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!

Not to be pedantic... But a TERJ

Interesting case on similar issue
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/990.html

Glad to see a victory for common sense over feelz.

Its going to fuck up future family trees of birth certificates can record parental self id or even GRC's.

I don’t even know where to begin with this.

They want it all ways don't they.

He wanted to be the father, the mother gets Child Benefit. Simple really, nothing complicated.
If they win this, it will open up a whole can of worms and women will once again not have any control over money for their children if they live with a controlling abusive bastard. They have found another way to try and fuck women over.

He wanted to be the father, the mother gets Child Benefit.
Is it really only the mother that gets child benefit? I didn't realise that.

No, either parent can claim CB. I’m guessing it’s all the confusion in this case that is causing issues.

Like a biological mother claiming to be something they aren’t, which is biological father.

My brain hurts.

The child benefit can't be claimed because the child doesn't yet have a birth certificate whilst this case is ongoing which is needed as proof to process a claim. Usually the mother claims child benefit but a father can too.

Just to pick up on this aspect:

“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.”

“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?”

I have a child conceived using donor eggs and my husband's sperm. The resulting 5 day embryo was transferred into my womb. I am the legal mother and named on the birth certificate. There is no reference to the use of an egg donor. We will tell our child about origins (he’s still a baby) and share as much as we can / he wants to know. But legally the woman who gives birth is the parent and the genetic element doesn’t really count.

You made me look at p* news.😡 What a lot of nonsense.

You get pregnant, carry a child and give birth - you are the child's mother even if you think you are a man.

That poor child having such a self absorbed parent. I hope the sperm dad is more sensible, although I can hardly imagine....

Thanks for posting that link, groundcontrol. I feel vindicated in my refusal to play along with DS's friend's father's pretence that he is, in fact, the child's mother.

@BrownPaperTeddy sorry you're right, it could be done just for this case, but it's gone too far for me.

I don't consider myself to be a rad fem or part of a 'hate group' (waves to MNHQ) but I'm becoming angrier and angrier at all this trans shite and if that makes me a rad fem then so be it.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore (goes to complete another tedious section of the GRA) x

This is a case where both sides are wrong. The mother is clearly a mother whatever gender they identify as - but since the benefit is awarded based on the needs of the child, and since neither the existence nor parentage of the child is in question, why is the birth certificate necessary?

It smacks of the same fetishism of bureaucracy that we see with GRCs - that a piece of paper recording something makes it real.

Birth certificate is necessary to prove there is actually a child - fraudulent claim prevention.

I am starting to think that regardless of what I think the rights or wrongs of this are, why haven't these situations been legislated for?

It seems dangerous to simply leave it up to individuals to decide what they want to do, especially when a child is involved.

Maybe, when GRC became legal, at that point it should have been ruled on what would happen if a trans man gave birth or a trans woman fathers a child.

Whatever was decided, everyone would know and understand the position rather than having a child already in existence with an argument raging as to whether the birth mother is the father.

This issue is too big to be left up to individuals to decide.

How did the child get a passport without a birth certificate?

The trans man in this scenario is obviously trying to set a legal precedent. A question though: if the birth certificate states this person is the mother and then the person states they are male, is there any way that could cause problems legally? What do you need a child's birth certificate for? (Obviously the child needs it, I mean what use is it to the parent, apart from claiming child benefit)?

This issue is too big to be left up to individuals to decide

Absolutely.

I have to say, a parent who leaves their child without a formal identity (ironic) because of their own demands isn’t much of a parent irrespective of gender.

Putting your own wants above your child’s rights is never a good sign.

Reminds me of The Rachel Divide on Netflix where she has a baby but can't decide what box to tick for ethnicity so ticks both!

Anyone seen it? Not derailing my own thread but...

If you can choose a gender, an ethnicity...can I choose to be a cat? An alien?

That poor kid!

Birth certificate is necessary to prove there is actually a child - fraudulent claim prevention.

Is there a question of their parentage? Mother, father, what difference does it make to the needs of the child?

The parent is being selfish. The State is being it's bureaucratic self. There's a child caught between the two.

If the parent had no GRA at the time of the birth, she was legally a woman at that time. I don’t think there is any precedent for going back in to change birth certification like this case is calling for.

Some info on birth certificates:
www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth

Birth certificates don’t record genetic parentage on either side but they do record birth parentage, only on the mother’s side.

This case seems to absolutely be about pushing boundaries..to get the GRA cert for parent effectively extended to cover their kid’s birth certificate.

But if GRA certification doesnt change the adult transitioning person’s own birth certificate- why should it change the legal documentation of their child?

Children are clearly legally separate individuals- unaffected by a parents GRA certificate to date.

It leaves the child with no legal mother which seems an unnecessary legal fiction to introduce and quite confusing for the child since presumably at some point they will be told that they came out of their Dad’s body?

Surely the issues of not misgendering the mother are for her own legal certification to deal with, rather than introducing change to the child’s birth certificate?

Read this in active ‘tradesman gives birth’ and had to look again 😯

As you were ...

Since the birth certificate can be altered at a later date - if the child decides to identify as a different gender - the certificate isn't a record of reality anyway.

There is a previous thread about this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3271483-Baby-could-become-first-person-born-in-England-or-Wales-without-a-legal-mother