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

Further to my last comment the very cynical, tin foil hat side of me thinks that this is also paving way for the new slavery surrogacy reforms. I would bet a huge amount of money that interested groups have been lobbying hard in the shadows.

Very convenient to already have an admin set up that recognises a biological father but no mother.

There's something really sinister about erasing women on hospital maternity notes.

I’m in Monmouthshire. Funnily enough my local MP has made some headlines with his views on this subject so could be worth getting in touch. I’m not really good at putting what I want to say into words but willing to have a go.

@Iused2BanOptimist that would be great, thanks.

I assume your MP is David TC Davies? Yes definitely get in touch, I think he would be very interested in this. You won't have to worry about getting the point across perfectly because he's already very familiar with the trans debate.

At the bottom you have the names of the HCP's who approved the document and the document review group whoever they are.
There should be something similar on your documents. Send your letter to each and every name on the document - hospital switchboard can probably confirm if they are current employees by the simple expedient of asking to be put through to them in which case you could give them an earful down the phone too and also a letter addressed to the Document review group and don't forget to send copies to every other hospital/trust bigwig you can think of.

Yes it’s him. An unlikely ally judging by his views on almost every other subject but I think I will email him and see what he says.

Thank you @Iused2BanOptimist I’ll definitely do that

OvaHere I agree, not only was I an optimistic sort of person in the past I also wasn't the sort of person who went for conspiracy theories.
I absolutely do now, especially with regard to this sort of thing. After all, someone, I can't remember who, admitted how they had been working hard behind the scenes to push the whole trans thing while the wider population was as asleep. I'm very concerned about the legal review re surrogacy but I suppose we have to wait and see what suggestions the review comes up with and then take action.

I was a midwife for twenty years, I am a mother to two daughters. I will not have our language erased. I find this so insulting to every woman everywhere who was ever pregnant or who ever hopes to be one day, to mothers, to my daughters. And to the babies and children who are denied the language of mother/child relationship. (Adoptive mothers and babies included obv.)

( Also just this morning I have been at a gap year presentation with my daughter, they talked about host families that volunteers might live with and the close relationships that developed with the host calling themselves mother and the guest daughter.
In a way the host parent is in loco parentis, the language demonstrates shared love, respect and responsibility that crosses barriers of nationality. Everyone understands the language wherever they come from. )
I digress.

It's intolerable.
Probably lucky I'm not a midwife now. Some clients might not like the cut of my jib.

The NZ article about Scout has a fabulous paragraph about how other transgender men have been able to hide their pregnancies, but Scouts small frame led to people misgendering them.

What the actual fuck?!

So people saw a person with a very obvious baby bump, called them a woman, and that's classed as misgendering.

Also of note is the article in the mail in which the judge calls for a review of fertility clinics as they had artificially inseminated someone who is legally recognised as a man. UK law states artificial insemination can only be provided to a woman. Let's hope this at the very least leads that particular clinic to be shut down for breaking a very basic and obvious law, and stops other clinics from doing the same. The alternative is that the law is changed to allow men as well as women to be artificially inseminated, and that is just preposterous.

I’m definitely going to do something about it. It’s my duty as a woman and as a mother. If stuff like this is being changed then what’s next? Does midwife not mean ‘with woman’? How long before a whole profession is renamed to something else?

Doesn’t a fertility clinic treating the person with a female body as is required in order to help said person beocme pregnant (with the provision of male donor sperm to that person) show that the GRC permits a legal fiction on their legal documents but (stating the obvious!) this also demonstrates very clearly that the effect of the GRC is that it is limited to the legal papers of the person who had the treatment.

The female body is not actually changed to a male body because of a GRC as the resulting baby demonstrates.

Any clinic should be in trouble if they try to give donor sperm to an actual male person because that would be fraud and wouldn’t get that male person a baby.

The clinic shouldn’t be in any trouble-

They went along with the legal fiction that was on the GRC (as they have to do legally) - fine.

I’d expect they were kind and sensitive to a patient and used the right pronouns that match the GRC and so on

-again, fine.

and at the same time the clinic treated a patient with a female body with the right fertility treatment for that female body.

• absolutely right.

The fact of a baby resulting from donor sperm shows very clearly that the clinic DID treat a woman. Which is completely in line with the law.

Does this judge think a GRC literally changes a person’s sex? Do we not know the difference any more between words on a piece of paper and physical reality?

You can’t have it both ways. If the person was a man, they’d have given her eggs and found a surrogate. She didn’t need either, so that means she is...

You want to be a man but we’re born female.
You dont want to get pregnant then - men don’t get pregnant. It’s one of the most womanly things you can do.

I think this case says more about problems with the GRA than anything else. It’s being taken weirdly literally.

I didn't notice that while mother had been erased, father, and biological father at that, is still there.

This stuff gives away at every turn what it's about. It's an attack on women.

The phrase springs to mind "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive" - because that's what this is, it's a deception that a person can change biological sex. Let's all be nice and pretend - a "legal fiction" that permitted individuals a more normal, legal existence in society. That's fine.
But now with the more aggressive TRA stance we are getting to the law of unintended consequences where the law and society are being asked to make ever more convoluted turns and pretences to deny biological reality.

it's a deception

Precisely. That's all this is. Lies, more lies, and damned lies.

Men cannot give birth. The person who gave birth to the child is a woman. The birth certificate belongs to the child, and the child is not an extension of the mother's identity or personal choices. It is not right or just to create legal lies or to compel people to lie. The ability to prioritise the separate needs and best interests of the child lies at the heart of fitness to be a parent.

The kind lies need to stop. No one can change sex. However they choose to identify, their biological sex remains what it always was an in some circumstances some things (and other people) matter more than their personal choices and preferences. As Jacob Rhys-Mogg summarises the entire trans issue: 'other people have rights too'.

there was a similar case in germany a couple of years ago,
but the other way round. the father was a transwoman who wanted to go on the childs birth certificate as mother.
that was refused as the relevant law states that change in gender does not alter the legal relationship between a parent and child, even in cases when the child was born after transition.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-gender-laws-transgender-mother-lgbt-rights-child-father-recognise-eu-a8143976.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6710751/Transgender-women-birth-time-thanks-pioneering-womb-transplants.html

^"Six months after the surgery and the womb has healed, a donated egg would be fertilised with the transgender woman's own sperm and the embryo emplanted".

Who would be named as the parents on the poor child's birth certificate?

That’s me off the organ donor register then.

Halfblood hopefully you and all other 'pregnant persons' will still be giving birth either at home or the maternity ward of a local hospital. Or will the maternity ward be renamed too? Eventually.

Point of information - children adopted in the Uk do NOT have a birth certificate with the names of their ( adoptive ) parent/s.

They have a birth certificate In their first name with the name of their biological mother and her husband / father if noted.

After the are adopted, they get another document called “ Extract from the adopted children register “. This states their second name and the names of their adoptive parent/s. It’s NOT a birth certificate but can be use in place of one.

This can be very awkward for adoptees as they have to disclose that they are adopted every single time they have to show their birth certificate throughout their whole life eg registering for school / College / jobs/ passport etc .

Apparently we are not allowed a birth certificate with the names of our legal parents ( like everyone else ! ) as this would be a legal fiction. I guess our feelz are not important enough.

So once self ID comes in I’m looking forward to self ID as a man, getting a new birth certificate and then changing back to a woman .

The latest in a long line of "look at me, look at me please pay me attention I'm so special" type people. I don't know why any press takes notice. Fuck off.

The welfare of the child is paramount - says the Children Act.
So a woman transitions to be a man, then demands and gets fertility treatment to get pregnant, has a baby and then spends ££££ of their or someone else's money to demand that the female act of birthing the baby is legally erased. And this person holds the welfare of their child as paramount? Really?

And this
www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj6-8WuoMHgAhUXfn0KHUpHDaIQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2019%2F02%2F14%2Fschools-france-replace-mother-father-parent-1-2-controversial%2F&psig=AOvVaw0S3BSlosvFdDxARhq6otxf&ust=1550440842461794