Transman gives birth - wants to be father/parent

[OhHolyJesus]

Ok so this trans stuff is really starting to piss me off. Men competing in female sports, the whole toilet/changing room debate and most recently the selfish ones who say they need a mastectomy more than cancer patients (who happen to be women).

This one though, this one - somehow it's made me think about mothers and why it matters - why can't this transman be registered legally as a mother and call himself a father or parent in all other ways?

I mean he was born a woman!

Sorry here's the link

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/09/19/trans-man-denied-child-benefit-baby-high-court/

A person who gives birth is a mother. This is not 'complex', it's posturing in order to make a politico-legal point. They presumably want to force a precedent into case law.

If they gave birth they are not a man. They may feel that's where their gender identity lies (although I'm not sure why you'd then carry through a pregnancy which lets face it is pretty much the most female thing you can do) but they are not a man. Men cannot give birth.

Men cannot give birth

My logical brain can’t see past that. It is not an opinion, or a nasty comment it is a statement of biological fact.

That child is going to have a lot to tell his/her therapist.

The child benefit is an issue though as the child, like any other, is entitled currently to the £ so why can't this transman just suck it up and trick 'female/mother' in a form for the sake of having some financial support?

Ok so he might not need it, but why take it to court? To make a point basically. I'm sure there are a great number of trans men and trans women just living their lives but it seems to be that a great deal of them are kicking and screaming about their rights and how they will commit suicide as their mental health is so affected by not having surgery blah blah - pay for it privately then!

I feel bad for this child and no, I know nothing for the parent or their parenting but the fact that this transman can't make a small sacrifice, sacrifice being something I consider to be a big part of parenting in general makes me sad.

A mother is a woman - not a Cis woman - a woman! We already have 'man' right there in the label can't they all just shut the fuck up?

The birth certificate is the property of the child, not the parent. It documents their genetic parentage. The mother is always recorded, as the person who gestated and delivered the child.
I hope the court upholds the legal right of the child to have their birth status correctly recorded.

although I'm not sure why you'd then carry through a pregnancy which lets face it is pretty much the most female thing you can do

This may be controversial but I believe (most) women have a biological urge to have babies. At a guess I would say this persons biological programming overrode their current fashion interests.

Totally agree noeffing

The erasure of mothers. Great :(

Utter madness. Just say NO people

Would you not consider issues such as though before you embarked on a pregnancy? Presumably the person who gave birth to the child realised that they couldn't be recorded as the father because that is the person that provides the sperm.

Out of interest what is the situation whereby a child is born using a surrogate but egg and sperm from the genetic parents? Who is recorded as mother in these cases or is still the woman who gave birth?

It is always the woman that was pregnant and gave birth recorded as the mother on the birth certificate. In the case of surrogacy, the parental rights are then signed over to the new parents if the surrogate agrees to do this.

@AssassinatedBeauty

Thank you. Just got me wondering about other situations and what happened in those instances.

I guess a legal decision needs to be made as to how this will be handled now if people will be allowed to legally change their sex whilst still retaining their original reproductive organs.

Agree totally that the case is not being brought in the interests of the child.

Perhaps that should have been thought about before people were legally allowed to change their sex...

IMO this person should be recorded on this documentation as the mother. What they then go on to refer to themselves as is up to them. If necessary, change birth certificates to say "parent 1 (parent who gave birth to child), usually known as the mother.

'Mother' in the context of a birth certificate is a function of sex not gender.

The parenting role 'mothering' can be performed by anyone

They presumably want to force a precedent into case law.

Actually I hop they do set a precedent, that the person who is pregnant and gives birth is a women (or girl) and the mother. I hope even the ECHR confirms this. If they don't the world really has gone mad.

Perhaps that should have been thought about before people were legally allowed to change their sex...

Certainly the law should have considered what would happen in just such a scenario. I guess they assumed that anyone legally changing their sex/gender would not then give birth or father children.

Certainly the birth parent should have thought through the consequences before embarking on pregnancy.

Maybe in cases such as these the term mother could be changed to person who gave birth or similar? But left as mother for everyone happy to be recognised as mother.

Where would this stop though, if a birth cert has already been issued and a parent decides to change their gender would they be able to get a childs birth cert changed too.

If we say 'person who gave birth' or 'menstruator' or ciswoman I really don't know where it ends.

By all means wear a dress, make up and heels and use a female bathroom if you don't have a dick but this language makes me worried for our kids - god it's confusing enough as it is? My son says I'm his Mummy and doesn't even let me say wife or daughter as he only knows me as his mummy. He's 2 so I know he will learn I can be many things but Jesus this goes to far for me.

The language we use is so important - makes me think of that scary paedo manifesto on another thread and Handmaids Tale/dystopian tales of woe - I'm not buying it, whatever they're selling I'm just not.

Where would this stop though, if a birth cert has already been issued and a parent decides to change their gender would they be able to get a childs birth cert changed too.

I can't see why? If after I have registered my child's birth and then get re married I can't change my name on the birth certificate, it stays as it was when the birth was registered.

My husband's name was changed by deed poll but his birth certificate still shows his original name so he has to show his birth certificate and deed poll as ID.

Wouldn't this be the same?

If we say 'person who gave birth'

I'm only saying change it in cases such as these. Certainly not for everyone.

The new parent, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has filed a legal challenge against complex rules which require people who give birth to be listed as mothers on birth certificates.

There’s some serious linguistic gymnastics going on here.

So technically this child could end up with a birth certificate with no mother named on it? Brilliant.

Didn’t this also happen in Germany last year? The court threw the case out iirc.

It's a current case. I thought that was well balanced for P News - because they lifted it straight from The Times.

I wouldn't fancy being the judge on that case if he rules 'mother' on the BC. The trans lobby will label the judge a JERF!