The Dad who gave Birth 'Seahorse' Documentary

[OtepotiLilliane42]

McConnell, 32, started taking testosterone at 25 and had “top surgery” to remove breast tissue a year later. He considered a hysterectomy, but never went through with it – partly because he had not ruled out the possibility of having children. In the film, we see how discombobulated McConnell becomes when he stops taking testosterone as he tries to conceive, using a sperm donor, and his body, in effect, goes into reverse. He starts having periods again (“I don’t like the idea that I’ve got tampons in my bag,” he winces); his facial hair gets wispier, his hips broaden, his tummy softens and he starts to speak less from his chest and more from his throat. “Every time I think about it, I think, ‘What the fuck am I doing?’” he says. At one point, a tearful McConnell sobs into the camera in the middle of the night: “I feel like a fucking alien.

Throughout, he is encouraged by his mother, Esme, who tells him: “I loved being pregnant. Everybody should experience it – especially men.” McConnell tells me she used to say this to him when he was a child, long before she had any idea that her son was trans. On screen, his mother supports him with a mixture of tender loving care and the odd no-nonsense kick up the arse. Occasionally, when he’s feeling sorry for himself, she loses patience: “Why are you making such a fuss? It’s what you wanted.” Then she relents. “But, actually, it’s not as simple as that. It’s such a brave and amazing thing to do. I’m in awe of him, basically

This such a dishonest piece of reporting - Freddy may be a transman, but he is not the father of his baby, and shouldn't be reported as such, any more than the other transmen who have given birth over the past few years. I could say more, but it honestly it gets really tedious reading stories like this. (And 'brave and amazing - why? There seem to be so many psychological issues here, yet we are expected to view it all as the new norm.) The Guardian really should stop writing such drivel.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/20/the-dad-who-gave-birth-pregnant-trans-freddy-mcconnell

Should a legal case now be brought against Freddie for having demonstrated that they clearly had no intention of living permanently as the opposite gender and therefore the GRC was obtained by deceit?

The judge says:

"The Secretary of State has the right to refer a GR certificate to the High Court or Family Court if he considers that its grant has been secured by ‘fraud’ [GRA 2004, s 8(5)]. At a preliminary hearing, I enquired whether there was to be any challenge to the validity of the GR certificate in the light of the close chronological alignment of the GR certificate application with the Claimant’s IUI treatment. Having taken instructions, Ms Sarah Hannett, on that occasion acting both for the Secretaries of State and for the RG, confirmed that there was to be no such challenge and that the judicial review proceedings would proceed on the basis that the certificate was valid. This position was confirmed by Mr Ben Jaffey QC at the final hearing, although he reserved the right to refer to TT’s behaviour as part of any submissions on proportionality; in the event this, potentially striking, aspect of the factual background was not in fact referred to in submissions. I have therefore ignored it in my analysis of the issues."

So it looks like the answer is no but clearly the judge thought that there was potential for a challenge (even if that didn't feature in this case)

What would you actually have to do for a GRC to have been secured by 'fraud' ?

I’m assuming the next tv show will be about raising a gender and sex neutral child in a cruel world.

Interesting question. Living as an acquired gender is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

Though giving birth is a pretty non-man thing to do.

There are quite a few non-man or non-woman things that get done, like rape but that doesn't seem to tip the scales.

I suspect it would have to be a fraud involving large sums of money from an organisation that can afford to pursue it.

So it looks like the answer is no but clearly the judge thought that there was potential for a challenge (even if that didn't feature in this case)

Grrrrrr....

in the event this, potentially striking, aspect of the factual background was not in fact referred to in submissions.

Are they implying these crucial facts just happened to be omitted from the submissions for the case? I'm confused by the language and wording.

I wonder what it would take to actually prove that a GRC was obtained by fraud.

in the event this, potentially striking, aspect of the factual background was not in fact referred to in submissions

I read that as the judge acknowledging that neither side wanted to challenge the award of a GRC but pointedly calling it potentially striking to emphasise that he felt there was potential for such.

But neither side made much of the timeline in their submissions so he was unable to draw any conclusions due to lack of detail.

I've seen this on my FB timeline a few times this afternoon and I'm amazed at the number of sad faces in response. Some people clearly believe Freddy should be allowed to be the kid's father.

How would anyone even know what 'gender marker' for their parents is on the child's birth certificate?

Do UK bc even have the parent's sex? Surely it has mother's name and father's name? So as we all know what sex each of these are no sex marker required. SH is a total bullshitter, isn't she. How often do we even show our bc anyway? Not as if it's going to be passed round their class at school!

Was 21st April date of first attempt at IUI or date of successful IUI? As it said it took 2 attempts to become pregnant, that might suggest they started fertility treatment before the GRC was granted anyway. It does put the whole idea of GRC on even shakier ground imo when you have someone actively pursuing pregnancy while simultaneously saying they want to live as a male permanently and I think this needs to be considered further by the law makers

It does put the whole idea of GRC on even shakier ground imo when you have someone actively pursuing pregnancy while simultaneously saying they want to live as a male permanently and I think this needs to be considered further by the law makers

What is the legal definition of 'living as a man/woman'? Is there a legal definition? Surely the only reasonable definition of living as a man or living as a woman is doing something that only a person of that sex can do. So becoming pregnant and giving birth is most definitely living as a woman.

Where does it say it took 2 attempts to conceive @Kilbranan? I couldn't find it in the judgment.

In any event, Freddie had already begun fertility treatment. Stopped testosterone and was in conversation with the clinic in September (it typically takes about 6 months for IUI treatment from first approaching the clinic to being ready to start IUI).

Where does it say it took 2 attempts to conceive
It was in the TV programme.

Ah thank you. So I guess the first attempt was after applying for the GRC and before getting it. Nice.

Seahorses don’t get pregnant anymore than rocks get pregnant when other fish lay eggs under them, or a female kangaroo getting pregnant each time their joey climbs back in their pouch (though they might actually be pregnant). A male sea horse carries the fertilised eggs in a pouch but doesn’t nourish them - there is no exchange of nutrients between the male seahorse and the eggs.

Birdsfoottrefoil unfortunately, TRAs don't seem to have much of a grasp on biology and the natural world. Genderist ideology is like believing the earth really was created in 6 days and there was a talking snake in a garden because they read this one book that says it happened so it must be true.