Transgender man becomes pregnant after IVF wants baby to be declared motherless on Birth certificate

[OtepotiLilliane42]

This is also covered in the Telegraph but I cannot access their article.
We have a similiar case in NZ, and I've put the links below. Scout had a baby girl just before Christmas. I am glad that everything went well for Scout and their daughter, but the denial of biological reality by Scout (especially in the Spinoff article) and the transgender parent in the Mail article is really sad. The media in NZ hasn't helped either by its decision to report Scout's story on Scout's own terms. In real life Dads don't get pregnant and have babies, at least human ones don't.
Other transgender parents in the UK have recorded themselves as the mother apparently, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6698303/Transgender-man-pregnant-IVF-battles-child-declared-motherless.html

thespinoff.co.nz/parenting/04-07-2018/im-pregnant-and-im-going-to-be-a-dad/

www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/109558179/kiwi-dad-scout-barbourevans-gives-birth-to-daughter

If you argue that men can get pregnant and give birth and that vaginas can be male, then by the same logic, why can't mothers be male? On the one hand this individual is arguing against pregnancy as being gendered, but for some reason doesn't want to say that mothers can be male or female, which would be consistent with their logic.

Which is the whole point really, it isn't that this is a principled stance based on logic and reason, it's about wanting society to bend to your beliefs whatever they are, even if they're illogical.

This person also wrote an articlae about how offended they are by the expression 'barking mad' because they suffer from acute mental illness; psychosis.

article, not articlae

Also, link

reallybadidea
If you argue that men can get pregnant and give birth and that vaginas can be male, then by the same logic, why can't mothers be male?

That's it exactly. My head is completely bent out of shape by the logic of this one. Undermining their own argument!

So cruel to the child. Not every child has a mother currently present in their life but they have a mother as part of their dna, their life story (not always happy) but this child would have no mother.

The biological mother is trying to erase the child's primary relationship. Such a self-centred move.

Telegraph link

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/12/transgender-mans-fight-child-motherless-opposed-government/

This is all kinds of wrong.

There has been a crazy shift in the culture since I was young. Everything is about rights - what happened to responsibilities? The responsibility to the child this person chose to bring into the world?

Someone needs to tell them "This. Is. Not. About. You"

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3 and 7.

As I understand it, children born from artificial insemination or adopted children have the right (where practical) to find their father/parents. This is done in the interests of child welfare, but here we have a case bought in the interests of the parent! What next, banning Mother’s Day because it’s triggering, maternity wear modelled by Brian Blessed?

(On an unrelated note I’m thinking of crowd funding a colony of Mars with entrance restricted to those that answer

“And finally we just need to confirm your gender”

With

‘Sure, where do I get undressed”

Extra points awarded for thinking ‘optics’ are the things you find over a bar and ‘woke’ is what happened to Sleeping Beauty

Was typing earlier but had meeting

What I was trying to say badly was this

'If you argue that men can get pregnant and give birth and that vaginas can be male, then by the same logic, why can't mothers be male?'

Mother means person/ animal that grows and births a baby.
It has been extended in some circs to others but this is what it means.
It's not' gendered ' at heart, by definition, although of course it gets a load of gender expectations on it.

But it means growing and having a baby.

Yes by the logic it should mean that men can be described as mothers

But I don't think that will end up anywhere good for us or for children either

What of mens language is being eroded in this way?

Finally read the article in Spinoff about Scout. Words fail me.
Biological females give birth not men. Being a parent, ie mother or father figure is quite different, I am not a mother(biologically speaking) but could mother a child.
We're living in an alternate universe here and it makes one's head spin, one just has to keep repeating the facts, using logic over and over again. Channel Mr Spock!

That poor child.

Just a thought.
.i think that the terms man and woman are important signifying the physical differences , but generally if we could avoid those terms it might make sex sterotypes harder

What do we lose when we term the mother and father and just have parents rather than have the sex indication in the term? From the perspective of the mothers health it is important, but should the sex of the parent be significant from the child’s perspective ?

Yes

I think so

All mammals know what a mum is

This is basic stuff

The drive for men to undermine what a mother is, is hardly new. through history they have tried to reduce, remove, divert etc the name "mum".

But all mammals know what a mother is.

Yes some mothers are shit
Bit they are still mothers
The pregnancy birth thing is massive

We extend the term sometimes

But to break it so, is no

From me, a very not maternally inclined woman who had kids
They are born of my body

That is not a nothing.

No, just no.
It's your child's birth certificate, not yours.

This whole circus is undermining reality. Reality that has existed from the dawn of time, before we had the ability to stand upright.
Ridiculous sophistry, designed to confuse and put every ordinary person on the back foot.

This bloody narcissistic bullshit is robbing the world of a generation of idealistic activists. The environment could do with a dose of youthful energy. I hear the political world is hitting some bumps too.
I have always quite liked each wave of dangerhairs, they make a difference and the world is the better for it.

But get your heads out of your arses. Look at science and facts and work with them. You may as well demand the methane from cows arses does not trap solar energy, because of your hurt feelings.

but should the sex of the parent be significant from the child’s perspective ?

Yes. Some genetic diseases are passed ONLY down the Male or female line. Imagine a child presenting with symptoms to a doctor twenty years down the line, and them saying ‘well it might be condition A or B, lets look at your family history...’

Accurate census recording is important for society, it’s inportant for history, it’s important medically. The document is for the child, not to validate the parent

The Telegraph splashed on this today.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/13/judge-calls-review-transgender-fertility-law-man-used-sperm/

Plus big feature
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/will-first-baby-britain-not-have-mother/

Plus Julie Bindel nails it, as ever.
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/julie-bindel-say-child-has-no-mother-deny-biological-reality/

When the GRC was put into law there was no indication that having a GRC would affect someone else’s legal paperwork too. Seems odd that the law to be reviewed here would not be the Gender recognition act.

Why are we keeping the GRA hanging about now that we have (rightly!) got same sex marriage and civil partnerships, equal pension rights etc. Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. What is GRC legally needed for, apart from personal validation? Passports and driving licences are self ID already.

A child’s birth certificate is their own document. Not their parents document. Facts pertinent to the child must be recorded. The person who gave birth is legally recorded as mother, and this person did give birth to their child.

Couldn’t a parent just have an open conversation with their child at an appropriate age about why they don’t feel comfortable about some/many of the things that go along with the concept of being a ‘mother’...(like lots of other women do) and just leave their child’s birth certificate alone to be an accurate record for the child’s own purposes?

When the GRC was put into law there was no indication that having a GRC would affect someone else’s legal paperwork too. Seems odd that the law to be reviewed here would not be the Gender recognition act.

Why are we keeping the GRA hanging about now that we have (rightly!) got same sex marriage and civil partnerships, equal pension rights etc. Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. What is GRC legally needed for, apart from personal validation? Passports and driving licences are self ID already.

A child’s birth certificate is their own document. Not their parents document. Facts pertinent to the child must be recorded.

This, 100%

@OtepotiLilliane42 I'm from Otepoti as well... Though living in the UK. I wonder if we know each other. I'd love to make more connections on this in NZ if you'd like to DM me!

Legal documents should never support a fiction. If the parent is not honest, how are they going to explain to the child where they came from? Will the child be expected to believe their Mother abandoned them? This has huge implications for the child.I don’t understand why some trans people feel the need to obliterate the facts of their past.
This is where it went off course. Birth certificates should never be changed. Legal fictions to support hiding ones past were always a terrible idea.
There is no need for the GRA now. Call yourself what you like, marry whoever will have you. No need to falsify documents.
I have never understood the argument for this. Will a transphobe (or more likely a confused homophobe) ask for your documents before he beats you up in the street? Nope. Will your employer ask for your birth certificate, ever? Nope. Is your employer legally permitted to discriminate against you if you declare yourself trans? No, but they're not allowed to discriminate if you declare yourself pregnant and they still do that. What does a GRC defend you from, now?
What is the value in terms of legal protection from discrimination in having a GRC? Access to women's spaces is largely done on bolshyness and entitled behaviour anyway...?
Why is this mother entitled to be legally known as a man? What purpose does it serve apart from vanity?
IANAL and this is a genuine question.

Warped

Is it entirely to legally qualify as having a protected characteristic? Because I don't have a "LesbianCard". (To be fair, if you could see me, you'd agree I wouldn't need one)
Genuinely, is there any benefit to having the ability to change your legal sex, other than for vanity or personal validation?
It clearly impacts on others who interacted with the person in their previous legal sex. Those who were born to, married to, related to, all have to change their reality and their past to suit. Those who were defrauded by or assaulted by or murdered by have their realities altered. History is changed. People are posthumously transed. Criminal records are inaccessible, business history is a minefield.
And the fact remains that now marriage is open to any two adults who want to participate in it (close relatives notwithstanding) there are no rights, positive or negative, that a trans person doesn't have in comparison to anyone else.
This child, OTOH, seems to have no rights.

Finally, if the sperm donor wanted parental responsibility and went through the courts, would the child have two father's (and still no mother, assuming this case is successful)?