Judge is going to rule on the 'landmark' case determining if a child can be born without a mother.

[R0wantrees]

Independent: 'Judge to decide whether baby can be first in UK history to be born without a mother in landmark trans rights case
Transgender parent says being forced to register as the child’s 'mother' breaches his human right to respect for privacy and family life'
(extract)
"The most senior Family Court judge in England and Wales is set to rule on a case involving a transgender man whose baby is at the centre of a historic human rights fight.

Lawyers say the baby could become the first person born in England or Wales who will not legally have a mother.

The baby is the child of a single parent who was born a woman but now lives as a man after undergoing surgery.

NHS faces legal action unless it offers trans people fertility service
Judges have heard that the man had been biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but had legally become male by the time the child was born.

He wants to be identified as the child's “father” or “parent” on a birth certificate but a registrar has told him that the law requires people who give birth to be registered as mothers." (continues)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-man-baby-birth-certificate-mother-trans-rights-landmark-case-family-court

UKTELI 'landmark case'

R0wan I’m sure the child will know all about it if it’s father is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or paternal grandparent.

I can't get my head around this sentence! A father with ovarian cancer? FFS.......

Hideandgo why are you so keen to deny reality? This is nothing like gay parents, gay parents never denied reality to their children?

Also, how is a female who is pregnant 'living as a man'? What exactly does that mean?!

"Male"
Adjective
Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

It's all getting silly now.
If the baby came out of a vagina, then whoever it's attached to is the mother! The child's rights come first!

I can't think of anything less male than being pregnant tbh. So how was this individual living as a man then?

As others have noted upthread, I assume the surgery (mastectomy) was done prior to conception. That wouldn't prevent a pregnancy but does remove the option of breastfeeding.

Words have meaning.
To be a father you need to be firstly a man and secondly to be male.

The law is pretty clear that the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ relate to who contributed which gametes (rather than being any reflection of the parent’s gender), I can’t see how this is in any way an incompatibility with human rights legislation and even if it were ruled to be an incompatibility there would still need to be a change to primary legislation which would require consultation etc

Hideandgo ”The child has a father”...of course they do, but that isn’t the person who grew the child in utero.
How selfish to use a baby to validate your “identity”.

How selfish to use a baby to validate your “identity”.

This.

This is not a child being given up for adoption, the child will have the parent who gave birth raising them so will have access to their female related medical history.

It will set a legal precedent.

Once precedent is set, it can be used in other situations.

Agree this is nothing like having gay parents. Same sex attaction is same sex attraction, not same identity attraction. Sexual attraction is based on a truth, not a lie.

The terms 'mother' and 'father' on birth certificates don't refer to the people doing the parenting after the child is born. They refer to the reproductive parentage of the baby. Like 'dam' and 'sire' are used on cattle breeding records.

Before donor eggs and surrogacy it used to be the case that the only parent known with 100% certainty was the mother, because they had given birth to the baby. The father as recorded might not actually be biologically correct.

What happens with donor eggs and surrogacy? I think with surrogacy the birth mother is recorded but is that record sealed and another document issued with the legal parents' names?

Wait, so does this mean that the child’s maternal side will be referred to as its paternal side?

All I seem to be saying recently is 'ridiculous'.

RIDICULOUS!

Someone will come along soon to say
"But an adopted baby wasn't gestated in the womb of their adoptive mother"

So... assume that conversation has been had and it was recognised that "mother" still refers to those of the female sex and that the person who did give birth to the adopted child was female....

Isn't there a contradiction? Children should apparently have rights when it comes to accessing life-altering medication. They should have the 'right' to consent to making themselves sterile. (While acknowledging of course that adults have no need for such medication). They should have the right to be 'affirmed' in their gender identity from any age. But when it comes to birth certificates, their property, they shouldn't have the right to correct information but instead validate their 'parent's' identity.

Seems like children's rights are actually only a priority as long as they validate a TRA mindset.

yetanother I believe that in the UK, an intended parent has to adopt what may be their own biological child if the child was carried by a surrogate.
I think the usual (less messy) arrangement is for the surrogate to be an unmarried woman so that the intended father can be named on the birth certificate and the adoption looks like a step-parent adoption. If the surrogate is married her husband is automatically on the birth certificate.
Not sure how it works in other countries but if I am correct then the child's genetic parents would be on an adoption certificate rather than a birth certificate.

I can't get my head around this sentence! A father with ovarian cancer? FFS.......

Elephantinacravat it is so ridiculous and also has such serious implications. To appropriate ovarian cancer like this says a great deal about the poster. None of it good.

(PS for a child born through donor eggs or embryos, the woman that gave birth would ALSO be on the birth certificate as mother, meaning that no adoption was necessary. So it's clear that it's the person that gives birth, under UK law, that's the mother, not the genetic female parent.)

the child will have the parent who gave birth raising them so will have access to their female related medical history

Given that none of us can see into the future no-one can state the above with any certainty whatsoever. The child could lose the parent, and any family whilst far too young to understand, be adopted, have children of their own, who then don't have any way of tracing their genealogy with any accuracy.

Just thought of something.

The case centres on the parent's right to privacy, which I infer means the parent presents as male and appears to be the child's father, and wants the fact of their transition to be private, which it wouldn't be if they are recorded on the BC as mother.

But in the brave new world of trans biology, where women can have penises and men can menstruate, surely there's no need to hide the fact that a man has gestated a foetus and given birth to a baby?

But titchy surely that is the same for any child who is adopted?
Plus the parents medical records are not erased or altered when they change their gender identity (apologies if not correct terminologies).
So if I changed from female to male by medical records of things related to female medical problems for example ovarian cancer, arw not erased. They are still there even if the name on my records has changed from tilly to Tom.

Adoption doesn’t (as I understand it) change the birth certificate though. The adoption certificate is used for admin purposes in place of the birth certificate, but they don’t go back to the birth certificate and Tippex out the first set of parent names.

I’m fucking done for today. That’s actually bright a tear to my eye. This ideology is evil.