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

Abso-fucking-lutley nothing

Utter twunts

Sexist bullshit

OK so ‘biological father’ means man who gave sperm. Does not imply anything about actually being a father or doing ‘fathering’. But interesting that a male description is used, not parent or mother. Almost implies a biological father can only be a man who makes and gives sperm to make a baby doesn’t it..
We are privileging his biological (genetic) link to the baby whereas woman is just ‘pregnant person’. Implying she is a gestator and nobody cares whether she gave an egg with a genetic link to the baby or not. She could be surrogate with someone else egg or embryo, or her own and still be under the label ‘pregnant person’. Also ‘person’ is implying she could be male or female. Which is pure fantasy because men can’t get pregnant.

Why do men get to have a male description (father) and women are only allowed to be gender neutral ‘person’ (in a fake way of being gender neutral because everyone knows men can’t get pregnant and carry a baby) so it’s erasing women to be accommodating but not erasing men. Easy to tell where the pressure for that change must have come from then, isn’t it.

Should be sperm donor

30 seconds and a good night kiss shouldn't make you a father if 9 months and pushing out the equivalent of a bowling ball doesn't make you a mother

Fact

It is bizarre that they didn't just put "father" but chose "biological father". That could be a sperm donor (in which case they would be anonymous). Or who knows? We all know about the statistics that show a significant percentage of babies haven't been fathered by the person who was legally their father. It's quite ridiculous to use the word "biological" in the context.

I looked out my own maternity notes (1998) and it was "mother" "father".

Perhaps "father" isn't always the appropriate word although the space can always be left blank but I think my DH would have felt belittled and insulted by most of the other words used these days being an old fashioned sort. I can think of plenty of cases where a couple have got together after the woman became pregnant. I think "father" honours the commitment of that man who hopefully loves the pregnant woman and plans to be a significant part of the new family and love the baby irrespective of the genetic connection. It's more than "partner" or "significant other" because this man is potentially going to have an ongoing relationship with the baby/child as well as the mother.

However I do think under all circumstances the pregnant person should be termed "mother". Why should all the excited, happy expectant mothers be insulted because of a handful of either deluded women who prefer to be known as men even though they are pregnant and hence unarguably female, or the odd surrogate who I feel should still be referred to as "mother" albeit they are a "surrogate mother"?
I don't want to derail the thread with an argument about surrogacy (which I am implacably opposed to) but I understand that some surrogates actually prefer "gestational carrier" as a way of distancing themselves from the baby and clarifying the service they are providing. However I feel "surrogate mother" actually honours the role they are playing in the life of that baby and honours the baby. Anyway that's a bit of a digression and a ramble.

Just stick with "Mother" and "Father". Let people make whatever annotations or omissions they choose.

HalfBloodPrincessthat is shocking. How degrading to still have Father while Mother is erased and changed to pregnant person. What fucking nightmare are we living in? More people need to know about this or it at least needs a thread of it's own.How ironic we are chatting on a site called Mumsnet. I wonder will the TRAs ever manage to get to HQ?

I'm not on twitter but could anyone make Glinner aware of this?What do you think Princess?

Chatty yes it feeds into the push to change surrogacy laws

The idea that a woman who gestates and births a child but has no genetic connection, is totally unconnected to it is a very male view, where genetics (whose sperm) is everything. As they have no other input.

Seeing of woman as a walking womb that is sadly necessary but devoid of input is v male.

Also nonsense as everyone is quick enough to note a connection when the woman does something that could negatively impact the baby eg smoke, drink, exercise, use chemcial cleaners, eat eggs fish steak, move, breathe and so on...

But yes this isn't about surrogacy. All fits togetehr very very well though doesn'tt it

Halfbloodprincess I was hoping it was just some surreal Orwellian nightmare (oh wait,).
I really did consider it was some TRAs taking the piss (not you per se).
How do we let people know this is. actually. feckin. happening? Without compromising your privacy? I guess just sit on my hands for now while you deal with your... MP? Councillor? (Can't quite remember).
All the best to you.

We are privileging his biological (genetic) link to the baby whereas woman is just ‘pregnant person’.

It's all very 13th century isn't it? Except if we put nunneries back up at this point and labelled them as the place throughout history where women got to shut the gates and have high walls between them and batshit anti women fuckery, there'd be TRAs on the telephone night and day screaming about being excluded.

I vote Miriam Margolees as mother superior. We could even call the order St Gulag. Plenty of gin in the cellars, naturally.

fullfact.org/law/pregnant-people/

This is from 2017,it's from a fact checking site.I have never heard of this site before so can't confirm the accuracy, I just googled pregnant person and found it.
In 2016, the BMA (British Medical Association) produced guidelines for its staff on “effective communication” by using “inclusive language in the workplace”.

"Those guidelines say: “A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘expectant mothers’.” Bold is mine.
It goes on to say: these guidelines were not written for doctors and they are not binding on anyone unless they happen to work for the BMA.

Just read through those guidelines and when taking about gender and sexual orientation they have a link for more information. The link is for, Stonewall. Now isn't that a surprise.