor. An example would be some people with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. In this condition there are internal female organs but male external genitalia and often a male identity.

If you want me to blow your mind we can talk about true hermaphrodites.

@shrimpi - If you are a doctor, as you claim, then you know that you are female if you have XX chromosomes. Identity is irrelevant.

Plus, if you have external male genitalia you cannot give birth.

I am XX with a womb. But I also male genitals that I was born with, a male physique, a birth certificate where I am given as a boy, a wife with whom I have penetrative sex.Am I a man or a woman?

Depends on whether you are truly XX or XX with some kind of crossover of the sry portion of the Y chromosome into the X. It’s technically possible you could have De la Chapelle syndrome or one of the extremely rare partial masculinisation mutations in sox9 or wnt4. If you are truly XX you are female.

You would be unlikely to be able to conceive naturally regardless of the mutation. Carrying a surrogate pregnancy is as far as I know still a hypothetical in such a case (I’d be interested to hear otherwise, please do let me know if you’re aware of such a case.)

In summary - hard cases make bad law. Very rare DSDs, intersex conditions etc say nothing about the regular human condition being a sex binary any more than a person with polydactyl proves that the default number of digits isn’t six.

No it wouldn’t - if you were to make a change like this you could have a short form that showed legal parents and gender (born or acquired). Would still prove date/place birth and parental responsibility etc but we would then have one totally unchanging scientifically correct record of parentage (ok apart from when the alleged father actually isn’t)...

You then write laws to protect chromosomal women where necessary and female gender where not!

male external genitalia

Wrong - the genitalia of people with this condition may have "ambiguous" genitalia. But if they have XX chromosomes they are female.

@bowlofbabelfish - I don't know if you are a doctor but your explanation is coherent and informed, unlike that of @shrimpi.

Ooops - should read "the genitalia of people with this condition may be ambiguous". Not male. Ambiguous.

I suppose it depends on when the mother/father was registered as having changed officially on the records to male. If they were registered as male before the birth then I suppose they could put father, but if you want to be a male why have a baby which is quite a female thing to do imo! I think it would really confuse records years down the line. And if you put 'father' who do you put as 'mother'. Whilst I support people who wish to be transgender, I think there have to be limits and this is one...

Also, a fully functional uterus AND fully functional Male genitalia have never been seen to coexist - again please do let me know if I’m wrong. Non fully formed male genitalia and non functional aspects of the female reproductive system have been found in individuals. DSDs don’t usually result in perfectly functional ‘one of each’ physiology.

But again, I have to say ‘so what?’ - a child with sirenomelia doesn’t prove there’s a natural subset of humans with a single lower limb. A person with polydactyl doesn’t change the fact that the default number of digits is five per limb. A foetus with severe holoprocencephaly doesn’t prove there’s a subset of cyclopic humans.

These are errors and abnormalities in development. They’re fascinating. They tell us a lot about the pathways of normal development - but they don’t change the default human body plan or the default human sex binary.

@bowlofbabelfish - I don't know if you are a doctor but your explanation is coherent and informed, unlike that of shrimpi

I’m Not That Type Of Doctor im a scientist, a geneticist with a background in genetics and human development (and he shit that can go wrong in it.)

TRAs are grossly misrepresenting science in a lot of these threads.

Wondering what the implications would be for future passport applications for the child...surely the only thing concrete (as much as it can be) on a birth certificate is the name of the mother?

@TerfsUp

I don't want to be rude. But you are simply wrong.

XX / XY denotes chromosomal sex, but some people can have both, some people can have a single X, some people can have XXY.

Then there is the matter of sexual organs and genitalia which do not always follow genetic chromosomes.

Intersex conditions are actually not that uncommon. Something like 1:2000 babies are born with ambiguous genitalia. 1:2500 female infants actually have a single X genotype. Have you ever heard of XX syndrome? Completely phenotypically male babies with XX chromosomes, that's one is 1:20,000. CAH affects 1:10,000. 1:500 to 1:1000 boys has XXY chromosomes.

You are the person trying to alter biological reality to fit your own view of sex and gender. After all, you just told me something is impossible when it plainly isn't and you could read about it if you chose to.

Apart from chromosomes, sexual organs and genitalia there is the matter of legal sex, which regardless of your opinion, is also not dependant upon the chromosomal sex or necessarily the organs or genitalia that a person possesses or used to possess.

Then there is gender and sexual identity. Which may or may not tie in with chromosomes, phenotype, or legality. Some people just find this interesting, not threatening.

CAH doesn’t result in the situation you described though (fully functional womb, fully functional Male genitalia.)

Please could you respond to Bowl's point, Shrimpi? This one:
"Also, a fully functional uterus AND fully functional Male genitalia have never been seen to coexist - again please do let me know if I’m wrong. Non fully formed male genitalia and non functional aspects of the female reproductive system have been found in individuals."

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.

wonderful way to dismiss the real feelings and concerns of adopted people - blah blah blah!

Completely phenotypically male babies with XX chromosomes,

Again, not quite so. 90% of cases have a crossover, complete or incomplete, or the SRY region of the Y. In effect a bit of Y has tagged along and stuck to the x.

But again - if you’re a doctor you will see countless examples of incorrect development. Of abnormality. These cases do not change the default.

Or Does that mean that a child with sirenomelia proves that the default number of lower limbs is not two?

@BowlofBabelfish

You are correct that most people with intersex conditions would need assistance to conceive.

People with XX CAH phenotypically male may have a penis and scrotum, but cannot produce sperm. They may have functional wombs.

People with XY androgen insensitivity phenotypically female will usually have a functional womb and vagina, but not ovaries and may have non functional testes.

XXY phenotypically male, I believe can be fertile (produce sperm) with treatment in some cases. They have no female organs.

People with XO phenotypically female have a womb and vagina but usually streak ovaries. I believe some with mosaicism may have functional ovarian tissue.

I'm not saying these conditions aren't medical conditions, plainly they are. Simply that chromosomal and phenotypical sex aren't solely binary. It's not a bold claim. It's a fact.