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 explain CAH to people. It can happen in males or females. It’s caused by several different abnormalities in the processes that create and react to sex steroids. In females it usually presents as ambiguous genitalia, early onset periods, and hormonal abnormalities like PCos. In males there are usually no signs at birth, but under or over masculinised (usually under.) sufferers of both sexes have a variety of metabolic problems as well.

As far as I know (and please do correct me if I’m wrong) CAH is NOT what people think of as hermaphroditism. One does not have Male and female genitalia together with this syndrome.

@shrimpi - I am not wrong - you are attributing to me something I did not say. I am aware of XXY chromosomes, thank you.

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

So, yes. You are being rude by accusing me of saying something that I did not say.

You are the one who used the term "male genitalia". I am the one who used the term "ambiguous genitalia".

there is the matter of legal sex

It is not legal sex, it is legal gender. You cannot change your sex legally or otherwise. You can, however, legally change your gender.

Also echoing what OrchidInTheSun asked:

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."

Simply that chromosomal and phenotypical sex aren't solely binary. It's not a bold claim. It's a fact.

Sex is binary. These conditions are abnormalities of growth and development. As I keep saying, a child with severe holoprocencephaly doesn’t prove that there’s a natural class of cyclopian humans. DSDs and intersex conditions don’t show that sex is a spectrum - they show that all developmental processes are prone to going wrong.

The insistence that DSDs and intersex conditions are extremely common is untrue. True intersex conditions are rare. TRAs have been trying to insinuate that women with simple cliteromegaly or men with hypospadias are intersex - this is wrong. They are trying to do this to promote this idea that ‘sex isnt binary’

It is binary. You should know that rare abnormalities say nothing about the default.

Calves born with two heads - it’s fascinating but the default number of human heads and cow heads is one.

Intersex people have had a rough time of it since time immemorial. They do not deserve some MRA pressure group with an agenda hijacking their legitimate concerns and medical issues. If I was intersex I’d be pretty pissed off at this and I’d be telling the TRA crew to feck off in no uncertain terms.

Bowlofbabelfish, thank you for interesting and informative posts.

You’re welcome terfsup

I disagree that biological sex is exclusively binary (I can agree that it is usually binary, of course) and I think that intersex conditions prove that babelfish. Otherwise, I think I've said all that I need and want to.

You are right to point out that intersex and trans are separate issues. I was trying to make an allegory to the fact that having a womb, does not mean you are, should be or have to identify as a woman. It has opened a can of worms.

I'm not a TRA or a pressure group. Mumsnet seems obsessed with trans paranoid about trans pressure groups. I'm a female paediatrician whose never posted about trans issues on this board or any other. I just get on with my life and hardly think about trans people. Since coming on mumsnet I read about both antifeminist trans groups and antitrans feminist groups and there seems to be some kind of war going on, with neither exercising any kind of common sense or a "live and let live" attitude. Honestly I want no part of it!

I don't think anyone here is concerning themselves with genetic intersex conditions.
What most of us simply want it recognised that genetic males, if presenting as women, do not erode the rights and protections of genetic females.
It really is that simple.

Also, people with intersex conditions have asked not to included in the discussion regarding trans issues. Doing so is both disrespectful and disingenuous and shows that TRAs are grasping at straws.

with neither exercising any kind of common sense or a "live and let live" attitude. Honestly I want no part of it!

I was very live and let live as well. I do know two older transsexuals in real life and both are very much of the old school. They’re both decent people and I would hope that in the future society is more tolerant of those who are not gender confirming so they can live without the mockery that seems to follow them everywhere.

However....

There is a second group of people who now identify as trans. Most of this group are not classically gender dysphoric. They have autogynephilia and they are, collectively, destroying that live and let live tolerance that’s previously existed.

Their insistence on entering women’s spaces is troubling. Their abuse of gender critical women, feminists and frankly anyone who doesn’t blindly say that men can become women is troubling

What really troubles me the most though is their targeting of children. Many children (as I’m sure you will see in your work) struggle with puberty. In our current climate of hyper sexuality young girls are under huge pressure to conform to these increasingly narrow gender stereotypes. I’m an old gimmer and in my day teen girls could wear so much more variety (short hair, long hair, dresses, doc martins, whatever) and men could wear make up (the 80s!!) but now all that seems to have regressed. And if you’re a feminine boy they pressure you into thinking your sex is wrong. But of course your sex isn’t wrong - it’s that the stereotypes are too narrow.

So then these kids (and 80% of them will get through this and be Ok with their gender if supported and given time) are being told they can change sex. They’re being told that drugs like Lupron and triptorelin are ‘a harmless pause button’ on puberty. And of course they’re not, they’re horribly powerful drugs with irreversible effects. But once you’re on them, you’re pretty much committed to being trans, and so kids who don’t actually need any treatment are being channelled down this route of blockers — cross sex hormones—surgery.
And that’s major surgery. Sterility. No possibility of banking sperm or ovae, no transition through puberty, cognitive damage, metabolic damage.

It’s horrific. And I’m amazed there’s not more outcry about it. Kids being left sterile and in a state of permanent pre adolescence for what? So that society doesn’t have to address the fact that our gender stereotypes are shit.

I understand that it can look like a bun fight, but please, as a paediatrician think - you wouldn’t treat a patient population where 80% would get better just fine and the remaining 20% don’t have a life threatening condition and are physically healthy with drugs that sterilised, and had osteoporosis, diabetes, cognitive damage as side effects would you? You’d be aghast at the idea, because it’s awful.

Great post Bowl

Yes, thank you for your excellent posts on this thread and others. I think I first came across you on the thread with the science teacher last month and your posts were so clear and incisive. It was a cracking read

I haven't rtft but this just screams of having your fucking cake and eating it.

Bowl, I wish there was some way of forcing all MPs to read that last post. I am not a medic or scientist, just a concerned member of the public (and a mother) and I can't understand why the risks to children are not causing more concern in the corridors of power.

I have to say I don't know anything about medical transition. But of course having concerns about children with gender problems and how to manage those (and specifically about irreversible procedures) are very legitimate!

Of course the concern about men (and some trans women) coming into female spaces and making them unsafe is legitimate. I feel sorry for trans people who are just trying to live their lives and have no involvement in that. I think it's also important to recognise how at risk they are too (generally not from women but from men). But it's also important for women to have places that are safe. I don't have an answer to that! It's not a debate I've particularly engaged in or thought too much about.

To get back to the topic of this thread however, a person born biologically female who transitions to male has absolutely nothing to do with men using women's bathrooms. They aren't a man invading a female space and making it unsafe (most of the posters here are very insistent that this person is woman!). It isn't threatening to anyone. There's no reason not to believe they are a for want of a better term, a "normal" trans person, in a difficult situation, trying to do and make what's best of their circumstances. Or that they can't or won't be a good parent.

For people to get this blown up over what is written on a birth certificate, and make all of these horrible assumptions, has really nothing to do with feminism, is disproportionate, seems to me it actually undermines more legitimate and proportionate concerns re intersection of trans and women's rights.

It feels like, because people are concerned about some potentially harmful parts of the trans movement, that they have become totally against all things trans. To me this is just a parent making a decision about what they think will be best on a birth certificate in quite an unusual situation where there isn't a perfect fit. None of the options are ultimately that difficult to understand or have any where the level of impactfulness as basics relating to how the child will be raised. So it should be the parent's decision without them facing vitriol.

Believe me I have to have encounters with parents all the time when I might disagree with their approach to child rearing! But it's important not to villainise or abuse or assume.

It’s not about a single transwoman using a ladies loo though. What will happen if self ID goes ahead is the following:

Men who are not trans, but are predatory will be able to access female spaces. And they will - predatory men will use any loophole they can to access victims.

Women will have no right to challenge them. The social convention that marks out a man in the ladies as a danger will be gone. Where changing rooms have become unisex in the USA, voyeuristic and sexual crime against women has tripled

If self ID goes ahead, men will be able to self identify into women’s prisons. Not in a case by case basis, there will be no way of refusing them. Women have already been harmed by this.

Safeguarding provisions will be damaged. Children of both sexes will be at risk. Take the girl guides for example - parents are already not being informed if a male bodied person is sharing a tent with their daughters. Right now GG has all female leadership which is in itself protective - men cannot access it. If self iD comes in, how many predatory men do you think will decide being a guide leader or volunteer is a good idea and will allow them access to girls? Note that I’m not actually talking about transwomen here at all - I’m talking about predatory men who will exploit any loophole they can.

Oh but men wont do that... they do. They have. They will.

Almost all our child safeguarding rules and procedures were brought in after awful crimes exposed loopholes in safety procedures. Ian Huntley was able to get a job as a school caretaker despite previous convictions because there was no national system of linked up background checking. There is now, because of that crime. (Huntley now identifies as a woman by the way, if that’s in any way relevant.)

Will someone who committed a crime as a man be able to be picked up in DBS checks? No one seems to know.

Will self ID mean that men are allowed access to children where they were not previously? Yup. Already happening (see girl guides.) TRA groups are pressing for confidential disclosure in schools - ie if a child tells a teacher they’re trans, that teacher can keep the confidence- that is simply an abusers charter.

So that’s just plain old men. Who have always tried to abuse women and kids, and will do so using any loophole they can.

What about transwomen? Well studies show they are no more or less dangerous than men in general. They retain the offending pattern of their sex even after transition.

So no one is saying all transwomen are a danger. They’re not. What they are is as dangerous as any other Male, and that’s why they do not belong in female only spaces, or in any arena where men are excluded for safeguarding.

This really is no longer a live and let live situation. It’s a small but powerful group of people actively trying to remove the protections of women and children.

Babelfish just to emphasise as it didn't come across. I do fully agree re your sentiments on children not being able to explore their identity outside of narrow, highly sexualised gender identities.

And that people who genuinely benefit from permanent medicalised changes to sex may be a very small group & it is of utmost importance not to inadvertently categorise people who will be harmed by the same procedures into that group.

I guess, re the bunfight issue - you can have legitimate concerns as above and still be pro acceptance and reduced stigma, pro necessary legal protections for trans people. And be feminist. It's about balance and proportionality. As I've said I'm not been very invested in this debate - precisely because the threads all seem to be about sharing outrage, no sense of proportion, no sense of innocent bystanders, and very much picking sides and labels. You say something in defence of a trans person and you are a "TRA" (I actually had to look up what it stands for). You voice a valid worry about frightening sexually motivated men from entering a women's bathroom, or an issue about menstruation, and you are a "TERF" (I do know what that one means!). Everyone just fights. I got sucked in on this thread and became a bit indignant too. Such is the Internet I guess.

The person bringing this case is a deluded narcissist. If she's prepared to attempt to use the courts to enable her to lie on her baby's birth certificate, I find it impossible to believe that she'll tell her DC the truth in an age appropriate way. Her priorities are all too plain

Children are more affected by the absence of a mother than a father. If I had grown up sad that I had no mum - not even the name of my mum - and then discovered that my mum had been there all the time, that what was missing was my dad I'd feel terribly betrayed. It's the sort of crap that leaves people needing years of therapy.

Prawnofhtepatriarchy You're making quite a few assumptions about the parent.

He isn't using the courts to lie on a birth certificate, he is using the courts to ask to be recognised as the father on the birth certificate.

The family set up may not be typical but with support there's no reason the child won't understand it. There was similar thinking around same sex couples bringing up children and the detrimental effects/confusion that would bring. None of it has proved to be well founded. I expect the same will be true in transgender families.

But he isnt the father. He's the mother. It's not remotely like a gay couple or an adoption. In neither case is there an actual and damaging lie on the certificate.

And I stick to my point that anyone so delusional and self obsessed is unlikely to tell the poor kid the truth until or unless it becomes unavoidable.

I imagine grieving for a mother so removed that even my dad doesn't know her name...

He is not the child's father Lie. He is the child's mother. The child has a different father who (if the child was conceived in the UK) the child is allowed to contact when they are 18. Two fathers, sure, but who is their biological mother?

In those families I know with adoptive or same sex parents, they talk a lot (with young children) about tummy mummys and children always have a tummy mummy (obviously!) so I cannot see how this person is going to explain this to their child in a way that doesn't suggest that a) men can have babies and/or b) it's possible to change sex.

This is no different from batshit religious fundamentalism in teaching children stuff that simply isn't true.

The Times take on it. The comments are good.

Prawn I'm not sure that what is on the birth certificate would be damaging. I'm nearly 40 and I can't remember when I saw my birth certificate - life goes on whatever is on there isn't damaging me! As per my previous posts I think the birth certificate should state the birth mother and also have space to name the person identifying as the father. In this instance it would be the same person - but presumably with different names.

You are making assumptions that the person is delusional and self obsessed and what they will/won't tell the child. Neither of us know what the reality of that is. However if there is an attempt to hide that I agree that it would be inappropriate. At some point the issue will have to be addressed but when that happens is up to the family.

Orchid I think saying it is a lie wouldn't be helpful. If the father brings the child up as the father and the child recognises that parent as their father in the way that really matters they ARE the father - it isn't a lie.

That said - as above I think it should be explicit that the person who is their father should explain that they also gave birth to the child and was their birth mother but then changed. They can still have conversations about tummy mummy's etc and that conversation can be had.

I don't think this person is necessarily going to be a bad parent and I do dislike the tone of the statements about them (personally) but I am very concerned about the change in language and the fact that the word mother could lose its current legal meaning. In doing so, it threatens mothers rights surely (as in the rights of the people who have carried the babies in their wombs)

That said - as above I think it should be explicit that the person who is their father should explain that they also gave birth to the child

Yes, so simple to explain to a child who sees every other child with a mummy.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the legal process can reassure me? One reason many of us worry about virtually all things trans is because at the cutting edge of liberal correctness, which often filters into the main stream, the word 'woman' now means people who dress and act feminine. This is an unintended consequence of the expectation that society must reinforce trans gender people's perceptions of themselves. So the word 'mother' will mean a person's parent who behaves in a feminine way and believes themselves to be female.